Was the last play a fumble?

[200tang]

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.

[lilbman07]

no it wasn't a fumble

[ragecage]

The point is they should have at least reviewed the play for the integrity of the game...

or just to put any controversy at rest.

[dickay]

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.

[Arctic Blast]

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.

[TheNamelessPoet]

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.

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 didnt say he could complete it... i just said he could have easily thrown it up

[Red Sox Fan 734]

It wasn't a fumble it was clearly an incomplete pass

[OregonDuck1989]

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.

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.

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.

[Arctic Blast]

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.

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.

[OregonDuck1989]

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.

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.

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!

[dickay]

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.

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.

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?

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.

[OregonDuck1989]

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.

[dickay]

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.

[cartman00000001]

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.

[dickay]

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?