Why didn't they review Peterson's fumble? (1 Viewer)

[FunkyPlutos]

I'm not saying that he didn't fumble, it was obvious he did from looking at the replay, but how can they not take a break to review that play - it was close enough to review. Tirico said something about getting word from 'upstairs' that it was a fumble, if so, then isn't it really just like the college game, and why do they need challenges at all. I just find it amazing that they wouldn't stop play to review it, isn't that in the rules?

Someone help me out on this - I like the college rule on replay, but the NFL has different rules in place, why didn't they use them?

 

[Chumpson]

it was obvious he did

There you go.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

I'm not saying that he didn't fumble, it was obvious he did from looking at the replay, but how can they not take a break to review that play - it was close enough to review. Tirico said something about getting word from 'upstairs' that it was a fumble, if so, then isn't it really just like the college game, and why do they need challenges at all. I just find it amazing that they wouldn't stop play to review it, isn't that in the rules?

Someone help me out on this - I like the college rule on replay, but the NFL has different rules in place, why didn't they use them?

Childress got the word from upstairs. The Vikings would have needed to challenge the play for it to be reviewed and they did not do so.

 

[Captain Hook]

I'm not saying that he didn't fumble, it was obvious he did from looking at the replay, but how can they not take a break to review that play - it was close enough to review. Tirico said something about getting word from 'upstairs' that it was a fumble, if so, then isn't it really just like the college game, and why do they need challenges at all. I just find it amazing that they wouldn't stop play to review it, isn't that in the rules?Someone help me out on this - I like the college rule on replay, but the NFL has different rules in place, why didn't they use them?

They DID review the play upstairs but since thier view was the same as the on field ruling, they didn't make an announcement of it

 

[Iwannabeacowboybaby!]

it was obvious he did

There you go.

It wasn't close enough for them to stop play and review it. They saw it once and clearly saw that he fumbled before the knee was down, end of story. If it were close and they deemed they needed more time and more looks to see if it was indeed a fumble, they would have stopped play. Do you disagree with the call, I don't really understand the reason for the thread.

 

[rvmblack]

I'm not saying that he didn't fumble, it was obvious he did from looking at the replay, but how can they not take a break to review that play - it was close enough to review. Tirico said something about getting word from 'upstairs' that it was a fumble, if so, then isn't it really just like the college game, and why do they need challenges at all. I just find it amazing that they wouldn't stop play to review it, isn't that in the rules?

Someone help me out on this - I like the college rule on replay, but the NFL has different rules in place, why didn't they use them?

Childress got the word from upstairs. The Vikings would have needed to challenge the play for it to be reviewed and they did not do so.

Are you joking?

 

[shadyridr]

it was obvious he did

There you go.

 

[FunkyPlutos]

it was obvious he did

There you go.

It wasn't close enough for them to stop play and review it. They saw it once and clearly saw that he fumbled before the knee was down, end of story. If it were close and they deemed they needed more time and more looks to see if it was indeed a fumble, they would have stopped play. Do you disagree with the call, I don't really understand the reason for the thread.

I thought the referee on the field has the say on if a play stands or not.

 

[sports_fan]

Did anyone else see the facemask on the play? As Hunter Hillenmeyer (ILB) was dragging him down from behind, Zackary Bowman (CB) came from the side and seemed to grab his facemask on the way down. If it would have been called I'm sure there would have been plenty of controversy (as it was minor) but I thought it was clear that at least contributed to the fumble. I'm was amazed when none of the announcers commented on it.

Heck of a play by Hillenmeyer regardless.

Link to the video.

 

[baboons]

In overtime, reviews can only take place if the replay assistant determines that a play needs review; coaches may not challenge during these times.

So, Childress has nothing to do with it.

The Booth didn't review as it was clearly a fumble on first look.

If it had have been reviewed, the referee on the field decides whether to overturn.

 

[FunkyPlutos]

I guess I have seen easier calls stop play before. My bad.

 

[FunkyPlutos]

In overtime, reviews can only take place if the replay assistant determines that a play needs review; coaches may not challenge during these times.So, Childress has nothing to do with it.The Booth didn't review as it was clearly a fumble on first look.If it had have been reviewed, the referee on the field decides whether to overturn.

Makes sense. Thanks.

