Romo Fumble (1 Viewer)

[BigDave]

Can anyone explain the ruling on this play?

Romo gets slammed, fumbles, Felix recovers and is down by contact. GB strips it after rolling him over and recovers it after that contact.

How is there a ruling that states you can only challenge the Romo fumble and not the Jones recovery and subsequent fumble/strip ?

Big momentum change in the game here being down 17-0 versus 10-0. Not to say Dallas was going to win by that series alone, but with the ball back down 10 there's a shot.

Just looking for an explanation.

 

[Mr Anonymous]

There actually is an explanation. Just not a good one.

 

[PosterNutBag]

I hope Mike Pereira reviews this play on the "Official Review" segment on NFL Total Access on the NFL Network this week. I saw the play live and my first thought before seeing the replays was that Jones' knee was down as he was touched before he rolled over and then had it stripped. Then the replays seem to clearly show this. Then the officials don't overturn it? I was dumbfounded.

I can understand on a reception that you have to maintain possession through the end of your fall to the ground, but on a fumble recovery when you have firm hold on the ball with your knee on the ground and you are touched ... it would seem to me that the following strip (after you seem to have been touched down) should be irrelevant.

 

[sho nuff]

I hope Mike Pereira reviews this play on the "Official Review" segment on NFL Total Access on the NFL Network this week. I saw the play live and my first thought before seeing the replays was that Jones' knee was down as he was touched before he rolled over and then had it stripped. Then the replays seem to clearly show this. Then the officials don't overturn it? I was dumbfounded.I can understand on a reception that you have to maintain possession through the end of your fall to the ground, but on a fumble recovery when you have firm hold on the ball with your knee on the ground and you are touched ... it would seem to me that the following strip (after you seem to have been touched down) should be irrelevant.

I think the ruling...and a dumb ruling...is that Jones action was in "recovering" the fumble and that cannot be reviewed. So instead of giving him posession and reviewing that...it was ruled they could not review the recovery. Sounds dumb...not sure I get it at all...and IMO it should have been Cowboys ball.Happy it wasn't though.

 

[jon_mx]

There actually is an explanation. Just not a good one.

I heard the ref explain it, and it made no sense. The announcers obviously had no clue on the rule and just moved on. It thought the ref said once it was ruled a fumble, it is non-reviewable, but I have seen fumbles reviewed.

 

[The Man With No Name]

I hope Mike Pereira reviews this play on the "Official Review" segment on NFL Total Access on the NFL Network this week. I saw the play live and my first thought before seeing the replays was that Jones' knee was down as he was touched before he rolled over and then had it stripped. Then the replays seem to clearly show this. Then the officials don't overturn it? I was dumbfounded.I can understand on a reception that you have to maintain possession through the end of your fall to the ground, but on a fumble recovery when you have firm hold on the ball with your knee on the ground and you are touched ... it would seem to me that the following strip (after you seem to have been touched down) should be irrelevant.

Good grief. You watched the game and don't know why?Fumble recoveries ARE NOT reviewable.

 

[gnarboots11]

Why? Why are some things reviewable and some things not? Why would the NFL make some calls correct and leave others incorrect? Why have instant replay at all if you can't use it to make all the calls correct? Why does a referee waste 10 minutes going into a friggin black blanketed tube TV to review plays, what is it 1985? Why is the NFL so backwards? Why can a coach throw a red flag and stop the game for 10 minutes when he doesn't have anymore challenges and there is no penalty for that? WHY NOT JUST GET RID OF INSTANT REPLAY ALL TOGETHER BECAUSE IT IS A HUGE FAIL AND WASTES MY TIME!!

 

[cobalt_27]

I hope Mike Pereira reviews this play on the "Official Review" segment on NFL Total Access on the NFL Network this week. I saw the play live and my first thought before seeing the replays was that Jones' knee was down as he was touched before he rolled over and then had it stripped. Then the replays seem to clearly show this. Then the officials don't overturn it? I was dumbfounded.I can understand on a reception that you have to maintain possession through the end of your fall to the ground, but on a fumble recovery when you have firm hold on the ball with your knee on the ground and you are touched ... it would seem to me that the following strip (after you seem to have been touched down) should be irrelevant.

Good grief. You watched the game and don't know why?Fumble recoveries ARE NOT reviewable.

