Please explain the Felix recovery review?

by SDTrueblue on Nov 15, 2009 6:45 PM CST

Preface : This is not a post about how the Refs lost us this game. It would be extremely short sighted and moronic to blame the loss on the Refs. I don't understand this specific play call and it was pivotal in terms of getting back in the game. But, it was certainly not the only thing... injuries (yikes), poor execution, drops, blocking, Scandrick..etc etc etc..

But.. I was in a bar in San Diego and was watching the Chargers beat the Eagles (Thank god) and I couldn't hear the audio. All I saw was that the play was not reviewable..

I like the believe I have a pretty substantial grasp on the rules, even as they change from season to season and I don't understand how that play is not reviewable.

Could someone explain it to me for future reference WITHOUT BLAMING THE REFS. It was a big play for our comeback hopes and for the life of me I can't understand how it wasn't reviewable.

Thanks for your input...

Good news about next week..

1. I'll be way more productive in my personal life. (Now that I'm not trying to soak up all the Cowboys love :) )

2. Washington and then oakland are a great remedy for what ails this team.

Another user-created commentary provided by a BTB reader.

Tweet Comment 22 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

I'm equally bewildered about that.

Not sure I buy the line from Triplett that they can’t review the play; was it because Dallas wasn’t challenging that T.R. fumbled it away? They should have just challenged the spot where the GB player wound up. I was under the impression that once you challenged a play that the whole play was reviewable, not just the little part that you were challenging.

by mrbelk on Nov 15, 2009 6:55 PM CST reply actions

And how about it taking 4 minutes

for the referees to figure out GB was out of challenges? It’s not hard: 1, 2!!

Greetings from the Humungus, the Ruler of the Wasteland, the Ayatollah of Rock and Roll-A. I laugh at your puny plans.

by Lord Humungus on Nov 16, 2009 11:38 AM CST up reply actions

The explanation was

That fumble recoveries on non-scoring plays are somehow not reviewable.

Not sure why that would be a rule, but that’s what they said.

by Key19 on Nov 15, 2009 6:56 PM CST reply actions

It would have still been a 2-score game...

Methinks that the big fat “Sorry” from the league for completely botching that call will ring a little hollow through the halls back at Valley Ranch.

Even if they had gotten that call right the first time; it was still a 2 score game and our offensive offense had shown no ability to mount a respectable drive.

Oh, and that ridiculous “hands to the face” call on Jenkins after Scandrick blew up Rodgers was pathetic. Now that was a call that changed the game.

by mrbelk on Nov 15, 2009 7:02 PM CST reply actions

They ruled that Felix never had possession.

If they had ruled that Felix recovered it and fumbled it again, it would have been reviewable. But apparently the rules say that you can’t use replay to determine possession on non-scoring plays.

by Baked Potato Soup on Nov 15, 2009 7:15 PM CST reply actions

yea thats what i got out of it.

completely ridiculous. There are still some kinks to work out with instant replay.

Officials should’ve been able to call that right.

by foyesboys on Nov 15, 2009 7:18 PM CST up reply actions

So..

In theory…

If..after felix was stripped …

Greenbay had recovered in the end-zone then it would have been reviewable?

by SDTrueblue on Nov 15, 2009 7:19 PM CST reply actions

and then overturned

by SDTrueblue on Nov 15, 2009 7:19 PM CST up reply actions

I don't think so.

Because their ruling was never that Felix got stripped. Replay can’t be used to determine who has possession of the ball, unless it is recovered in the end zone. At least that’s the way that I understood it.

by Baked Potato Soup on Nov 15, 2009 7:31 PM CST up reply actions

If thats the case.....

Then the system is flawed.
EVERYTHING SHOULD BE REVIEWABLE……Bogus

You'll never get in a traffic jam,while going the extra mile. -Roger staubach

by TrueBlue24 on Nov 16, 2009 5:38 AM CST up reply actions

Hmm interesting...

Thanks for the input as always gents!

Anyone else has a handle on this feel free to let us know

by SDTrueblue on Nov 15, 2009 7:40 PM CST reply actions

I didn't understand the rule

myself and the explanation sounded even more stupid. As expressed earlier, with the way the offense was playing, it is doubtful that it was a game changer. It’s more like when you are having a bad day and a bird craps on you. The bird didn’t cause the bad day , but he didn’t help it either.

by oldboysfan on Nov 15, 2009 7:58 PM CST reply actions

Apparently, the refs blew the call and ruled that Felix never recovered the fumble.

Once that was the case, they couldn’t review it.

by Fernie67 on Nov 15, 2009 8:13 PM CST reply actions

+1

That’s all I can think of too. What a horrible call.

Greetings from the Humungus, the Ruler of the Wasteland, the Ayatollah of Rock and Roll-A. I laugh at your puny plans.

by Lord Humungus on Nov 16, 2009 11:40 AM CST up reply actions

Refs were calling a tight game

and they sucked. That is a bad combination but for some reason the cowboys couldn’t take advantage of GBs 300 holding calls and the calls against us were killers.

Not being able to punch it in from the 1 yard line is the worst offense of the evening, IMO. That and RWs complete lack of big play ability/stone hands.

by Billito on Nov 15, 2009 8:25 PM CST reply actions

i think it was only like 4 holding calls….probably should have been closer to 300 though

by DavidLaFleur on Nov 15, 2009 8:34 PM CST up reply actions

Yep...

They were hooking our defensive players all over the place. They couldn’t block us but they could hold us and the refs missed several obvious ones. We still should have won in spite of the refs but that definitely didn’t help our cause.

If I had a nickel for every Super Bowl the Eagles have won, I would have zero nickels.

by Cowboyfan729 on Nov 16, 2009 8:56 AM CST up reply actions

i believe the same thing happen to the chargers last year

I believe since it was ruled a fumble and a change of possession it could not be reviewed… kinda like double jeopardy. But you know they had to take a crucial play out the game from us since they believe McNabb got the first down.

cant lie though that call put a hole in our chest……. a fatal wound just could not recover… All those RW busted plays, offsides, pentalties, and miss chances this was the one>>> the shot to the dome>>> the stroke that left half the body paralyze. The Alpha to the Omega. THE END

Although i stated earlier we probably might not have done anything if we would have gotten the ball back i dunno.

Bc our D playd well that call just broke our D bc we gave up that TD.

by lostar2009 on Nov 15, 2009 8:57 PM CST reply actions

The ridiculous part about that whole play is that if you watch the play

there is clearly a ref coming in to call Felix down but he gets taken out by a player before he can blow the play dead. As a result, the side judge allows the play to go on and the rest is history.

If I had a nickel for every Super Bowl the Eagles have won, I would have zero nickels.

by Cowboyfan729 on Nov 16, 2009 8:55 AM CST reply actions

What the refs should've done to save face

Was to call Felix down where he was (even after the fact), and then review whether Felix had fumbled and allowed GB possession at the 3.

This way, now there are TWO distinct football plays on that possession, and the refs CAN review whether it was a fumble or not. Of course, this would all be academic because Felix was down, and Dallas would get the ball back for 3rd-and-long.

Le sigh.

Upgrade to a BTB Platinum Account to view this signature.

by accidental innuendo on Nov 16, 2009 9:39 AM CST reply actions