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

[Phishfan]

^ 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.

Warner can throw the ball 44 yards with ease I bet.

[CF DolFan]

44 yards is not far by any NFL QB standards.  If you want to see elite start looking over 65 -70.

[StL FinFan]

Ok but how often does a Hail Mary (the play not the prayer) actually work?

[Phishfan]

It doesn't work oftern but with one of the best receivers at making acrobatic catches lining up on the field I really would have like to have seen an attempt.

[StL FinFan]

As Dphins4me said, the call could gone either way.  We could debate this forever because everyone sees things differently.  If I knew all I would hear was whining and complaining, I would have supported the Cardinals because this is worse. :p  All of St Louis was supposed to be cheering for them but I guess I did not get the memo.  I do feel bad for Warner though.  He is a class guy.  At least he has his one ring.

That is all.

[Thundergod]

All of St Louis was supposed to be cheering for them but I guess I did not get the memo.

'Cause you hold grudges?   

[StL FinFan]

'Cause you hold grudges?  

Exactly!

[Brian Fein]

I don't see how the ball came out prior to the fumble.  It moved in his hand but was still in his hand when it went forward.  The video shows it very clearly, his fingers got compressed on the ball, causing it to rotate in his hand, but the last two fingers and thumb were still clearly in control of the ball.

Incomplete pass.  Terrible non-review.

[landlocked]

I thought it looked like the ball was knocked out of his grasp then as his hand came forward the ball kind of fell against his hand as it continued forward in his throwing motion.The call could've gone either way,but was called fumble on the field,therefore there had to be indisputable evidence that Warner had the ball in his grasp and that his arm was going forward.I was rooting for Arizona but,regardless of the terrible officiating,I fell that the Cards failed to stop Pittsburgh and the Steelers deserved to win.That game winning catch was lights out,wow!

[Dolarltexas]

From what I've read, if the play had been called an incomplete pass, then the Cardinals would have had the ball 1st and ten at the 29 yard line because one of Pittsburgh's players removed his helmet while on the field.  He was assessed an unsportsmanlike conduct penalty.  Warner could have easily reached the end zone from the 29.

For what it's worth, I thought it was an incomplete pass. 

[StL FinFan]

Just to play devil's advocate, if the ruling was an incomplete pass, I doubt the guy who took of his helmet in celebration would have done that.

[NADS]

Probably not but if the call got overturned the penalty sticks, right?

[Dphins4me]

From what I've read, if the play had been called an incomplete pass, then the Cardinals would have had the ball 1st and ten at the 29 yard line because one of Pittsburgh's players removed his helmet while on the field.  He was assessed an unsportsmanlike conduct penalty.  Warner could have easily reached the end zone from the 29.

For what it's worth, I thought it was an incomplete pass. 

  If its called incomplete then the player is not celebrating the win & does not take his helmet off.

As I posted earlier.  Obviously it could have been called either way since we have such a wide variety of opinions, so really can anyone argue either way.

[Phishfan]

  If its called incomplete then the player is not celebrating the win & does not take his helmet off.

As I posted earlier.  Obviously it could have been called either way since we have such a wide variety of opinions, so really can anyone argue either way.

I think he means after a review in which case the penalty had already happend like NADS said.

[Spider-Dan]

  If its called incomplete then the player is not celebrating the win & does not take his helmet off.

The penalty is what it is, regardless of the result of the play.  Recall the play in CLE vs. KC a few years back... the player "thought" the game was over because he saw 0:00 (and ostensibly would not have taken off his helmet if he knew the play was still live), but the play had not ended.  That does not excuse the penalty.

If what you are claiming were true, Harrison could have turned around and lit into Warner after the play had ended.  I mean, since he thought the game was over and the penalty wouldn't make a difference (PIT would still keep the ball and kneel it out), it's OK, right?

Personal fouls and unsportsmanlike conduct penalties don't work like that.