When Navorro Bowman knocked the ball out and fell on it, there was no way anybody could possibly doubt he was the last guy with the football. Every angle showed that. That was not the first time I have seen a fumble recovery that would have been overturned if it was reviewable. So why isn't that play reviewable?

 

I would ask this question even if I was rooting for the Seahawks, so don't think I am just upset they won. I am mad that they won because of terrible officiating.

---

Oh please. You can't say they won because of that. They fumbled again on the next play and lost possession anyway.

---

Oh please. You can't say they won because of that. They fumbled again on the next play and lost possession anyway.

 

So what? That was at the one yard line, so it easily could have resulted in a touchdown by the Seahawks. Seattle could have decided to kick instead of go for it too.

---

So what? That was at the one yard line, so it easily could have resulted in a touchdown by the Seahawks. Seattle could have decided to kick instead of go for it too.

Could have. But didn't. I agree that SF should have had possession as Bowman clearly recovered, but it worked out in their favor either way.

---

When Navorro Bowman knocked the ball out and fell on it, there was no way anybody could possibly doubt he was the last guy with the football. Every angle showed that. That was not the first time I have seen a fumble recovery that would have been overturned if it was reviewable. So why isn't that play reviewable?
 
I would ask this question even if I was rooting for the Seahawks, so don't think I am just upset they won. I am mad that they won because of terrible officiating.

You continue to act as if officiating is just so simple, and why don't they meet you're exacting standards.

I think people get so used to seeing replays fifty times, all in slow motion of course, that you think you're infallible.

Try watching a game at real time, at field level, and tell me how simple it all is.

And I guess some fans won't be happy until every play is reviewed and we have five hour games. Did you notice how long the 49ers/Seahawks game took? It's getting as bad as baseball.

And no one won, or lost, because of terrible officiating.

---

The sun's not yellow, it's chicken.

You continue to act as if officiating is just so simple, and why don't they meet you're exacting standards.


I think people get so used to seeing replays fifty times, all in slow motion of course, that you think you're infallible.


Try watching a game at real time, at field level, and tell me how simple it all is.


And I guess some fans won't be happy until every play is reviewed and we have five hour games. Did you notice how long the 49ers/Seahawks game took? It's getting as bad as baseball.


And no one won, or lost, because of terrible officiating.

 

That is why I complained about the play not being reviewable - the fact that at full speed, it is not always obvious who recovered the football but in slow motion, it often is. If that play was reviewable I would not be mad at the zebras for calling it wrong because Jim Harbaugh was ready to challenge it.

---

The Rules say it's not reviewable.  I'd presume that the rule is there because of how reviewable it would be from the replay booth.

---

I was wrong about Trent Baalke. 

The Rules say it's not reviewable.  I'd presume that the rule is there because of how reviewable it would be from the replay booth.

 

I mean why is that the rule? Why isn't the rule that they are reviewable?

---

I mean why is that the rule? Why isn't the rule that they are reviewable?

 

As I said, because of reviewability from the replay booth on some fumbles.  

---

I was wrong about Trent Baalke. 

It's even worse than his leg got crunched over it too. 

---

It's even worse that his leg got crunched over it too. 

 

Double whammy on that play. I did not realize he had a severe injury until they brought the cart out.

 

I read in one article he intercepted it. That does not make any sense because the receiver clearly had possession of the ball before he picked it up.

---

All change of possessions are automatically reviewed, from what I understand. They aren't 'challengable'. Then again, I was driving and didn't see the play.

---

You continue to act as if officiating is just so simple, and why don't they meet you're exacting standards.


I think people get so used to seeing replays fifty times, all in slow motion of course, that you think you're infallible.

Try watching a game at real time, at field level, and tell me how simple it all is.


And I guess some fans won't be happy until every play is reviewed and we have five hour games. Did you notice how long the 49ers/Seahawks game took? It's getting as bad as baseball.


And no one won, or lost, because of terrible officiating.

 

I brought this up in another thread.

 

It is easy for fans watching the game at home with the benefit of slow-mo and multiple replays, while fans/coaches live at the game only have the benefit of 1 maybe 2 replays at best.

 

Some people just dont and will never realize, or understand how fast the live game action is until they see it in person, and while there are LJ's and certain officials who are responsible for monitoring their sections of each plays, there will be some sort human error.

---

Whether someone has a liberal, or conservative viewpoint, a authoritative figure should not lock a thread for the sole purpose to get the last word in all the while prohibiting someone else from being able to respond.

Why? Because the NFL has to have some wiggle room to advance their predetermined,  WWF-like outcomes. my opinion of course. 

 

I was waiting for Hulk Hogan to soon run out onto the field wielding one of those folding chairs to bash over someones head next....and then for Roddy Piper to knock the "referee" out.

---

Why? Because the NFL has to have some wiggle room to advance their predetermined, WWF-like outcomes. my opinion of course.


I was waiting for Hulk Hogan to soon run out onto the field wielding one of those folding chairs to bash over someones head next....and then for Roddy Piper to knock the "referee" out.

If you only knew how dumb you sound.......

---

I think it was technically an interception.

---

When Navorro Bowman knocked the ball out and fell on it, there was no way anybody could possibly doubt he was the last guy with the football. Every angle showed that. That was not the first time I have seen a fumble recovery that would have been overturned if it was reviewable. So why isn't that play reviewable?

 

I would ask this question even if I was rooting for the Seahawks, so don't think I am just upset they won. I am mad that they won because of terrible officiating.

Seattle didn't win because of that one horrible call, which was offset, btw.

---

San fran even ended up in a better position than if they called it correctly as an interception

---

All change of possessions are automatically reviewed, from what I understand. They aren't 'challengable'. Then again, I was driving and didn't see the play.

 

The problem there was they ruled it was not a change of possession and would have if Gene Steratore was allowed to review it.

 

It went like this: Navorro Bowman knocked the ball out of the receiver's hand. Then he fell on it, grabbed it, and rolled on his back, so anybody watched could see he had the ball last.

---

Seattle didn't win because of that one horrible call, which was offset, BTW.

 

The 49ers got lucky there but another bad call - running into instead of roughing the punter, which Mike Periera said was wrong because someone hit Andy Lee's plant leg - did lead to a Seattle score.

---