Pereira needs to be forced to explain the stupid rationale behind this.

 

[cobalt_27]

I hope Mike Pereira reviews this play on the "Official Review" segment on NFL Total Access on the NFL Network this week. I saw the play live and my first thought before seeing the replays was that Jones' knee was down as he was touched before he rolled over and then had it stripped. Then the replays seem to clearly show this. Then the officials don't overturn it? I was dumbfounded.I can understand on a reception that you have to maintain possession through the end of your fall to the ground, but on a fumble recovery when you have firm hold on the ball with your knee on the ground and you are touched ... it would seem to me that the following strip (after you seem to have been touched down) should be irrelevant.

Good grief. You watched the game and don't know why?Fumble recoveries ARE NOT reviewable.

Pereira needs to be forced to explain the stupid rationale behind this.

 

[The Kerminator]

From the Green Bay Press-Gazette:

* Referee Jeff Triplette spoke about why Dallas wasn't allowed to challenge the recovery of Tony Romo's fourth-quarter fumble, which led to a Packers touchdown.What specifically was challenged by Dallas on the fumble?"Dallas was challenging that their player had recovered the football loose in the field of play and was down my contact. My mistake, that’s not a reviewable aspect of a play. A recovery of a loose ball in the field of play is not reviewable by rule. So we just couldn’t review it."Why isn’t it reviewable?"Fumbles in the field of play – recovery of a loose ball in the field of play is not reviewable by rule."That has been the rule all along?"That has been the rule (since) replay came back."Did you start to review the play?"I got over to the review (booth) and we started talking about, with my replay guys, that I’m not sure we can review this. It starts going through your mind, I’m not sure we can review this. And then I started thinking about by rule, you can’t review a recovery of a loose ball in the field of play. It was my mistake to allow him to start the challenge. I should have just talked him out of it before we started."Did you start to review the play?"No, no, no, no, we never got to the film. We never got in the booth to review. Just put the headphones on and started talking through what we had."

Stupid rule. This will be one rule they'll take a look at in the off season.

 

[PosterNutBag]

I hope Mike Pereira reviews this play on the "Official Review" segment on NFL Total Access on the NFL Network this week. I saw the play live and my first thought before seeing the replays was that Jones' knee was down as he was touched before he rolled over and then had it stripped. Then the replays seem to clearly show this. Then the officials don't overturn it? I was dumbfounded.I can understand on a reception that you have to maintain possession through the end of your fall to the ground, but on a fumble recovery when you have firm hold on the ball with your knee on the ground and you are touched ... it would seem to me that the following strip (after you seem to have been touched down) should be irrelevant.

Good grief. You watched the game and don't know why?Fumble recoveries ARE NOT reviewable.

Settle down Tex. I watched the the play in question live on the NFL Red Zone channel. I was not privy to the total explanation by the ref, but only that the ruling on the field was upheld. Had I been watching this game the entire time and had not been bouncing around from game to game as the NFL Red Zone channel does then maybe I would have been politely reminded that fumble are not reviewing. Instead, I have you being rude as an internet tough guy. Try not to come on so strong next time when there could easily be a reasonable explanation you had not considered.

 

[PosterNutBag]

From the Green Bay Press-Gazette:

* Referee Jeff Triplette spoke about why Dallas wasn't allowed to challenge the recovery of Tony Romo's fourth-quarter fumble, which led to a Packers touchdown.What specifically was challenged by Dallas on the fumble?"Dallas was challenging that their player had recovered the football loose in the field of play and was down my contact. My mistake, that’s not a reviewable aspect of a play. A recovery of a loose ball in the field of play is not reviewable by rule. So we just couldn’t review it."Why isn’t it reviewable?"Fumbles in the field of play – recovery of a loose ball in the field of play is not reviewable by rule."That has been the rule all along?"That has been the rule (since) replay came back."Did you start to review the play?"I got over to the review (booth) and we started talking about, with my replay guys, that I’m not sure we can review this. It starts going through your mind, I’m not sure we can review this. And then I started thinking about by rule, you can’t review a recovery of a loose ball in the field of play. It was my mistake to allow him to start the challenge. I should have just talked him out of it before we started."Did you start to review the play?"No, no, no, no, we never got to the film. We never got in the booth to review. Just put the headphones on and started talking through what we had."

