Final few seconds Grant caught the ball and basically gave up the ball. Edmonton player came over and just took the ball from him. By rule that should be Edmonton's ball unless the Eskimo player touched him before which he did not.
it wouldn't matter. why? because if a whistle would have happened it would have been when the player took the ball. it happened so fast. he just ran up to the player and took the ball from his hands while Grant(receiver from hamilton) was on his back looking up into the sky....
I have to agree. I think the only reason they took pity on it was he went down and looked hurt and was not remotely attempting to advance play, so considered it dead. I agree, it technically should have been a turnover, but it was still the right call IMO.
I can’t find it in the rule book, but is touching the ball when the player is on the ground considered the same as touching the player?
But there is this in the rule book:
[b]RULE 1 – CONDUCT OF THE GAME
SECTION 4 – DEAD BALL[/b]
The ball is dead:
• When a ball carrier is on the ground and, in the judgment of the official, is not attempting to advance the ball, the official shall immediately declare the ball dead.
Perhaps it was reviewed, but very quickly. If the rule is as I've always understood, that the ball is considered to be part of the ball carrier, then the play would have been whistled dead as soon as the Edmonton player grabbed it as Grant was on the ground. So no possibility of a fumble, and no need for a long review.
I may be mistaken, but I believe the Football is considered to be a part of the player when he is down awaiting contact, so attempting a strip rules him down by contact immediately. This also of course presumes that absolutely no physical contact, not even a slight tap or brush was made on Grant, nor that the ball was deemed dead by being on the ground, not advancing.