WOOOOOOOOOOOHOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!! We're playing for the division title next week!!! WOOOT!!!!


P.S. I didn't think there was enough evidence to over turn it.

 

The call on the field was a fumble. Its up to the replay evidence to show conclusive evidence to the contrary to turn it over.

I didn't think it was a fumble, but there clearly was not enough evidence to overturn it, thus, it goes down as a fumble.

 

It looked unclear to me, as the ball was shielded from view by the chief player who had tackled him, just before he hit the ground. I mean, I looked from both angles and it just was not clear if the ball was in his hand or on the ground when his elbow hit the ground. Maybe if we could see both angles simultaneously and in-sync by the milisecond you could then make a clear judgement, but I don't even know if the referees get such a vantage point.
I may be wrong, but this is just what I saw.

 

That was NOT a fumble... The Refs this year are TERRIBLE!

 

I swear the announcers LOVE to say "indisputable, conclusive" evidence all the time. It must make them feel smart.

 

For the record, I didn't think it was a fumble either but oh well. :P

 

I think his right arm/elbow/forearm hits before his left (which had the ball). But even using the angle they showed from across the field, its hard to see when the ball started to move...I wish they had a different angle, from the goaline sideline they Ricky was running toward, that may have showed it better. Hard to overturn, although I swear it wasnt a fumble as you say....but hard to overturn.

I think the ref was screen by Rickys body...but hard to say.

 

Those announcers were terrible! I cant stand Randy Cross! I almost muted the damn game...

 

randy cross wanted the phins to lose

 

I don't think it was a fumble, but the views were limited. The real question is what the hell were the 10 other cameras looking at on the field. There wasn't on camera angle from the endzone????????

 

Definitely not a fumble, but he replay vids weren't good enough to overturn the call. He certainly had possession when his elbow hit the ground, IMO. But the evidence wasn't there to overturn it, unfortunately. But the good thing is, it didn't cost us the game.

 

I dont think it was a fumble either but I dont think they had a good enough view.

 

That was not a fumble

 

Wasn't a fumble.

The problem IMO is that too many refs are leaning on instant replay. I can understand, but it's to a fault now. They don't have the sack to call ANYTHING down by contact anymore.

 

I don't have a problem that it was overturned, but I have a problem with it being called a fumble in the first place. IMO, based on the hesitation on the part of the ref he thought that there was a small chance it was a fumble. So he called it a fumble and figured they would find out in review. Only problem was there wasn't a good camera angle to show one way or the other. The call should have been no fumble, and that definitely would not have been overturned either.

But I'm thinking about the Jets now!

 

always hating on ricky huh aqua?

 

we should have been running dives up the gut and chewing clock. they should have ran ronnie on the outside play seeing that he loves to dance so much

 

IMO it's not his fault because it wasn't a fumble. The frozen ground knocked it out.

Ricky was very running well IMO. Ronnie dances a little too much for my liking lately.

And Ronnie fumbled today as well. We just got bailed out by the penalty. :tongue:

 

do you go with ''history'' or a guy who was playing a solid game and fell victim to a bad call?

 

I didnt think it was a fumble until the very very last replay. I think that one clearly showed the ball was out before his elbow him.

 

I don't think it was a fumble, but it seems that using the guy with the substantially better fumble history at that point in the game would be the wiser strategy.

 

I agree, the evidence was there to overturn it as I unbiasedly saw it.. The last angle they showed, showed Ricky's right elbow (holding the ball in his left hand) hit the ground, they froze and one could easily see the ball did not hit the ground yet, as you could see space through the bottom of the ball and the ground - I even saw the damn laces of the ball)... there was about an inch between the ball and the ground, it was conclusive to the TV eye as even the SHADOW of the ball was on the ground...

Not that it matters now, but horrible call by the refs once again... (To add insult to injury, not that the GROUND can cause a fumble anyways, in this case it did after Ricky was down by contact)

 

Two bad calls on that one.

The refs call was bad, but not nearly as bad as the play call. Why not just take a knee twice, take the clock down to about 30 secs and go up by two scores. If we score a TD on Ricky's run, they still have a minute 1 1/2 to get two scores. While it isn't isn't likely, it has happened before ... just ask KC. On the other hand, I don't think a team has scored twice in 30 sec.

 

Not a fumble, but the camera angle that would have shown it clearly (from the endzone) wasn't available for some reason. The camera angles that were shown is that you'd be 95% certain it wasn't a fumble, but that isn't enough to overturn the call.