Question on the Flacco fumble that was overturned

[AEGBRG]

That was correct call, but since it was ruled incomplete, shouldn't that have been intentional grounding since he literally threw the ball to the ground? Is there anyone that is more familiar with the rules that can explain that one? Not that it matters, but I am just curious. Thanks.

 

[VCU2000]

His arm was hit I believe.

 

[AEGBRG]

His arm was hit I believe.

That's right. Thanks.

 

[Zounds]

Why was this play automatically reviewed? It wasn't under 2 minutes, it wasn't a scoring penalty, and the Ravens dint throw a challenge flag? I thought in those cases they go with the call made on the field, which was a fumble.

 

[Dolph N.Fan]

I believe all turnovers are reviewed. It was the right call but....they quickly called it a fumble that I didn't think they would overturn it. cliche I know but for some reason if that was Tannehill instead of Flacco I don't think they overturn that call.

 

[Zounds]

I believe all turnovers are reviewed. It was the right call but....they quickly called it a fumble that I didn't think they would overturn it. cliche I know but for some reason if that was Tannehill instead of Flacco I don't think they overturn that call.

Thats right I think that started in 2013

 

[KTDolphins]

It was the right call, but since it was ruled a fumble I believe they do not have to call the intentional grounding. Had it been ruled an incomplete pass, then they would have probably had to take the penalty.

 

[Michael Fei]

As stated previously, his arm was hit. Remember the penalty is INTENTIONAL grounding. If the QB throws the ball at the ground as his arm is hit, the referees can't tell if the grounding is intentional.

 

[Etuoo33]

It still amazes me that they watch the replay over and over and not pay attention to the guy holding the guy who hit the QB?

 

[gofins60]

It still amazes me that they watch the replay over and over and not pay attention to the guy holding the guy who hit the QB?

I think that penalties should be reviewable. The league automatically reviews scoring plays and turnovers because they want to "get it right", so why are penalties (which can have a huge effect on a game) ignored? So what if it adds a few more minutes to the game... that's more $$$ from commercials.

 

[finfan54]

thats so they can call things like "illegal man downfield" twice when there is pure evidence to the contrary. Which therefore screws the team that they do not favor.

 

[SCLSU Mud Dogs]

I believe all turnovers are reviewed. It was the right call but....they quickly called it a fumble that I didn't think they would overturn it. cliche I know but for some reason if that was Tannehill instead of Flacco I don't think they overturn that call.

You can't honestly believe that, can you?

I hate when fans start crying "it was the Illuminati!"

 

[Zounds]

You can't honestly believe that, can you?

I hate when fans start crying "it was the Illuminati!"

Well we have seen cases of corrupt officiating in the NBA, MLB, and in the World Cup. I wouldn't put it past some NFL officials to make favorable calls to particular teams at critical moments. I'm not saying that happened yesterday, but I'd bet money that somewhere along the line of NFL history there has been an official who called an illegitimate penalty. Its not rampant, but I'm sure its happened.

 

[Bumpus]

The homer in me woke up this morning, still yelling FUMBLE!!!

 

[Buddy]

It still amazes me that they watch the replay over and over and not pay attention to the guy holding the guy who hit the QB?

Yahtzee! If our D-lineman wasn't held so obviously, he would have hit Flacco before he ever got his arm back. That should have been a holding call at the least.