I can't believe there isn't more outrage on the terrible call on Cotchery's fumble. First that it was ruled a fumble and then the lame explanation that it wasn't reviewable. Since replay came into the game I have seen hundreds of reviews/challenges to whether a player was down prior to fumbling. How is not reviewable. When that play happened I was expecting a flag for unnecessary roughness for the maniac LB who crushed Cotchery. That play set the tone for the rest of the game imo.
yeah I said to myself why is the ruling not - if the player was down before the fumble. The explanation that a recovery is not reviewable is bull shit- i wonder what the answer is if we don't ask if Cotchery recovered the fumble but rather just ask of cotchery was down by contact I agree that call just instilled the fact we were flat and gave life to denver often weeks that you are gonna come out flat or might let down a bit you need to avoid pitfalls early and not give the other team added momentum that is exactly what that call did.,
It isn't reviewable, and I thought it was a fumble at first, too. The ball came out that quick. It would have taken a review to change the refs' minds, that's how close it was. And I think we need to stop crying about the refs in this game, I seem to remember Ty Law mauling their wideouts on a number of occasions and he wasn't called.
I'd rather believe it was too early in the game to dictate anything, but that's not entirely true. Mike Perreria better give a damn good explanation about this.
They said it wasn't reviewable because Cotchery never recovered the fumble.. so technically it was Smith's fumble. It was bushleague, but it is what it is. Looking at the replay you can clearly Cotchery had control of the ball when the LB hit it out from under him.
How does that make things better? I mean, just because there were bad calls for both teams doesn't make the refs seem any less competent.
You answered your own question. The question was not whether he was down before he fumbled like you said you have witness in replays. He clearly already had fumbled the ball, the question was if he had recovered the fumble before he was hit by the defender. The refs ruled that he had not recovered possession of ball before the defender came in and poked it away. By rule you cannot challenge a fumble recovery so they could not review they play. If you ask me the rule is not a bad one. Say there is a fumble and the usual pileup ensues, you will have coaches challenging who recovered the fumble everytime with players in a big pile, that wont fly. The problem here is that the dumb ass refs couldnt figure out that because Cotch was laying on the ball he clearly had possession, they assumed for some reason that he did not.
I was and still am totally pissed at that call. It was one of the worst calls I have ever witnessed in any sport. I came to the realization long ago that our opinions as fans don't mean jack sh*t to the nfl. So I just drink a few more beers and try not to think about it.
I guess I would question the application of the rule to that play. It wasn't a crazy loose ball in a random pile up. I believe the review should have been allowed under the down by contact premise.
Yeah it sucks but i guess they cant do it on a case by case basis. He can only be ruled down by contact if he first has possession of the ball. The refs ruled he never had possession so he couldnt possibly be down by contact. Its a shitty technicality and I think something should be done about the rule.
It doesn't make things better, but when you bitch about bad calls across the board instead of coming off like we lost because of the refs, then you are making sense. "That play set the tone for the rest of the game" We didn't lose because of the refs. We lost because we SUCKED.
LOL! Law DID maul a guy on the broncos in the end zone and it wasn't called. I like Ty but it seems like after every pass play the WR he defends has to tuck his shirt back in.
agreed. and it really shouldn't be that hard for anyone to comprehend why that play isn't reviewable. it's pretty simple.
Yeah no sh*t eh.... There' probably one review per game on whether or not a player was down by contact before he fumbled.... I'd like an explanation from stupid ass Pierrera on that one. I hate that prick he never admits the refs botch a call.
how dense are you morons? it has nothing to do with whether or not he was down but whether or not he had possession of the ball.
I'm still confused on this. How can you not challenge if he had possession of the ball? There's a challenge every game on whether a receiver made a catch (i.e. does the player have possession of the ball??). There's a challenge every game over whether the player was down by contact or not. To me, this covers this scenario in full. It should be reviewable whether he had possession, pass or run, shouldn't matter. There are reviewed challenges all the time on whether a receiver ever had possession when he gets hit and the ball comes loose. This is the EXACT same principle.
i guess it's different cause it's a fumble recovery (we can all agree that he did fumble at least) and not catching
It's not really about possession. The rule is that you can't challenge a fumble recovery. If you could, every time there's a dogpile, a red flag would be thrown.
