Question for those of you who watched on TV. Was it a fumble?

elvislivesinkc · 10-15-2000, 07:32 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?

------------------
Gary

10-15-2000, 07:42 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.

Mi_chief_fan · 10-15-2000, 07:42 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, 07:44 PM

Exactly right, Coogs!

milkman · 10-15-2000, 07:46 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>

Wrasse · 10-15-2000, 07:48 PM

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.

Mark-
trying to judge the replay objectively, and not as a disappointed Chiefs fan.

Wrasse · 10-15-2000, 07:49 PM

morphius-

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.

Mark

milkman · 10-15-2000, 07:55 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.

Mi_chief_fan · 10-15-2000, 08:00 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.

VAChief · 10-15-2000, 08:03 PM

GH, It was not a fumble. His knee was down all the way. But, that aside, we still should have won......

milkman · 10-15-2000, 08:04 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.

Gracie Dean · 10-15-2000, 08:11 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.

Wrasse · 10-15-2000, 08:17 PM

KPhobia-
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.

Mark

[This message has been edited by revolver808 (edited 10-15-2000).]

elvislivesinkc · 10-15-2000, 08:29 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?

------------------
Gary

milkman · 10-15-2000, 08:34 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, 07:42 PM	#2
aaaaa Guest Casino cash: $	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.
Posts: n/a

10-15-2000, 07:42 PM	#3
Mi_chief_fan There was an idea..... Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Murfreesboro,TN Casino cash: $9942966	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.
Posts: 3,517

10-15-2000, 07:44 PM	#4
aaaaa Guest Casino cash: $	Exactly right, Coogs!
Posts: n/a

10-15-2000, 07:46 PM	#5
milkman Dumbass! Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Leading the Marty bashing Casino cash: $10029395	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>
Posts: 70,769

10-15-2000, 07:48 PM	#6
Wrasse Starter Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Flower Mound, TX Casino cash: $4563794	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. Mark- trying to judge the replay objectively, and not as a disappointed Chiefs fan.
Posts: 499

10-15-2000, 07:32 PM
elvislivesinkc Veteran Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: hollywood, ca 90028 Casino cash: $10004900	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? ------------------ Gary
Posts: 1,100

10-15-2000, 07:49 PM	#7
Wrasse Starter Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Flower Mound, TX Casino cash: $4563794	morphius- 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. Mark
Posts: 499

10-15-2000, 07:55 PM	#8
milkman Dumbass! Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Leading the Marty bashing Casino cash: $10029395	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.
Posts: 70,769

10-15-2000, 08:00 PM	#9
Mi_chief_fan There was an idea..... Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Murfreesboro,TN Casino cash: $9942966	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.
Posts: 3,517

10-15-2000, 08:03 PM	#10
VAChief Comfortably Numb Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Virginia Casino cash: $5205842	GH, It was not a fumble. His knee was down all the way. But, that aside, we still should have won......
Posts: 5,548

10-15-2000, 08:04 PM	#11
milkman Dumbass! Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Leading the Marty bashing Casino cash: $10029395	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.
Posts: 70,769

10-15-2000, 08:11 PM	#12
Gracie Dean MVP Join Date: Aug 2000 Casino cash: $10004900	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.
Posts: 12,955

10-15-2000, 08:17 PM	#13
Wrasse Starter Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Flower Mound, TX Casino cash: $4563794	KPhobia- 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. Mark [This message has been edited by revolver808 (edited 10-15-2000).]
Posts: 499

10-15-2000, 08:29 PM	#14
elvislivesinkc Veteran Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: hollywood, ca 90028 Casino cash: $10004900	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? ------------------ Gary
Posts: 1,100

10-15-2000, 08:34 PM	#15
milkman Dumbass! Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Leading the Marty bashing Casino cash: $10029395	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.
Posts: 70,769