What do you think??
Printable View
What do you think??
I think that Goodell will closely follow the results contained within this poll
I didn't think it was, But it was borderline, even watching the replay. Even so too much is being made of it. Even if they gave Arizona the ball back, they would be at the 35 after the penalty was assesed.
What are the chances they score in that situation? 1 in 100, 1 in 1000? maybe not even that much.
With Larry Fitzgerald, Boldin, and Breaston I think their chances are better than what you put it as. Warner could've thrown up 35 to 30 yards and I think Zona was killing on the pass, the game ain't over until it hits 00.00 on the clock.
Good Poll
Quote:
Originally Posted by gRYFYN1
agreed with the Big Bomber here... warner EASILY could have thrown it up. plus dont forget... if they called it an inc pass there would be a few mor seconds left. 30-35 yards is NOTHING for warner and when you have those 3 recievers you just toss it up.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheBigBomber
don't forget that a pass interefernce penalty on said pass would give the cards the ball at the 2Quote:
Originally Posted by TheBigBomber
i understand it's an opinion thread, but they confirmed that it was a fumble. Should they have reviewed it? Sure. But like every play inside 2 minutes the booth looks at every play, and maybe they already knew it was a fumble, so why stop the game, when they didn't need extra time to look. I don't have any doubt in my mind it was a fumble, but I'm sure others do, and that's why the NFL came out and confirmed the ruling. Like I said, maybe the booth didn't feel the need to delay the inevitable when they knew it was a fumble in the first place. If they were unsure I really think they would've looked at it again before the kneel.
I also understand that a majority of football fans, well anyone not a fan of the Steelers wanted that so BADLY to be an incompletion. The game was great, and to have it come down to 1 final desperation play would've made this Super Bowl even better. but, the NFL did come out and confirm the call later. So, yeah.
The point is they should have at least reviewed the play for the integrity of the game...
To say he could of "easily" done that is way off the mark .. no team can ever under any circumstance "easily" complete a 30 yard pass. Let alone when the defense know the ONLY thing the offense can do is attempt a pass into the endzone.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheNamelessPoet
People waaaaaaay over estimate the chances a team has in that situation. Sure it woulda been neat to see, but, again, the cahnces of coming away with a score/penalty is well south of 1%.
I do agree with that! what's the harm.Quote:
Originally Posted by OregonDuck1989
but if the people upstairs reviewed the play, like they do every play under 2 minutes of each half and found nothing, why would they stop the game to just "delay it" so that the fans don't have to worry.
If they decided it wasn't worth reviewing that it was clear, then why delay the end of the game?
It looked pretty clear to me that his arm was moving forward but he did not have controll of the ball. It was a fumble. just pushing the ball forward does not make it a pass.
Because it was controversial, a close play and also, oh yeah, the last damn play of the Super Bowl.Quote:
Originally Posted by lebsoccer02
The review official takes a look but he doesn't "review" it. He takes a quick look and sees if the play needs further review. The play was incredibly close, and could have gone either way.
The fact is, the play needed a review. The Cardinals were not likely to win, and I agree after a CLOSE look it appears as though Warner did lose the ball but the review official needed to take an extra look. Seeing as how it was the biggest game of the year and it was an extremely close play.
Look pretty clear cut that at the moment he started moving his hand forward the ball was already being knocked out of his hand. As much as Warner and Arizona fans wished it was an incomplete pass, it looked pretty clear cut that the ball was coming out before he even started the forward motion.
no it wasn't a fumble
or just to put any controversy at rest.Quote:
Originally Posted by OregonDuck1989
it was a fumble. clearly. also, they claimed they 'did' review it. those in the replay booth didn't even deem it worthy of a lengthy referee review. it was clear cut.
It was a fumble...his arm started coming forward after the ball came out. And they DID review it...upstairs, as they do with every play in the last 2 minutes. Just because the ref didn't get under the hood doesn't mean the play wasn't reviewed...trust me, it was.
i didnt say he could complete it... i just said he could have easily thrown it upQuote:
Originally Posted by gRYFYN1
It wasn't a fumble it was clearly an incomplete pass
Actually, the review judge takes a look at the play according to the rules on instant replay. An actual "review" as judged by said rules is 60-90 seconds. So therefore, it wasn't reviewed as per the rules and definition of a "review". The review judge has an instant replay to see if its a close play. If every play is reviewed there should never be a delay in the last two minutes. Not every play is reviewed, every play is re-watched.Quote:
Originally Posted by Arctic Blast
Honestly, the Holmes catch was reviewed, and that was more clear cut then the Warner fumble. So why not?
It was looked over, but not reviewed.
Honestly, if it had been reviewed we wouldn't have this damn poll so they should have at least reviewed it.
I don't see the point of reviewing a play 'just cause'. No matter what you feel about the result of that play, there is NOT enough definite evidence to say it's an incomplete pass that it would have been overturned.Quote:
Originally Posted by OregonDuck1989
I agree, it was a fumble. But the fact is, they reviewed the Holmes catch, and why? Because it was game defining and it was CLOSE. The Warner play was CLOSE and GAME DEFINING therefore it should have been reviewed! What's the problem with reviewing it? Seriously, is that such a big deal? I don't see the point of not reviewing it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Arctic Blast
It was the last play of the Super Bowl for crying out loud. At least save us the controversy that we now have by reviewing it!
So they didn't 'review' it they 'rewatched' it???? Are you kidding me? I guess it depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is right?Quote:
Originally Posted by OregonDuck1989
It was 'rewatched' (if you like that terminology better) and deemed clear cut thus not worth the time necessary to have a 'review'. Every analyst, former player, etc. I've heard since that was not associated with the Cards agreed it was clear cut. It was a fumble. Whats the big deal? In fact....i wish they would 'rewatch' these things more often because many of the challenges throughout the season are 'reviewed' and lengthen the game too much as they are clear cut.
I understand where everyone is coming from but like ragecage and I have said numerous times. Save us the controversy of this final play. I mean jeez, we have a poll and two discussions in THIS FORUM ALONE.
The Holmes catch was reviewed and that was way more clear cut on a second look then the Warner fumble. But they HAD TO REVIEW IT because it was game defining.
In my opinion, they blew it by not reviewing it. It was a fumble, but please, like I have said save us the controversy, save us the Cardinals press bitching, save us this poll and discussion and review.
all in all...i have to say this is right. even if during the 'rewatching' it was clear to them, its the final play of the superbowl. why give the perception that you're rushing things and not reviewing a controversial call? it was controversial, because you have warner up there screaming that he threw it. Just review it. i have to say....while i think its trivial, it would help avoid this type of nonsense.Quote:
Originally Posted by OregonDuck1989
it wasn't a fumble, but they should have AT LEAST looked at it.
Second, he DID NOT get 2 feet down. His right foot was on the bottom of his left shoe. It never touched the ground. Arizona has a right to be mad.
what game are you referring to?Quote:
Originally Posted by cartman00000001
oh the Arizona San Fransisco game where Montana............what game do you think I'm talking about?????Quote:
Originally Posted by dickay
lol not a fumble.
From what I saw, both toes dragged.Quote:
Originally Posted by cartman00000001
I thought both feet dragged, too.