Stupid rule. This will be one rule they'll take a look at in the off season.

Thanks for posting this. I agree. It seems silly when the replay can clearly show what happened.

 

[gnarboots11]

So if the GB got into the end zone on the play and scored a TD then they could have reviewed it? So instead of being pushed out at the 2 yard line, let him score and the idiot NFL rules could be enforced? Stupid. screw instant replay, get rid of it

 

[The Man With No Name]

Probably because of the pile-ons that happen during a lot of fumbles. There is no way to tell what happens on the bottom of the piles. The ball doesn't always end up with the player that really had it first and was touched down.

They expect the refs to get the calls right when they happen, but often they don't.

 

[Synthesizer]

The replay system was put in place to protect against awful calls on the field. This was not one of them. Defense makes a great play and the ruling on the field is that Jones didn't have full possession. By analyzing every frame of replay, it looks like Jones had the ball for about 0.1 second before he lost it. Sorry, but that shouldn't be enough to overturn. Play some football and quit going to replay to look at every blade of grass on the field. Thumbs down to what the replay system has become.

 

[PosterNutBag]

Probably because of the pile-ons that happen during a lot of fumbles. There is no way to tell what happens on the bottom of the piles. The ball doesn't always end up with the player that really had it first and was touched down.

I was suggesting that it might be helpful when you can see on the replay that someone has the fumble in his possession and is touched and then people pile upon him and then someone else comes out with the ball. I agree that it is not always obvious on the replay since many times you can't tell who had it first, but sometimes you can and in those instances it would be helpful (if they decide to start reviewing fumble recoveries). It's as simple as that.

 

[PosterNutBag]

The replay system was put in place to protect against awful calls on the field. This was not one of them. Defense makes a great play and the ruling on the field is that Jones didn't have full possession. By analyzing every frame of replay, it looks like Jones had the ball for about 0.1 second before he lost it. Sorry, but that shouldn't be enough to overturn. Play some football and quit going to replay to look at every blade of grass on the field. Thumbs down to what the replay system has become.

This was a bad call if you saw the play live and especially on the replay. Jones had the ball was first touched by the GB player and then the player decided to try and strip him of it and he did. He was already down before the strip, though. I agree it did happen quickly in real time, but that was the sequence of events and it appears that they made the wrong call and it was not reviewable. It's a good thing this game was already decided when this play took place or else it probably would have decided the game and would be a hot topic everywhere.As long as they don't let the coaches have more challenges than they currently have then I think the good outweighs the bad with the current replay system --- enough to make it worthwhile for everyone. Adding fumble recoveries to the list of things that can be reviewed shouldn't result in more challenges, but will probably eliminate some of the times when stupid challenges are made (these stupid challenges where coaches use the challenges simply b/c they can are likely what your thumbs down are referring to).

 

[Chaos Commish]

I think the spirit of the rule is sensible. We've all seen mounds of bodies piled onto a fumbled ball. Because this is a regular scene and generally ridiculous to review, the league decided not to allow coaches to toss a red flag on the field to have those frays reviewed. That's a play the refs on the field really need to sort out for themselves.Fumble recoveries are not reviewable. We can debate whether or not they should be, but I think anyone can understand why they aren't.

Fumbles are reviewable and I think there's a little confusion here. Fumbles are. Recoveries aren't. It's often, even usually, easy to review a fumble and see if a knee was down or maybe the ground caused the loose ball so those reviews make good sense and give us a lot of justice as fans. Recoveries are another story and a million cameras cannot see through a pile of beef wrestling for the ball.

So, the Cowboys have a play this week that is an oddity or we would all be familiar with the rule. I think that's important and goes to the rule being sensible. We never worried about this until now. There was a clear mistake. Felix recovered the ball and he was never credited with a recovery. Had that mistake not been made, they could have reviewed whether or not he fumbled. But they could not review whether or not he recovered it. I guess the rule could be amended to allow recoveries in 'open space' to be reviewed, but I hope we all agree recoveries in a pile as we so regularly see have no business being reviewed.

