View Full Version : Question for those of you who watched on TV. Was it a fumble?
10-15-2000, 08:32 PM
I just got in from KC and I haven't got to read much on this subject, and I know the game is over, we lost pure and simple. But watching that so-called fumble replay on the Arrowvision made it clear that it wasn't a fumble at all. So for those of you watching on TV, just for curiousity's sake, what did it look like to you?
10-15-2000, 08:42 PM
I didn't think there was "indisputable visual evidence" that Morris did NOT fumble; hence, the call should not have been overturned, in my opinion. In other words, I thought the refs would uphold the original ruling, and they did.
10-15-2000, 08:42 PM
One angle showed it starting to come a bit lose just as the knee touched. I do know this. If the play were the other way around, with the Chiefs on defense and the Raiders on offense, and they would have over ruled the Chiefs recovering the fumble and left the ball with the Raiders, there would be lots of bitching that it was a fumble.
Very close call that would have been hard to overturn either way depending on how the play was called on the field.
10-15-2000, 08:44 PM
Exactly right, Coogs!
10-15-2000, 08:46 PM
I posted this on the other BB, I saw the thing enough times to know this is pretty solid.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Helvetica, verdana, ariel">quote:</font><HR>On the replay on the TV what happened was the Raider player hit the ball, Morris still held on just the ball was at a diff angle in his hands. When the ball hit he hit the ground (and sliding forward against it) so did the nose of the ball on the outside of his body, and it came out. The ball twisted in his hands when it was hit, but never moved again till it hit the ground.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
It looked to me on the reply like Morris's knee was pretty clearly down before the ball came loose. While it was not clear whether or not he still had possession when his arm collided with the ground, it definitely seemed to me that when his knee hit the turf he still had possession. That being said it was an extremely close call that certainly could have gone either way, but from my angle it seemed to me that it should not have been a fumble.
trying to judge the replay objectively, and not as a disappointed Chiefs fan.
Yes! That is exactly what I saw too. Woodson reached in and grabbed at the ball, and some people may have thought he dislodged it there but that was not the case. The ball moved 90 degrees in his arms but he still clearly had possession of it.
10-15-2000, 08:55 PM
revolver - It was obvious that his arm was locked under the ball the entire time, the refs blew it completely, even when they saw it on replay. I'm hoping to see at least three public apologies from the NFL, Gannon passing past the LOS, not overturning the fumble and the Gannon TD when the lineman was down field. All complete blown calls by the officials.
10-15-2000, 09:00 PM
Morphus and Revolver,
That is why the call would have been hard to overturn either way it was called on the field.
If the rolls had been reversed, and the Raiders would have "kept" possession at the 15 with 3 or so odd minutes to play in the game, would you have argued it was a fumble because the ball was turning in his arms as he hit the ground?
The homer in me wants to say it was not a fumble. The rationalist in me wants that ball to belong to the Chiefs if the rolls are reversed in the future. The defense holds down there, and we still win.
10-15-2000, 09:03 PM
GH, It was not a fumble. His knee was down all the way. But, that aside, we still should have won......
10-15-2000, 09:04 PM
Coogs - Which goes to my solution that all Refs must be sacrificed for the greater good. I have yet to determine if they are just looking to screw us or what, but it sure seems that way. I really like the idea of fining them for that crap.
Might have argued that he fumbled it if it was a Raider, but I like to think not. It was definitly not a fumble.
10-15-2000, 09:11 PM
The ball was partially dislodged prior to his knee touching the ground and that's why it was called a fumble. I can't believe it wasn't overturned but I refuse to use it as an excuse for the loss. We lost because the prevent D prevents you from winning.
In defense of the D, I am not sure that the set we were playing can really be described as a "prevent" D. It looked to me that our approach was containment, especially in the area of containing the QB's scrambling abilities. If Gannon had run for 90 yards and a TD everyone would be griping that our D overpursued. The bottom line to me in losing this ballgame was the fact that our offense scored not one point in the second half. Against a potent offense like the Raiders', 17 points just ain't gonna cut it. We have looked sharp in the fourth quarter this year, but just one TD in the final frame and the game was probably ours.
[This message has been edited by revolver808 (edited 10-15-2000).]
10-15-2000, 09:29 PM
Thanks for the response guys. As I said, I clearly thought it was not a fumble. But I'm sympathetic to the view that there was not CLEAR evidence that it was NOT a fumble. I think the refs should have reversed it, but understand why they didn't.
