• GUESTS

    If You  want access  to member only forums on FM, You will need to Sign-in or  Sign-Up now .

    This box will disappear once you are signed in as a member.

  • Join In - We Share Fishing Reports & Outdoor Information Here

     
      You know what we all love...

      The same things you do!!!! Share what you love & enjoy in the outdoors as well as thank those whose posts you 'appreciate.'

      Have Fun!!!

Sign in to follow this  
Hammer Handle

Super Bowl Question....last play...pass or fumble?

Recommended Posts

Hammer Handle

Was his hand going forward?

Should there have been a review from upstairs?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sandmannd

Looked like a fumble to me. I believe they looked at it upstairs and didn't think it was necessary for it to go down for the field refs to look at.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TommyJ33

pass. If someone would have caught it, would have it been a reception or a fumble recovery?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
rodmaker

No doubt, with under two minutes left in the game, it should have been reviewed. Just think what would have happen if someone from the Cardnials picked it up and ran it in for a TD.

You know Pittsburg would have challenged it saying it was a pass.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PierBridge

Thought it was a pass and yes they should have looked at it closer.

I like Larry Fitzgeralds chances at a jump ball in the endzone!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rikstr

It should have been reviewed by the refs on the field just to give wondering fans piece of mind. I didn't like how it ended so quickly...It was the last play of the SUPER BOWL. I understand the booth upstairs will look at the same thing as the refs on the field, so their decision was probably right. But the end seemed hurried and left me wondering what could have been.

Also Refs should have called the ball/prop penalty for 15 yards on the kickoff. couldve been a different game...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gary Crichton

Al Michals said they reviewed it upstairs, and IMO it was a FUMBLE>>>>>>>>. Yes his arm was getting moved forward by the rusher, from the side.

G.C.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
68Goat

I was watchin the game and with the DVR I backed up and looked at it several times. I really think his arm was coming forward. With the defender coming in on Warner I didn't see any other way the ball could have gone that far forward if something wasn't propelling it.

If you see the replay again you can see Warner's gloved hand pushing the ball forward around the arm of defender.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hammer Handle

I just couldn't believe that they take so much time to review other plays, and not this one?

The Super Bowl is on the line, and you don't take the extended time to review?

Notice how fast the Steelers got the next play off. They knew what they had to do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lookincalifornia

thank you rickstr, i thought i was the only one who saw that celebration.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
toughguy

looked like a pass to me and YES it should have been reviewed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Windy City

Most definite...pass. That is why the ball went FORWARD. If it had been a fumble and the rusher got to him before the arm started going forward then the ball would have squibbed around near his feet. It clearly went 4 or 5 yards forward in the air. That tells me it was a pass. Could not believe that the booth did not slow things down quicker and Pitt was all over the quick snap! Too bad, I would have loved to see a jump ball in the end zone one last time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
FasterThanYou23

the ball went forward,yes.but it had come out of his hand,he didnt have possesion,but his arm was still moving forward and he hit the ball with his hand and thats why it went so far forward.it was a FUMBLE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zepman

Just by the mix of responses here it seems it could have gone either way. I thought it was too close to call and should have definately been reviewed upstairs. I was amazed that they didn't take their time with this one and look at it closer. If I had to pick one way or another, I would say it looked like his arm was going forward and it should have been an incomplete pass. Cardinals should have had one more play to give Fitz a chance in the endzone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Windy City

Faster,

Asking the same question that somebody else asked. If that was a fumble and went forward 4 yards and was caught by a reciever would it have been a catch? If it had been a catch then by rule it can not be a fumble. I think you may want to rethink your logic on this one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jigging-matt

I think it was a pass. Arm going forward, hand on the ball. The game was good, the officiating was poor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
KTapper

I agree, and yes I did feel the offciating was not the best.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
pinkfloyd4ever

Incomplete pass. The celebration was a little much, but I didn't think it was classless though, but should have had a flag thrown too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DTro

The defender hit Warner before his arm came forward and the ball came loose. The defender than deflected the ball forward at the same rate as Warner’s arm making it appear as he pushed the ball forward. Not the case.

It was close, but the correct call was a fumble.

My opinion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gary Crichton

Does anyone know what down it was when this play happened.

