Strange end zone TD rule

So, no blame being thrown towards TSN for having the sound a full two seconds ahead of the video? I still suspect that that lag was what caused the review official to decide that too much time have lapsed between the whistle and the fumble recovery. It wasn't until my thirtieth or so time watching that I noticed the official on the sideline raise his whistle to his mouth and blow it well after I heard the sound of the whistle. No surprise if the review official didn't notice it in the time he he had to make his decision.

So a bad ruling based on what really happened (IMO), but understandable given the technical glitch.

This whole debate raises the problem of having subjective words like "immediate" in the rules when video reply allows WAY too much dissection of a play when the rule is really intended to assist the on-field officials in making real-time judgements. Without specifying an actual time period and when that time starts, "immediate" is meaningless in a video review. The only way it could be logically interpreted as "immediate" is if the player loses control and it really and truly comes into the possession of another player while never being fully "loose" (i.e. goes straight from the last finger touch of player "A" to the first touch of player "B").

Similarly, you can't use replay sound to determine things because the difference between the speed-of-light and speed-of-sound and different placement of cameras and microphones means there is a lag-or-lead between the two that is artificially compensated for (or not at all) in the audio/video recording and playback system and therefore can't be relied upon for exactness of timing.

So, given the subjectiveness of the word it could be logically argued that the recovery was NOT "immediate" and the correct ruling was made. The problem then is consistency of application and ambiguity of the rule.

The related matter is why was the play blown dead when it was? Probably a mistake but that isn't reviewable, so we are left with the fact that the play was deemed to have ended AND the ball WAS fumbled before the player was down upon review, then this mess.

There will definitely be a slight lag between the video and audio, with the audio a split-second later than the video due to the differences in the speeds of light and sound. And that can be accounted for. In this case, the audio was a full two seconds ahead of the video. That had to be a technical issue with the video feed. Maybe they overcompensated for the lag?

If the review officials cannot rely on the audio to let them know when the whistle blew, why put rules in the rule book that require this? If the official who blew the whistle hadn’t been in frame, I wouldn’t have noticed the delay, and we’d still be wondering why the official blow the play dead when the ball carrier was still on his feet moving forward. As it was, the official made a mistake blowing the play dead, but at least it was understandable, as he thought that the player had scored the touchdown. And he was probably kicking himself when he saw the ball pop free, and breathing a sigh of relief when he saw it recovered by a Lions player.

" As it was, the official made a mistake blowing the play dead, but at least it was understandable, as he thought that the player had scored the touchdown. And he was probably kicking himself when he saw the ball pop free, and breathing a sigh of relief when he saw it recovered by a Lions player."…by CatsfaninOttawa

I think that's the best explanation so far!

"" As it was, the official made a mistake blowing the play dead, but at least it was understandable, as he thought that the player had scored the touchdown. And he was probably kicking himself when he saw the ball pop free, and breathing a sigh of relief when he saw it recovered by a Lions player."…by CatsfaninOttawa"

CatsfaninOttawa…

This raises the question: Did the Lions get the ball on the one yard line because a Lions player recovered the ball in the end zone or because the Lions had possession of the ball at the time the whistle had been blown? That is the crux of the matter to me.

In my mind it still comes down to only one of two outcomes:

  1. The whistle blows the play dead. In this case if the ref thought the ball crossed the plane and then blew the whistle then the Lions get the TD after command center confirms it.
  2. Command center confirms that the ball did not cross the plane before the ref blew the whistle. Therefore, the Lions get the ball on the one yard line because the Lions were in possession when the whistle was blown. As soon as the whistle went it did not matter what Logan did with it. Either the ball crossed the plane or it did not. it clearly did not. Therefore the fact that the ball was recovered in the end zone becomes irrelevant and the ref would not have to say the ball was fumbled but not immediately recovered.

Based on the announcement by the referee of the review results, my understanding is that the Lions received the ball at the one because they were in possession of the ball just outside of the end zone when the whistle went. If a fumble before an inadvertent whistle is not recovered immediately, the ball is given to the team that had possession where they had it when the whistle was blown.

Had it been ruled that recovery was immediate, the Lions would have been awarded the touchdown, as possession in these cases is given “at point of recovery with no advance”, which in this case was inside the end zone.