Watch the video if you haven't seen it

<a class="bbc_url" href='http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000714747/article/nfl-finds-no-evidence-in-favor-of-browns-on-fumble'>http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000714747/article/nfl-finds-no-evidence-in-favor-of-browns-on-fumble</a>


It's so bad officiating that I didn't even notice it myself at first as I was solely watching the ref assuming they would be watching the play.


This is a joke I actually feel sorry for the Browns. Someone in high places clearly hates them!

---

I watched the video on that page. They are correct that there was no indisputable visual evidence to overturn the call. But why was the ruling on the field Washington ball when officials were right there?

---

I watched the video on that page. They are correct that there was no indisputable visual evidence to overturn the call. But why was the ruling on the field Washington ball when officials were right there?

Would you not call the running back emerging from the pile with the ball before it has been confirmed who recovered indisputable?

---

Would you not call the running back emerging from the pile with the ball before it has been confirmed who recovered indisputable?

 

No I would not. The indisputable visual evidence must be what happened during the play, not who came up with the ball after it.

---

Idk, looking at the replay I see no evidence to overturn it either. Plus it does look like the redskins recovered it.

---

Idk, looking at the replay I see no evidence to overturn it either. Plus it does look like the redskins recovered it.

what?  please point this out

---

what?  please point this out

Ok, so that reads the wrong way. I meant it looked right off the bat that they did. So I totally see why the official called it recovered by them. And the video shows nothing to overturn.

---

No I would not. The indisputable visual evidence must be what happened during the play, not who came up with the ball after it.

Well the play was not over when he came up for the ball, hence me commenting that they didn't stop and say redskins ball until after he had come up with it.

---

Watch the video if you haven't seen it

<a class="bbc_url" href='http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000714747/article/nfl-finds-no-evidence-in-favor-of-browns-on-fumble'>http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000714747/article/nfl-finds-no-evidence-in-favor-of-browns-on-fumble</a>


It's so bad officiating that I didn't even notice it myself at first as I was solely watching the ref assuming they would be watching the play.


This is a joke I actually feel sorry for the Browns. Someone in high places clearly hates them!

 

Actually, it appears that the closest official to the play was the female LJ on the sideline where the play happened.  From her angle, she saw the ball coming out in a forward direction which appeared to be right into the hands of a defensive player.  She is the one that initially signaled the turnover.

 

I think that the error here was the official signaling a change-of-possession so quickly without having a clear view.

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

Well the play was not over when he came up for the ball, hence me commenting that they didn't stop and say redskins ball until after he had come up with it.

 

The only thing that matters is the recovery itself. The referee must be able to see a Browns player recover the fumble to overturn the call. The referee could not see that during the review because it was not possible.

 

One more thing: Once the runner is touched by an opponent, the play is over. So when Johnson got up showing everyone he had the ball, it was dead.

---

Actually, it appears that the closest official to the play was the female LJ on the sideline where the play happened.  From her angle, she saw the ball coming out in a forward direction which appeared to be right into the hands of a defensive player.  She is the one that initially signaled the turnover.

 

I think that the error here was the official signaling a change-of-possession so quickly without having a clear view.

 

Whenever there's a controversial play that impacts the outcome, the NFL rarely (if ever) admits being wrong.

 

Just one example: they invented the "tuck rule" on the fly to cover their mistake.  They admitted as such when years later they decided the "tuck rule" wasn't really a thing anymore.

 

Every time they do something wrong they spin it into "you" being wrong for doubting them.

---

"You do your own thing in your own time. You should be proud."

The only thing that matters is the recovery itself. The referee must be able to see a Browns player recover the fumble to overturn the call. The referee could not see that during the review because it was not possible.


One more thing: Once the runner is touched by an opponent, the play is over. So when Johnson got up showing everyone he had the ball, it was dead.

Yet the referee can make a decision to give the ball to the redskins without seeing a clear recovery from the Redskins?

---

Whenever there's a controversial play that impacts the outcome, the NFL rarely (if ever) admits being wrong.

 

Just one example: they invented the "tuck rule" on the fly to cover their mistake.  They admitted as such when years later they decided the "tuck rule" wasn't really a thing anymore.

 

Every time they do something wrong they spin it into "you" being wrong for doubting them.

 

No they didn't. The tuck rule was already in existence or it would not have been called. That was made very clear in the controversy that ensued. Eleven years later, the NFL voted to delete it from the rulebook. I have no idea how somebody can assume the rule was invented in less than two minutes by the same man who originally ruled it a fumble. Boomer Esiason said this about it: "Good call, bad rule."

 

The NFL admits officiating errors more often than you think. The illegal bat in Detroit was one of them. So were Ed Hochuli's famous error in Denver, the false start non-call in Baltimore, a whistle-blowing incident at New England, multiple clock running errors, and (before Mike Periera retired) the Browns getting four timeouts in the second half.

---

Only a matter of time before they start using full time refs. The fans and owners aren't going to keep standing for this.

---

Yet the referee can make a decision to give the ball to the redskins without seeing a clear recovery from the Redskins?

 

I am specifically talking about the review. During the review, he must be able to see indisputable visual evidence a Browns player recovered the football.

---

Only a matter of time before they start using full time refs. The fans and owners aren't going to keep standing for this.

 

The NFL voted against that idea multiple times.

---

The NFL voted against that idea multiple times.

 

Was this before or after their ratings started plummeting? 

---

Was this before or after their ratings started plummeting? 

 

Before there was a replay system.

---

Before there was a replay system.

 

As much as I dislike Cuban, He called what is currently happening 2.5 years ago.

 

http://www.espn.com/dallas/nba/story/_/i...-implosion

---

Before there was a replay system.

 

Also, the replay system is garbage.

---