 

[speedball]

Did anyone else see the facemask on the play? As Hunter Hillenmeyer (ILB) was dragging him down from behind, Zackary Bowman (CB) came from the side and seemed to grab his facemask on the way down. If it would have been called I'm sure there would have been plenty of controversy (as it was minor) but I thought it was clear that at least contributed to the fumble. I'm was amazed when none of the announcers commented on it.

Heck of a play by Hillenmeyer regardless.

Link to the video.

The ref's seemed to be letting the teams play last night and not calling a ton of penalties. Seven total according to the box score. The non-call on that play seems consistent with how they were calling the game.

 

[Stinkin Ref]

it isn't really relavent to this situation, but what can be bad about replay in overtime/last two minutes etc, ...is that because the clock may be moving or a team hurries up to the line a play that needs to be reviewed won't be.....I think it is crazy that you take this power away from a coach at some of the most critical times of the game.....I realize a coach could potentially use it to manipulate the clock in his favor, but I think you either do it or don't.....just waiting for the day in a big game where a play is "not reviewed" because they didn't have time because the next play was about to happen/clock running, etc.....

 

[Bird]

Did anyone else see the facemask on the play? As Hunter Hillenmeyer (ILB) was dragging him down from behind, Zackary Bowman (CB) came from the side and seemed to grab his facemask on the way down. If it would have been called I'm sure there would have been plenty of controversy (as it was minor) but I thought it was clear that at least contributed to the fumble. I'm was amazed when none of the announcers commented on it.

Heck of a play by Hillenmeyer regardless.

Link to the video.

I was hoping the play would have been reviewed to see if a penalty for the facemask would have been called after the fact. I reference the Cinncinati game from Sunday. KC challenged a TD catch by Ochocinco as he was close to the sideline. Upon review, the refs saw that Chad actually stepped out of bounds, re-entered the field of play and was the first person to touch the pass. By rule, that is illegal touching and the Bengals were penalized on the play even though it was not originally determined by the refs on the field.With that kind of jurisdiction, the ref last night could have reversed the fumble because of the facemask penalty. It would have at least made good TV to see that outcome.

 

[benson_will_lead_the_way]

I personally think the Super Bowl catch by Tyree was the closest play not reviewed in my memory.

 

[DoubleG]

Did anyone else see the facemask on the play? As Hunter Hillenmeyer (ILB) was dragging him down from behind, Zackary Bowman (CB) came from the side and seemed to grab his facemask on the way down. If it would have been called I'm sure there would have been plenty of controversy (as it was minor) but I thought it was clear that at least contributed to the fumble. I'm was amazed when none of the announcers commented on it.

Heck of a play by Hillenmeyer regardless.

Link to the video.

I was hoping the play would have been reviewed to see if a penalty for the facemask would have been called after the fact. I reference the Cinncinati game from Sunday. KC challenged a TD catch by Ochocinco as he was close to the sideline. Upon review, the refs saw that Chad actually stepped out of bounds, re-entered the field of play and was the first person to touch the pass. By rule, that is illegal touching and the Bengals were penalized on the play even though it was not originally determined by the refs on the field.With that kind of jurisdiction, the ref last night could have reversed the fumble because of the facemask penalty. It would have at least made good TV to see that outcome.

Replay, by rule can't be used for penalties. Merely to determine posession, boundaries and ball spots.

 

[Bird]

Penalties are not reviewable but if in the course of reviewing a play a penalty is determned to have been missed then the ref can call the penalty. The review takes into account all aspects of the play. Here's the play by play for the Cincinnati call that I referred:

(Shotgun) C.Palmer pass short right to C.Ochocinco for 6 yards, TOUCHDOWN. The Replay Assistant challenged the runner was in bounds ruling, and the play was REVERSED. (Shotgun) C.Palmer pass short right to C.Ochocinco for 6 yards, TOUCHDOWN NULLIFIED by Penalty. PENALTY on CIN-C.Ochocinco, Illegal Touch Pass, 5 yards, enforced at KC 6 - No Play.

As you can see, the penalty was called after the review. If it had been called originally then there would have been no need to review the play.

