jjakq27 Posted October 14, 2009 Report Share Posted October 14, 2009 Lost in all of the events of the last 48 hours was the fumble recovery and return by Chinedum Ndukwe that was ruled dead at the spot even though there was no whistle and no one stopped the return during the play.Any thoughts or opinions? Haven't heard anything about this play at all.Personally I thought it was a close call as to if it was a fumble or not but the fact that it wasn't blown dead at that point or at all just mystifies me. The radio crew said the entire crew brain-cramped on the play. Thankfully it didn't cost us. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stripes Posted October 14, 2009 Report Share Posted October 14, 2009 Yes, it was very odd. There was no call on the field to be challenged until the officials huddled and discussed it, which is frustrating when a touchdown was scored beforehand. The replay seemed to show that the ball was coming out as the knee hit the ground, but it was close enough that I wasn't angry about it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArmyBengal Posted October 14, 2009 Report Share Posted October 14, 2009 I've seen that play a bunch of times since then, including another handful tonight and regardless of how many times I see that, it's just to hard to distinguish if his knee was down before the ball did in fact come out. That being said, the issue I had is, the play wasn't ruled dead on the field and the Bengals scored a TD signaled by the refs. At that point, there had to be sufficient evidence that what was ruled on the field wasn't the case. I don't see how they took that TD away from that standpoint, right or wrong in the initial call.I could be wrong, but I guess in the big picture, it doesn't really matter...Did anyone else think this was a thread about Coach Cowher coming back to coach ?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
membengal Posted October 14, 2009 Report Share Posted October 14, 2009 I thought it was a fumble. I thought the officials got it wrong.Interestingly, per the NFL Network's replay of the game, and the mic'd up Joe Flacco, he and Heap in the huddle looking at the replay thought it was a fumble too... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pidge Posted October 14, 2009 Report Share Posted October 14, 2009 Well now, I pause it just at the point where you can clearly see his knee is down. Looking at the ball it's already coming out. It's still between his arm and body, as it were, bit the position has changed and therefore, to my mind, he's lost control of the ball.Very close and I can absolutely see why they didn't call it in real time. Should have got it right with replay though, IMO. Then again, they quite often screw those up anyway. My vote is to just get better refs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SupaBran Posted October 14, 2009 Report Share Posted October 14, 2009 At first, I thought you were talking about the Squeeler game...and I was like, you're talking about this after a couple of weeks!That was the worst call, non call, whatever you wanna call it! It was called a fumble and then a touchdown was put on the board! Then the replay comes on and I'm like, wow that's close, but too inconclusive to overturn! Then those striped bums huddle and discuss the play, which is redikulus!!! I've never seen anything like that...ever!!! Then they say no fumble and I'm like, wow that's close, but too inconclusive to overturn! Freakin redikulus!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wpeldios Posted October 14, 2009 Report Share Posted October 14, 2009 Watched the play repeatidly, and I have to say, was a fumble in my mind, but a very close play. Im yet to see one shot of a knee on the ground with the ball in posession. That said, even if it was called a fumble, and recovered by the bengals, Ndukwe picked up the ball while in contact with Clayton, and his right knee on the ground, so no way could it have been a touchdown. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ickey44 Posted October 14, 2009 Report Share Posted October 14, 2009 Watched the play repeatidly, and I have to say, was a fumble in my mind, but a very close play. Im yet to see one shot of a knee on the ground with the ball in posession. That said, even if it was called a fumble, and recovered by the bengals, Ndukwe picked up the ball while in contact with Clayton, and his right knee on the ground, so no way could it have been a touchdown.Correct. Should've been the Bengals ball on the 21. And Florio is writing articles about how the refs messed up the spot, nothing said about the blown fumble call. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BengalByTheBay Posted October 14, 2009 Report Share Posted October 14, 2009 What I can't understand is why, when the original call on the field (ie, no whistle blowing the play dead) was TD, the Bengals were somehow forced to challenge the play. The Ravens should have had to challenge the play, not the Bengals. The call on the field has to be challenged, not the changed-call-after-the-call. That part stinks and was flat wrong under the rule. Otherwise, it's just one more close one that could've gone either way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jet23 Posted October 14, 2009 Report Share Posted October 14, 2009 What I can't understand is why, when the original call on the field (ie, no whistle blowing the play dead) was TD, the Bengals were somehow forced to challenge the play. The Ravens should have had to challenge the play, not the Bengals. The call on the field has to be challenged, not the changed-call-after-the-call. That part stinks and was flat wrong under the rule. Otherwise, it's just one more close one that could've gone either way.I believe the refs huddled up, prior to the challenge, and decided his knee was down. ML was then forced to Challenge and they ruled there was not enough to overturn. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buck3y3d Posted October 14, 2009 Report Share Posted October 14, 2009 What I can't understand is why, when the original call on the field (ie, no whistle blowing the play dead) was TD, the Bengals were somehow forced to challenge the play. The Ravens should have had to challenge the play, not the Bengals. The call on the field has to be challenged, not the changed-call-after-the-call. That part stinks and was flat wrong under the rule. Otherwise, it's just one more close one that could've gone either way.I believe the refs huddled up, prior to the challenge, and decided his knee was down. ML was then forced to Challenge and they ruled there was not enough to overturn.That is what happened. The refs made the right call based on their process here. They didn't call the play dead because they are now letting "close calls" play out and then ruling. Essentially, if he had fumbled and was called down, there would have been no chance for a run back. They then got together and ruled the runner down by contact, which led to the Bengals being forced to challenge. I think this call was too close. Take a step back and think about it. If Benson had fumbled like that, you would argue he was down. This play could go either way. Let Florio write what he wants, technically he is right. Based on the refs ruling, the spot was horrible. How do you let 5 yards just disappear? Where was the official upstairs on that one? I haven't read Florio's article, but I have to agree that mismarking a ball like that is huge. It went from 3rd and 11 to 3rd and 16. That's a big difference. You almost certainly have to run a deep out on 3rd and 16. On 3rd and 11 you can throw underneath and hope for the best. I realize the Bengals jumped on the next play and all this if for not. Just my 2 cents. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArmyBengal Posted October 14, 2009 Report Share Posted October 14, 2009 But I don't get how the huddled together to rule he was down by contact after they had already ruled the play a fumble recovery resulting in a TD for the Bengals. Shouldn't it have required a challenge on the part of Baltimore to get to that point ?? Doesn't matter, but I would actually like to know... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ickey44 Posted October 14, 2009 Report Share Posted October 14, 2009 They huddled before any ruling was made. The fact that 7 points were put on the board had nothing to do with the refs, the stadium guys did that. After they huddled, they ruled him down by contact, thereby forcing Marvin to challenge. Then the refs REALLY blew the call and let the call stand. Then they blew their blown call by putting the ball 5 yards further back than it should've been. All in all, the refs screwed up every part of that play. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArmyBengal Posted October 14, 2009 Report Share Posted October 14, 2009 Thanks dude !!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cincy9275 Posted October 14, 2009 Report Share Posted October 14, 2009 i think it was a fumble, the refs need to take that to the booth. let the replay do what it's there to do. i think in the denver game chinney forced a fumble that the refs called incomplete. i watched that replay over and over and it was clearly a fumble. that's the whole point of replay let the play finish. then make the correction if needed. i don't think they refs should be able to call a play dead making it unreviewable. all suspect plays should be reviewable and let the replay determine the out come of a play. not some old dude that was clear on the other side of the field and can't see that far in the first place. that bothers the shoot out of me. so does letting players jump on downed player after the play is over, that needs to stop also. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SupaBran Posted October 14, 2009 Report Share Posted October 14, 2009 i think it was a fumble, the refs need to take that to the booth. let the replay do what it's there to do. i think in the denver game chinney forced a fumble that the refs called incomplete. i watched that replay over and over and it was clearly a fumble. that's the whole point of replay let the play finish. then make the correction if needed. i don't think they refs should be able to call a play dead making it unreviewable. all suspect plays should be reviewable and let the replay determine the out come of a play. not some old dude that was clear on the other side of the field and can't see that far in the first place. that bothers the shoot out of me. so does letting players jump on downed player after the play is over, that needs to stop also.I agree...it was signaled a touchdown! Watch the game again and you'll see a ref right next to the play NOT call him down and run with Chinny and signal a touchdown! It should've stood as such and allow the Ravens to challenge to try to get the right call, which wouldn't have overturned the fumble, non fumble, but they would have ruled Chinny down by contact. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjakq27 Posted October 15, 2009 Author Report Share Posted October 15, 2009 Did anyone else think this was a thread about Coach Cowher coming back to coach ??Ha, never thought of it from that angle. Heard a rumor that if Rush is able to buy the Rams, that he would offer the job to Cowher.And as for the play in question, it was handled very poorly. Thankfully it didn't affect the outcome of the game this time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArmyBengal Posted October 15, 2009 Report Share Posted October 15, 2009 Thanks, I had all but figured I was the only one who was thinking in those lines... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cincy9275 Posted October 15, 2009 Report Share Posted October 15, 2009 Did anyone else think this was a thread about Coach Cowher coming back to coach ??Ha, never thought of it from that angle. Heard a rumor that if Rush is able to buy the Rams, that he would offer the job to Cowher.And as for the play in question, it was handled very poorly. Thankfully it didn't affect the outcome of the game this time.rush is not buying anything. the group making a bid for the rams dropped rush from their group. then rush would have been a minority owner. meaning he has no say so in who coaches or plays for that team. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.