The "non fumble" call in the Raiders London game

[Followthelegion]

OK - I like to think I have a pretty good grip of the rulebook and can normally predict / understand how rulings are going to down which are officially reviewed. However, I was at Wembley yesterday for the game and was unsure over how the fumble/non fumble should have been officiated.

A couple of points:
1) In my view the ball was punched by the Seattle defender while the receiver was in bounds with no part of the player 'down' and it looked like the ball must begin to be coming loose at this point. Therefore, it should have been ruled a fumble.

2) Then we come to the complicated business of a 'clear recovery by the defense'. The tackler was very close to being out of bounds, from the few replays I saw he was lying on top of the receiver with his feet in the air when touching the ball (so therefore don't think you can call it Raiders ball at that point), but it was unclear if he put a foot out of bounds at somepoint before he touched the ball trying to recover it. Does he have to "re establish himself in bounds" or is that only applicable to offensive players?

Also as the whistle blew before the Seahawks actually picked the ball up, is that sufficient to say you can't award the ball to Seattle?

To be clear I know the refs decided it WASN'T a fumble as the player was down (completely disagree but there we are), so point 2 is irrelevant, but I was trying to figure out how it would be officiated if it was called a fumble on the 2 specific points I raise in 2) above.

 

[Mad Dog]

The recoverer was a big lineman not the tackler. It was after the whistle. They could have just declared it was a fumble but no recovery was made until after the whistle if they wanted too (even though there was no Raider around the ball other than an unconscious receiver). Instead they made the asinine call of no fumble which was painfully obvious it was a fumble.

Dean Blandino on TV strongly disagreed with that interpretation and said it could have gone either way with the recovery business but he would have favoured a fumble and recovery by Seattle.

 

[Followthelegion]

The recoverer was a big lineman not the tackler. It was after the whistle. They could have just declared it was a fumble but no recovery was made until after the whistle if they wanted too (even though there was no Raider around the ball other than an unconscious receiver). Instead they made the asinine call of no fumble which was painfully obvious it was a fumble.

Dean Blandino on TV strongly disagreed with that interpretation and said it could have gone either way with the recovery business but he would have favoured a fumble and recovery by Seattle.

Yeah that's why I'm unsure on the recovery as it was after the whistle but there was literally no Raider in the picture who could have prevented Seattle recovering. Does common sense come into play or is it a black-white rule? "No recovery before the whistle blew and therefore defense can't be awarded possession".

 

[BullHawk33]

It was a fumble. I think they just wanted to stop the bleeding at that point since it was "questionable". It looks like that crew and the folks in the national office that help need a little bit of a remedial training after that.

These are not the kinds of football games that I would think the NFL would want in London.

 

[BChawkfan]

It was a fumble. I think they just wanted to stop the bleeding at that point since it was "questionable". It looks like that crew and the folks in the national office that help need a little bit of a remedial training after that.

These are not the kinds of football games that I would think the NFL would want in London.

In my eyes,those refs looked dim witted and made the NFL look silly in front of the London crowd.
When the ref announced that the play stands as called after the review, he called second down then looked at his fingers and saw he was holding up three fingers and said "or third down". Like there was a choice.