 

[jon_mx]

So, the Cowboys have a play this week that is an oddity or we would all be familiar with the rule. I think that's important and goes to the rule being sensible. We never worried about this until now. There was a clear mistake. Felix recovered the ball and he was never credited with a recovery. Had that mistake not been made, they could have reviewed whether or not he fumbled. But they could not review whether or not he recovered it. I guess the rule could be amended to allow recoveries in 'open space' to be reviewed, but I hope we all agree recoveries in a pile as we so regularly see have no business being reviewed.

What happens in a man pile, stays in the man pile.Actually, this is two weeks in a row where a clear fumble recovery was missed. So the oddity is becoming more common.

 

[Instinctive]

What about McCarthy throwing the challenge flag after he was out of challenges....

and then he was neither charged a timeout nor penalized? What's up with that? If I'm a coach, I look at that precendent and chuck my flag out there if I need the clock stopped.

 

[bentley]

What about McCarthy throwing the challenge flag after he was out of challenges....and then he was neither charged a timeout nor penalized? What's up with that? If I'm a coach, I look at that precendent and chuck my flag out there if I need the clock stopped.

I think we'll find out that one was just a plain screwup. There's supposed to be a penalty there.And I understand why replay wouldn't be all that useful in a pile. I don't understand why it's an unreviewable situation altogether. If there's insufficient evidence in a pileup, then the call stands. If it's an obvious situation like today, then there's a recovery. Seems stupid to rule it out altogether.

 

[Ariakis]

I wonder if Wade challenged that Felix was down by contact and then possibly a review of a 2nd fumble rather who recovered the initial fumble.

 

[ookook]

Not sure that someone can be down by contact who never has possession.

 

[BigDave]

Could Wade have challenged the fumble of Romo and in reviewing that replay the refs "see" that Felix recovered and it was stripped.

They rule, YES it's a fumble, BUT, Dallas recovers?

The scrub pile on argument doesn't make sense. The coach risks a challenge there and if it's a pile on, there's no way the referee can see anything to overturn. Coach loses challenge. Pile on's would prevent a coach fom challenging, not encourage it. Open field recoveries, that's different.

Still GB did play well enough most of the game to win. It just would have been nice to have Dallas be more competetive at 10-0 than 17-0 and not have a "recovery" fumble by Felix not even reviewed.

 

[BigDave]

Not sure that someone can be down by contact who never has possession.

Did you watch the replay?

 

[sho nuff]

Not sure that someone can be down by contact who never has possession.

Which makes me wonder...while its not reviewing the recovery...can they not review "posession" for Felix.IMO...he had possession. GB was fortunate on that...however, the way the D was playing and Dallas' O was playing, it would have been 3rd and long (it was 2nd and 6 and Id say they would have lost at least 10 yards on the sack, fumble, and recovery). They had not converted a 3rd down (or very few) to that point in the game. Also, Green Bay's last drive went 80 yards and took 8 minutes. I think Green Bay could have taken the ball in decent field position and put the game away anyway.Tough call for Dallas for sure...but kudos to Green Bay's defensive front and Charles Woodson for their play yesterday.

 

[jon_mx]

What about McCarthy throwing the challenge flag after he was out of challenges....and then he was neither charged a timeout nor penalized? What's up with that? If I'm a coach, I look at that precendent and chuck my flag out there if I need the clock stopped.

I think we'll find out that one was just a plain screwup. There's supposed to be a penalty there.And I understand why replay wouldn't be all that useful in a pile. I don't understand why it's an unreviewable situation altogether. If there's insufficient evidence in a pileup, then the call stands. If it's an obvious situation like today, then there's a recovery. Seems stupid to rule it out altogether.

It is possible it wasn't a penalty because the play was unchallengeable. Just like if you challenge a play and it is ruled unchallengeable, you are not charged a timeout, perhaps you are not penalized. It has the effect that the challenge flag was never thrown. It may not be spelled out. I suspect it was a screwup, but am not a rule guru.

 

[bcr8f]

I still don't get what they were thinking. Did Phillips protest the wrong thing?

 

[Go Pack]

What about McCarthy throwing the challenge flag after he was out of challenges....and then he was neither charged a timeout nor penalized? What's up with that? If I'm a coach, I look at that precendent and chuck my flag out there if I need the clock stopped.