 

[Stinkin Ref]

Penalties are not reviewable but if in the course of reviewing a play a penalty is determned to have been missed then the ref can call the penalty. The review takes into account all aspects of the play. Here's the play by play for the Cincinnati call that I referred:(Shotgun) C.Palmer pass short right to C.Ochocinco for 6 yards, TOUCHDOWN. The Replay Assistant challenged the runner was in bounds ruling, and the play was REVERSED. (Shotgun) C.Palmer pass short right to C.Ochocinco for 6 yards, TOUCHDOWN NULLIFIED by Penalty. PENALTY on CIN-C.Ochocinco, Illegal Touch Pass, 5 yards, enforced at KC 6 - No Play.As you can see, the penalty was called after the review. If it had been called originally then there would have been no need to review the play.

could the "replay assistant" ask for a review based on 85 stepping out of bounds first and then coming back in....meaning, say there was no question that the catch was in bounds....but the asst sees him step out earlier......and can a coach ask for this review during the time when he can challenge....meaning, say on a pattern the coach sees 85 step out of bounds at the 45 (but the refs don't), but 85 clearly catches the ball in the middle of the filed later at the 20.....I think they can....

 

[Bird]

That's why I agree with the poster who said coaches should have a challenge in overtime. They could force the ref to look at the entire play. I think that's why it seems to the viewer that the ref is taking a long time to review an obvious call. He is probably looking at the play in question from snap to whistle and not just the controversial part. In Cincinnati, the ref stumbled across the penalty only because there was a question of whether the catch was made inbounds. If Chad catches the pass in the middle of the endzone then the illegal touching becomes a missed call because the play would not have been opened for review.

Last night, the replay assistant clearly believed Peterson fumbled and I agree. As a result, there was no need to challenge the call from the replay assistant's point of view. Now if Childress had a coach's challenge in OT, he could have forced the ref to look at the whole play and who knows if he would have then called the facemask penalty and reversed the call on the field.

 

[ctdub]

That's why I agree with the poster who said coaches should have a challenge in overtime. They could force the ref to look at the entire play. I think that's why it seems to the viewer that the ref is taking a long time to review an obvious call. He is probably looking at the play in question from snap to whistle and not just the controversial part. In Cincinnati, the ref stumbled across the penalty only because there was a question of whether the catch was made inbounds. If Chad catches the pass in the middle of the endzone then the illegal touching becomes a missed call because the play would not have been opened for review.Last night, the replay assistant clearly believed Peterson fumbled and I agree. As a result, there was no need to challenge the call from the replay assistant's point of view. Now if Childress had a coach's challenge in OT, he could have forced the ref to look at the whole play and who knows if he would have then called the facemask penalty and reversed the call on the field.

He could have ripped his helmet off his head and it would not have been tacked onto to play with replay if it wasnt originally called on the play. The play you are referencing is a different situation and one of the few situations where replay can result in or overturn a penalty. The others I think are forward pass beyond the line of scrimage and a tipped pass on pass interference.

 

[Stinkin Ref]

That's why I agree with the poster who said coaches should have a challenge in overtime. They could force the ref to look at the entire play. I think that's why it seems to the viewer that the ref is taking a long time to review an obvious call. He is probably looking at the play in question from snap to whistle and not just the controversial part. In Cincinnati, the ref stumbled across the penalty only because there was a question of whether the catch was made inbounds. If Chad catches the pass in the middle of the endzone then the illegal touching becomes a missed call because the play would not have been opened for review.Last night, the replay assistant clearly believed Peterson fumbled and I agree. As a result, there was no need to challenge the call from the replay assistant's point of view. Now if Childress had a coach's challenge in OT, he could have forced the ref to look at the whole play and who knows if he would have then called the facemask penalty and reversed the call on the field.

so in your Chad example....say even though his catch was clearly in bounds....could a coach (if able) still say I want to question the catch, even though he knows the catch was good, just so the ref goes under the hood so he can see him step out of bounds prior to the catch.....and if so....why couldn't/shouldn't the replay asst do the same in the last tow minutes or overtime......

 

[⚡DEADHEAD⚡]

I'm not even convinced there was a facemask violation. Would probably need to see the play again a few times but it didn't seem to more than the hand going across the helmet/facemask.

 

[Sabertooth]

Why didn't they review whether Rice caught the touchdown at the end of regulation? Looked like he may have bobbled it when he hit the ground. And with the way they call that ticky tacky BS nowadays, I thought it warranted a look.