G.C.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
pinkfloyd4ever

I want to think it was 3rd down. Kickoff, then had 2 short passes for 1st downs, but had to burn both their TO's, followed by two incompletes?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gary Crichton

Well it seems to be if you wanted Arizona it was a pass, and if Pitt was your choice, then it was a fumble.

G.C.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
pinkfloyd4ever

I don't know, I think it was a pass myself, and I was rooting for AZ, but it was a close play and since the officials called it a fumble, probably not enough evidence to try and reverse it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gary Crichton

I swear they said the ruling came from above and not on the field. You are correct, it was close, but I will stick with a FUMBLE. I did have Pittsburgh, but I was losing either way due to the spread.

G.C.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
riverrat56

Did anyone else think they blew the play dead as soon as the ball came out? I swore I heard a whistle right after the ball hit the groud, this thought was furthered by the fact that the AZ O-line did not react to the ball at all?

I thought it looked like a pass but being as it was called a fumble it would be hard to reverse, but it deffinatly should have been looked at more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  



  • Your Responses - Share & Have Fun :)

    • gunner55
      Same here, our 1st color unit, 520 c(?), had that type of transducer(blue/5 pin) & it didn't last 1, maybe 2 seasons. We replaced it & the 2nd lasted much longer.
    • jkrash
    • jkrash
      It's gone, looks like there tearing out the concrete now.
    • delcecchi
      I had a lot of problems with Lowrance transducers of that sort of vintage, the ones with the blue connectors.   It seemed to me that they didn't deal well with being frozen.   Now I store my transducers inside in the winter (I know that isn't possible when ice fishing).   I went through 3 or 4 transducers before realizing the problem.   Try borrowing a transducer to try.   Sounds exactly like what mine did.  Gradually lost sensitivity and would lose the bottom. 
    • Rick
      Conditions for snowmobile riding in many parts of the state are as good as they’ve been in a long time, prompting what Department of Natural Resources conservation officers call the biggest number of riders in years to hit the state’s 22,000 miles of snowmobile trails. While zipping around on a sled is a great way to experience Minnesota’s snow-covered outdoors, Enforcement officials remind riders to leave the booze on the shelf or in the refrigerator until after they’re done riding. Alcohol is a factor in more than 70 percent of snowmobile-related fatalities in Minnesota. And it isn’t just intoxicated drivers who pay the price for their bad decisions. Earlier this month, Eric Coleman was sentenced to 12.5 years in prison for a tragic incident last year when the snowmobile he was driving struck and killed 8-year-old Alan Geisenkoetter Jr. Coleman, who was drunk and whose driver’s license was revoked when he crashed into the boy, had multiple previous DWIs in a motor vehicle. The incident prompted state lawmakers to close loopholes in the state’s DWI law. “We hope the increased penalties for people convicted of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence will cause them to think twice before drinking and riding. But they won’t bring back Alan or heal the damage this senseless crash caused his family,” said Jen Mueller, a regional training officer in the DNR Enforcement Division and the agency’s Enforcement Education Officer of the Year. “There’s never an excuse to drink and drive and we have no tolerance for people who do it.” The new law – Little Alan’s Law – went into effect Aug. 1, 2018. It means people convicted of driving while intoxicated – regardless of the vehicle they’re driving – lose their driver’s license and are prohibited from operating motor vehicles, including all-terrain vehicles, motorboats and snowmobiles. Before the law change, people convicted of DWI in a highway-licensed vehicle still could legally operate ATVs, motorboats and snowmobiles. The changes apply to violations that occurred on or after Aug. 1, 2018. The DNR anticipates Little Alan’s Law will affect more than 2,000 people each month in Minnesota. But since the law requires a DWI conviction – and these cases take time to move through the court system – specific numbers aren’t yet available.   Discuss below - to view set the hook here.
    • iiccee63
      Anyone on Linwood that might need a hand let me know on here. Have wheeler with plow. We just might have some problems this year. I'm taking mine off next week. Already helping a buddy with his this weekend.   IICCEE
    • iiccee63
      Where is that lake?
    • Borch
      We got an additional 8-10" yesterday.   Talking another 2-4 this weekend.  Gonna be tough going for sure.
    • Knowknot
      Hi Curt. Been waiting for a new report from you. Haven't seen anything for a while. What's happening?
    • gimruis
      This is the first time I can remember that the post card came before the online posting.