I saw where someone brought this point up, and I thought it was an interesting point.

In the 1st quarter, CB Alexander hit the ball carrier and seemed to make them fumble the ball, but the refs ruled he was down on the field. The Packers challenged that the ball carrier fumbled the ball... the refs ruled that replay clearly showed that the ball carrier DID fumble the ball... (but "no clear recovery").

But... the refs DID change the call on the field to match what the Packers officially challenged... so didn't they technical win that challenge? Even if they don't get the ball, they challenged the refs for missing a fumble, and the refs admitted to it... so technically, they won, and no timeout should have been taken away.

Of course the head of the NFL refs, disagrees, claiming based on NFL rule there must be a turnover as well... or the Packers lose... (but he's said things that all the other high profile refs have disagreed with, so even if he's technical right in this case, I don't trust him)

For example, when he says there was not clear recovery, watch in that above video that Sullivan covers it, and then hands it to the refs in the below video

---

A buddy of mine was over watching the game with me. I was telling him the same thing. Ruling on the field was no fumble. Challenged it, they called it a fumble. In my opinion, we won the challenge whether they gave us the ball or not.

I guess maybe the wording that LaFleur gave the refs matters? Like if he challenged that we fumbled and recovered, instead of just challenging that there was a fumble? Who knows.

---

I cannot find the explanation. From what I remember, the challenge can only be "won" if there is clear recovery by the team that initiated the challenge. Personally, if there is no clear recovery, I think the timeout and challenge should be vacated.

---

I am not sure of the exact wordmanship of the rule, but the spin I was hearing from the NFL was that during the play, i.e. BEFORE THE SCRUM, there had to be a clear recovery.

We got hosed, but won anyway.

---

It’s one of those situations where they should’ve let the play go and reviewed it automatically.

And if there’s no clear recovery on replay & it has to be “clearly recovered” before the “scrum”, why do the refs dig through the pile to see who has the ball on other fumbles? Shouldn’t they have seen the clear recovery before there was ever a pile up, by that logic?

You are right, KRK, that’s why they didn’t say there was a clear recovery. I’m just being a smartass.

---

It's a bad rule and a horrible interpretation. I hate how the NFL does things one way some of the time and another way other times. Ie: dig through the scrum to see who came up with the ball on plays they don't review. The only thing they should review is did the carrier fumble before being down or not. If he did and the other team comes out of the scrum with the ball that must mean he is the guy who recovered the fumble.

It seems like the NFL makes stuff up as they go along. 2 similar plays can have 2 different outcomes.

---

This is one of the reasons, except for Packers games, that I don't subscribe to the NFL product.
The only reason that I'm still watching NFL games at this point in time is that the Packers are in the playoffs.

Pertaining to the NFL and the game, but not this topic. Anyway, Davante has spoken about the final 3rd down conversion! And I loves it!
 image.png You have insufficient rights to see the content.

---

Watching that gum chomping SOB cry like a baby on the sidelines maybe the most satisfying moments of the season for me.

---

You are underestimating how good it feels beating the bares and vikies twice a season.

---