 

[FunkyPlutos]

Why didn't they review whether Rice caught the touchdown at the end of regulation? Looked like he may have bobbled it when he hit the ground. And with the way they call that ticky tacky BS nowadays, I thought it warranted a look.

I guess, much like the fumble, there was no doubt at all about the call.

 

[Mr.Pack]

I'm not even convinced there was a facemask violation. Would probably need to see the play again a few times but it didn't seem to more than the hand going across the helmet/facemask.

Seemed like his hand slid across the facemask but he didn't grab it.

 

[Mr.Pack]

Why didn't they review whether Rice caught the touchdown at the end of regulation? Looked like he may have bobbled it when he hit the ground. And with the way they call that ticky tacky BS nowadays, I thought it warranted a look.

I guess, much like the fumble, there was no doubt at all about the call.

That catch was much closer than the fumble

 

[Clifton]

I personally think the Super Bowl catch by Tyree was the closest play not reviewed in my memory.

Didn't look like a catch to me.

 

[apalmer]

That's why I agree with the poster who said coaches should have a challenge in overtime. They could force the ref to look at the entire play. I think that's why it seems to the viewer that the ref is taking a long time to review an obvious call. He is probably looking at the play in question from snap to whistle and not just the controversial part. In Cincinnati, the ref stumbled across the penalty only because there was a question of whether the catch was made inbounds. If Chad catches the pass in the middle of the endzone then the illegal touching becomes a missed call because the play would not have been opened for review.

Last night, the replay assistant clearly believed Peterson fumbled and I agree. As a result, there was no need to challenge the call from the replay assistant's point of view. Now if Childress had a coach's challenge in OT, he could have forced the ref to look at the whole play and who knows if he would have then called the facemask penalty and reversed the call on the field.

He could have ripped his helmet off his head and it would not have been tacked onto to play with replay if it wasnt originally called on the play. The play you are referencing is a different situation and one of the few situations where replay can result in or overturn a penalty. The others I think are forward pass beyond the line of scrimage and a tipped pass on pass interference.

From the NFL Rulebook:

Reviewable Plays. The Replay System will cover the following play situations only:

(a) Plays governed by Sideline, Goal Line, End Zone, and End Line:

1. Scoring plays, including a runner breaking the plane of the goal line.

2. Pass complete/incomplete/intercepted at sideline, goal line, end zone, and end

line.

3. Runner/receiver in or out of bounds.

4. Recovery of loose ball in or out of bounds.

(b) Passing plays:

1. Pass ruled complete/incomplete/intercepted in the field of play.

2. Touching of a forward pass by an ineligible receiver.

3. Touching of a forward pass by a defensive player.

4. Quarterback (Passer) forward pass or fumble.

5. Illegal forward pass beyond line of scrimmage.

6. Illegal forward pass after change of possession.

7. Forward or backward pass thrown from behind line of scrimmage.

© Other reviewable plays:

1. Runner ruled not down by defensive contact.

2. Runner ruled down by defensive contact when the recovery of a fumble by an

opponent or a teammate occurs in the action that happens following the

fumble.

3. Ruling of incomplete pass when the recovery of a passer’s fumble by an opponent

or a teammate occurs in the action following the fumble.

4. Ruling of a loose ball out of bounds when it is recovered in the field of play

by an opponent or a teammate in the action after the ball hits the ground.

Note 1: If the ruling of down by contact or incomplete pass is changed, the ball belongs

to the recovering player at the spot of the recovery of the fumble, and any advance is

nullified.

Note 2: If the Referee does not have indisputable visual evidence as to which player recovered

the loose ball, the ruling on the field will stand.

Note 3: This does not apply to complete/incomplete passes, or the ruling of forward

progress.

5. Forward progress with respect to a first down.

6. Touching of a kick.

7. A field goal or Try attempt that crosses below or above the crossbar, inside or outside

the uprights when it is lower than the top of the uprights, or touches anything.

8. Number of players on the field.

9. Illegal forward handoff.

Note: Non-reviewable plays include but are not limited to:

1. Status of the clock

2. Proper down

3. Penalty administration

4. Runner ruled down by defensive contact (not involving fumbles)

5. Forward progress not relating to first down or goal line

6. Recovery of loose ball in the field of play

7. Field goal or Try attempts that cross above either upright without touching

anything.

8. Inadvertent Whistle