[phoenixrising]

exactly... what those 3 photos don't show is the travel of the ball after he lost control... it was a fumble, it was loose, then gurley stepped out of bounds, but the ball was still in play, it didn't travel out of bounds where gurley did, instead the multiple replay angles appeared to show the ball hit on the inside half of the pylon before it went out of bounds, i.e. a touchback... anyway, personally, i thought gurley was a bit cavalier with the ball on that play, it hurt.

You don't think Gurley was still contacting the ball when he stepped OOB? That's what the photos attempt to show. And they are hard to see, but looking at the play again it was clear to me that he did. So it did not matter after that what the flight of the ball was, whether it hit the pylon, etc.

[aeneas1]

Yes, Gurley lost control before stepping out of bounds so it was a fumble. BUT, after doing a little research, the rule states that if an out-of-bounds player touches a live ball, the ball is immediately dead(out of bounds). While Gurley did not have control, he was still in contact with the ball as his foot touched OOB so the ball should have been dead at that point and Ram ball near the goal line.

yeah, i think that is indeed the rule, but the "3 photo" thing doesn't conclusively show that he touched it when he went out, or after he went, lots of dark shadow in the there, the replays, which were at a better angle, appear to show that he lost it and never touched it once he stepped out... but if that's not the case it appears the refs blew it.

[aeneas1]

ha ha, damn, we keep posting at exactly the same time... my first post wasn't in response to yours, yours just hit right before mine, ha ha... anyway, i've got gamepass, i'll see if i can post the replays...

[phoenixrising]

You make the call...

I'm defining his foot out of bounds because his front cleats have disappeared into the grass. When you watch it in motion the ball is squirting from his fingers like a watermelon seed. So his fingers are closed as the ball leaves. And the ball is about a foot from the goal line at this point.

OK, so it's a close call.

[aeneas1]

I'm defining his foot out of bounds because his front cleats have disappeared into the grass. When you watch it in motion the ball is squirting from his fingers like a watermelon seed. So his fingers are closed as the ball leaves. And the ball is about a foot from the goal line at this point.

OK, so it's a close call.

yeah, i think i'm with you, just wish it wasn't so damn close, so damn close that it gave the zebras a chance to muck it up..

[dieterbrock]

What is infuriating to me is that the call on the field was touchdown.
So they hadn’t to have indisputable proof to overturn.
It’s clear he didn’t score a td I’ll give them that, but how it’s indisputable that he fumbled prior to going out of bounds is beyond me.

[majik]

I would have burned a timeout, call the ref over to have him explain to me when why a player's foot is OB and the ball still appears in the player's hand, you made this call. I am assuming the Rams coaching booth could see this.

It's about getting it RIGHT. Plus if the ref had the balls to reverse his reverse, I would have loved to see Carroll's reaction to that.

[dieterbrock]

I think we will get the obligatory "apology" from the league office this week about that call.
He clearly is still touching the ball when his foot hit.
And the ruling on the field was not fumble, so to over turn that they needed indisputable evidence
Really sucks

[PARAM]

anyway, personally, i thought gurley was a bit cavalier with the ball on that play, it hurt.

It was a fumble so that could be. I thought he was simply trying to extend the ball over the pylon (which he almost did) and didn't take into account a whack on the arm could dislodge it or the possibilities of what happened could happen. I'm not sure how many "scorers" or "playmakers" know the rule and how easily a score can be taken away because of that occurrence.

[rams74]

Well they clearly had enough that was indisputable to justify overturning the on-field ruling of touchdown. Beyond that, the ball is definitely coming loose before he steps OB, so fumble. After that, whether there was still contact with the ball while he was OB, that is definitely unclear and a very fine nuance. Once the referee makes his call, though, it's no longer a scoring play, so technically, I suppose McVay could have thrown the red flag and challenged that call. And they would have had to review it again. That would have been fun to see a review -- challenge -- re-review.

Either way, I am fully aware of the rule that a fumble into the endzone with no recovery equals turnover and touchback. But I have never understood it. It just makes no sense to me. What justification is there for giving the ball to the other team, when our team was the last to possess the ball in the field of play? Does anybody know, or can anybody think of a reason for this rule? Because I can't.