I think we'll find out that one was just a plain screwup. There's supposed to be a penalty there.And I understand why replay wouldn't be all that useful in a pile. I don't understand why it's an unreviewable situation altogether. If there's insufficient evidence in a pileup, then the call stands. If it's an obvious situation like today, then there's a recovery. Seems stupid to rule it out altogether.

It is possible it wasn't a penalty because the play was unchallengeable. Just like if you challenge a play and it is ruled unchallengeable, you are not charged a timeout, perhaps you are not penalized. It has the effect that the challenge flag was never thrown. It may not be spelled out. I suspect it was a screwup, but am not a rule guru.

It was definitely reviewable as he was challenging if Crayton made the catch or the ball hit the ground. I assumed the Packers would be called for delay of game or something since I knew they were out of challenges since McCarthy wasted one earlier when Nelson was clearly down short of the goal line.

 

[culdeus]

So if lets say for example Romo had fallen on it the review could have happened, but because it was felix it could not? Yes/no?

 

[switz]

So if lets say for example Romo had fallen on it the review could have happened, but because it was felix it could not? Yes/no?

No.

 

[Mr.Pack]

I hope Mike Pereira reviews this play on the "Official Review" segment on NFL Total Access on the NFL Network this week. I saw the play live and my first thought before seeing the replays was that Jones' knee was down as he was touched before he rolled over and then had it stripped. Then the replays seem to clearly show this. Then the officials don't overturn it? I was dumbfounded.I can understand on a reception that you have to maintain possession through the end of your fall to the ground, but on a fumble recovery when you have firm hold on the ball with your knee on the ground and you are touched ... it would seem to me that the following strip (after you seem to have been touched down) should be irrelevant.

Good grief. You watched the game and don't know why?Fumble recoveries ARE NOT reviewable.

Joe Buck even said they talked to Mike Pereira right after the play and he told them the ruling was correct.

 

[Mr.Pack]

Not sure that someone can be down by contact who never has possession.

Did you watch the replay?

When you watch it in slo mo, it looks like he had it for 5-10 seconds, when in reality, if he did have possession it may have only been 1 second. We never really got the view of the replay that showed he definitely had it anyway, all we saw was a view of his back and a Packer grabbing at the ball. It would have been inconclusive anyway.

 

[B-Deep]

Seems like a hole in the rules that this is not reviewable, but it is not. At the end of the day the Cowboys looked flat, lethargic, awful, uninterested, and generally Cleveland brownish on offense.

Clearly they thought the next 3 games were in the bag. Their head coach is a moron.

 

[B-Deep]

Why? Why are some things reviewable and some things not? Why would the NFL make some calls correct and leave others incorrect? Why have instant replay at all if you can't use it to make all the calls correct? Why does a referee waste 10 minutes going into a friggin black blanketed tube TV to review plays, what is it 1985? Why is the NFL so backwards? Why can a coach throw a red flag and stop the game for 10 minutes when he doesn't have anymore challenges and there is no penalty for that? WHY NOT JUST GET RID OF INSTANT REPLAY ALL TOGETHER BECAUSE IT IS A HUGE FAIL AND WASTES MY TIME!!

There's this thing called a rulebook....With no instant replay this play still stands as called. I guess we could have gotten to the end of that miserable failure a few minutes earlier, but really who cares?

 

[qimqam]

Can anyone explain the ruling on this play?Romo gets slammed, fumbles, Felix recovers and is down by contact. GB strips it after rolling him over and recovers it after that contact. How is there a ruling that states you can only challenge the Romo fumble and not the Jones recovery and subsequent fumble/strip ? Big momentum change in the game here being down 17-0 versus 10-0. Not to say Dallas was going to win by that series alone, but with the ball back down 10 there's a shot. Just looking for an explanation.

If Felix held onto the ball we wouldn't be having this conversation

 

[Manster]

What about McCarthy throwing the challenge flag after he was out of challenges....and then he was neither charged a timeout nor penalized? What's up with that? If I'm a coach, I look at that precendent and chuck my flag out there if I need the clock stopped.

yea, late in the game, no challenges. throw your red flag to give your D a breather. why not, if theres no delay of game? as for the fumble recoveries being "not reviewable", horse crap! if the NFL is gonna review plays, EVERYTHING, short of a play that is whistled dead should be reviewable! if they're gonna do, they need to get it right.