Maybe it's time to scrap replay?
10-15-2000, 09:34 PM
gh - No, not time to scrap it. I do believe it is time to put it up in the booth instead, where the refs have no involvement with what is part of the game. I think they could be more unbiased, in fact I would make them differnet crews that don't stick with the same on field crew, that way they can't build up a relationship that would let them have a call slide for the feeling of the other refs.
10-15-2000, 09:38 PM
And have a written rule preventing the fraternization of the two crews.... Great idea, Jeff. Everyone is human. To overturn a playcall is to admit error. Nobody wants to admit they were wrong and if the play is close, you are obviously going to have bias to that one direction.....
10-15-2000, 09:40 PM
That's a pretty good idea Morphius. Clearly today's game is good evidence to show that the current system is not working.
And before you Raider fans say I'm making excuses for the Chiefs, I'm not. We got beat I accept that. But as a fan of the game, I'm sick to death of bad officiating having this kind of impact on the games, whether it's in my favor or not.
10-15-2000, 09:44 PM
Kloster - You nailed it on the head, nobody wants to admit they are wrong, and to admit you were wrong by your own choice is almost impossible for many people. Just look how people still complain and blame this loss on Grbac on the other BB as proof.
10-15-2000, 11:00 PM
I think its kinda like a house push. When they review a play and the call was obviously right, the play stands (positive review). If the play is obviously wrong, its overturned (negative review). If its a close call (neutral review), the play stands. So it only gets overturned when its obviously a bad call. The play stands both when its obviously wrong and when its a close call. The house has a distinct advantage.
Didja notice the Chiefs only scored in the second quarter? 1st-0, 2nd-17, 3rd-0, 4th-0.
Raiders scored in all quarters except the 2nd, Chiefs scored in no quarters except the 2nd.
10-15-2000, 11:09 PM
Just pathetic that Chef fans will actually have to resort to "cheering" for the refs to reverse that call. We lost get over it. The play was close --don't fumble next time.
We shouldn't know their names, their numbers or have to hope they make the "right" call. The Raiders don't quit any more so we have to play 60 minutes.
PS: Fire Schottenheimer --those defensive calls on the last drive were like castrating a stud bull..
10-15-2000, 11:13 PM
You might be Chef, but I'm not.
10-16-2000, 09:05 AM
Were you all watching the same game I was? Of course that was a fumble. Not even close. Don't be such "homers" about this. The ball was coming out way before his knee hit the ground.
10-16-2000, 09:09 AM
It was clearly a fumble. It was so obvious that I couldn't believe Gunther wasted a challenge on the play.
The refs are no scapegoat in this loss.
10-16-2000, 09:20 AM
No it wasn't clearly a fumble...but it wasn't clearly not a fumble either...inconclusive to the play stands...
I honestly don't care what anyone says about the reasons we lost...we lost because we could not hold on to the ball...Not because of Jano or Gannon or our defense or anything else...plain and simply, we couldn't hold the ball when it mattered....no fumble = at least 3 points and in all likely hood a victory...YOU HAVE TO HOLD THE DAMM BALL...
"The word "genius" isn't applicable in football. A genius is a guy like Norman Einstein."
-Joe Theisman, NFL football quarterback and sports analyst
10-16-2000, 09:25 AM
If wishes and buts were candy and nuts, what a great day it would be. We didn't deserve to win the game the way the defense played. We allowed them too damn many plays and couldn't stop them when we needed to.
What kind of defensive changes are there going to have to be to stop or slow down Faulk?
I am really kind of nervous about the Rams game now since the Raiders game is over.
[This message has been edited by bkkcoh (edited 10-16-2000).]
10-16-2000, 09:30 AM
The fumble was clear. No doubt about it at all. I was yelling at Gun for wasting a challenge before the ruling was announced.
10-16-2000, 09:41 AM
Wouldn't say it was all that clear. On my cheap VCR looked like Morris was pulling the ball back in before he hit the ground. Could see that Morris had his arm around the ball, and the ball was underneath him when his chest hit the ground. THATS when the ball popped out, and his knee was already on the ground.
It was close, it was a judgement call, we lost. We should not have let them back in the game regardless of this play.
Sad, very sad.
vBulletin® v3.8.0, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.