NFC Divisonal Playoffs: Seahawks @ Packers Sunday, Jan 12th, 5:40PM

[OldSchoolSnapper]

Why? I think that's a much more reasonable conclusion. Let the guy run back the touchdown and see if the knee was down. I mean in that example it's a scoring play so it gets looked at anyway. I hate the whole thing as I've made clear, but that makes much more sense than deciding it wasn't a fumble when the guy is flipped upside down for .0001 seconds and you *think* he was down.

 

I mean, that situation seems like one of the first that got replay back into the game anyway.

 

If the Packers had scooped that up and run it back but the ref came in ruling it dead, I'm pretty sure even on a challenge they won't award the TD. They give the Packers the ball at the spot. I recall seeing that in a game this year or last year.

[stalton]

I'd be fine even calling him down by contact if it means at least acknowledging who picked up the ball.

[OldHeidelberg]

Why? I think that's a much more reasonable conclusion. Let the guy run back the touchdown and see if the knee was down. I mean in that example it's a scoring play so it gets looked at anyway. I hate the whole thing as I've made clear, but that makes much more sense than deciding it wasn't a fumble when the guy is flipped upside down for .0001 seconds and you *think* he was down.

 

I mean, that situation seems like one of the first that got replay back into the game anyway.

 

If the Packers had scooped that up and run it back but the ref came in ruling it dead, I'm pretty sure even on a challenge they won't award the TD. They give the Packers the ball at the spot. I recall seeing that in a game this year or last year.

 

I don't like the idea of putting the idea in the refs head that if it is close rule it a fumble and let replay sort it out because if replay is inconclusive you possibly award a TD when he was down. Sometimes the refs on the spot really do have the best sight of the play.

[Outlander]

In the fumble scenario like in this last game can the ref allow the play to go on and determine who recovers the fumble but then still say he was down by contact? Or in that scenario if the ref let's it play out does he have to say it is a fumble and replay can then only say it was down by contact? Do agree that even with all the technology sometimes the ref still has the best view to make the correct call.

[brewcrewdue80]

Just thinking. You know the big difference to take from this game than games from regular season? I feel like every pass and catch happened to Jimmy Graham and all were huge plays for down and distance. Is that about right? I think I watched 53min of game clock time.

Adams had the huge game, but Graham had to a closer 2nd than fans would think.

[OldHeidelberg]

In the fumble scenario like in this last game can the ref allow the play to go on and determine who recovers the fumble but then still say he was down by contact? Or in that scenario if the ref let's it play out does he have to say it is a fumble and replay can then only say it was down by contact? Do agree that even with all the technology sometimes the ref still has the best view to make the correct call.

 

I could be wrong but even with no whistle and a ref downfield ruling a TD on the return if the official on the spot says wait a minute runner was down the ball gets brought back even if it is overturned. That is what I was getting at with my above post, you can't make fumble returned for a TD the default call and wait for the review, as we saw on the last meaningful play Sunday they don't always have the answer on replay. Plus the refs are human, I want them to go with what they saw and immediately call it, the longer they wait the less sure they will be about what they saw.

[thebruce44]

Why? I think that's a much more reasonable conclusion. Let the guy run back the touchdown and see if the knee was down. I mean in that example it's a scoring play so it gets looked at anyway. I hate the whole thing as I've made clear, but that makes much more sense than deciding it wasn't a fumble when the guy is flipped upside down for .0001 seconds and you *think* he was down.

 

I mean, that situation seems like one of the first that got replay back into the game anyway.

 

If the Packers had scooped that up and run it back but the ref came in ruling it dead, I'm pretty sure even on a challenge they won't award the TD. They give the Packers the ball at the spot. I recall seeing that in a game this year or last year.

 

I don't like the idea of putting the idea in the refs head that if it is close rule it a fumble and let replay sort it out because if replay is inconclusive you possibly award a TD when he was down. Sometimes the refs on the spot really do have the best sight of the play.

 

Sometimes, sure, but clearly not in this instance.

 

I'd be willing to bet that you would have a much more accurate game overall if the refs aired on the side of letting the play continue with replay to possibly overturn. If a single ref is the only one who can see something that replay can't prove, that has to be a very exceptional play- in which case all fans are going to be upset anyway because on the TV broadcast it will look like the ref is incorrect no matter what.

[MrTPlush]

Well one year is in the books and there was not a single instance where a team got awarded a touchdown and the replay was hard to tell if it was a fumble or not. There was, however, many cases where the refs let it play out and it was indeed a fumble. For whatever reason in history refs called players down at an incredible rate in those scoop and score situations.

 

One thing I do find concerning is that new camera they slap down by the 1st down stick. That angle became pretty important on the game winning throw, but that camera is put down carelessly sometimes and isn't always lined up perfect. It definitely seemed to be off on that controversial 1st down.