Super Bowl: Why was the game-ending fumble not reviewed?

[Dphins4me]

Watch it again.  The defender and o-liner fell backwards due to the defenders forward motion.

No disrespect here, but I hope you have went back & watched it again.  I just did.  It was worse than I originally thought.

The Cards DT was being blocked by the center.  He was blowing up the center & the center fell & pulled him down with what appears to be both hands.  His left wrapped around the guys neck & holding his shoulder pad, his right on the guys side..

Sorry, but it was holding.

[StL FinFan]

^  I agree it was holding and I was pulling for the Steelers.

[Dave Gray]

I agree that the holding in the endzone was blatant.  He grabbed the guy's jersey and fell over.  Done and done.

[JVides]

If you guys want to talk about bad calls you also need to lump in the holding in the end zone.  Neither player held the other, the defensive tackle knocked over the offensive linemen and fell over.  That wasn't holding, it should have been 1st and 10 from the 18 and not a safety.

I thought that was a take down, Maine.  Grab a guy by the shirt and fall, taking him with you.  To me, that was holding.

[StL FinFan]

Some say there is holding on every play, it just depends on if you get caught doing it.

[fyo]

Regarding the fumble-that-wasn't-reviewed... I think "fumble" was probably the right call with the "empty hand" argument. If the QB loses control of the football BEFORE the ball moves forward, he needs to regain control or a fumble will be called - even it the quarterbacks "shot puts" it forward.

That said, I think it was a terrible decision not to review it. And it WASN'T reviewed. The replay booth guys looked at it, sure, but apparently decided it wasn't worth taking to the refs and delaying the end of the game. Horrible decision.

[Brian Fein]

Agree that it was a horrible decision, but disagree that it was a fumble.  It seemed pretty clear to me that the ball was still in his control, although maybe not in throwing position, as it went forward.  Bad call.

[Dave Gray]

They supposedly did.

Al Michaels claimed that the review booth confirmed that it was a fumble.

Did they confirm it after the game was over?  The refs didn't leave the field and go to the little tent thing.

[fyo]

Did they confirm it after the game was over?  The refs didn't leave the field and go to the little tent thing.

I'm not sure what there is to confirm. The replay booth is tasked with looking at EVERY SINGLE PLAY inside 2 minutes. If they deem it necessary, they will initiate a booth review. The referees on the field then look at it and come up with a verdict.

Unless the replay people were SLEEPING, they de facto confirmed the fumble. I'm going to assume they were not, in fact, sleeping and so, yeah, they obviously didn't feel there was even a remote chance the play would be overturned.

[Tenshot13]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pS2cQnytZ90

You be the judge...I disagree with this video's assessment, but it has the best view I've see so far on whether it was a fumble or not.

[myami54]

Had to be the fastest replay review ever.

[bsfins]

Well I thought it was a fumble....The nose of ball starts parallel to the playing field,then gets turned perpendicular to the playing field while his arm is going forward.....It's like running back ,is it coming loose before his knee hits the ground..if it is..it's fumble...

The football moved before his arm went forward.....

my two cents....

[Frimp]

Thats funny. 

[Dphins4me]

  Lets me put it this way.  Had they called it a pass I could not argue against it.   Just as they called it a fumble & I cannot argue against that. 

Personally I thought it was a fumble because the ball came out prior to the arm moving forward.

Also, there were 5 secs left & they were on the 44.  So its not like they had a high likely hood of scoring.

[StL FinFan]

^ true

I don't think Warner could chuck it all the way to the endzone from there.  One of those wacky lateral laced plays may have scored but the chances would be very small.