Why was that not deemed a successful onside recovery by Funchess?

[Jangler]

if he had tried to cover up the ball instead of trying to keep the ball alive, maybe...but hey still 2 scores down.

minutia 

[brandon_87]

2 minutes ago, CatTower said:

Exactly.  He had possession, then he went out of bounds(play is dead), then he flipped it up to Jacobs(irrelevant, but does demonstrate he had control).

As he got it... Not to be confused with he already had it... He never secured it before the flip up. Refs made the right call, hate to say it, but they did.  Did the miss a few others? Of course, but the onside was a good call

[RumHam]

Its called hurricane katrina and you better feel for that city

[CatTower]

1 minute ago, brandon_87 said:

As he got it... Not to be confused with he already had it... He never secured it before the flip up. Refs made the right call, hate to say it, but they did.  Did the miss a few others? Of course, but the onside was a good call

I consider him having both hands under the ball as securing possession.  The NFL states that all it takes to secure possession is to have firm control of ball and have a body part inbounds.  It was a split second, but it was there imo.

I do think it's close and could see it from both sides.  The NFL should stick with the call on the field(Carolinas ball) unless there is clear evidence that he never had possession. 

[RumHam]

Then the offsides non call. Take your katrina ass back to swamp

[heel31ok]

3 hours ago, CatTower said:

ARTICLE 7. PLAYER POSSESSION

Item 1. Player in Possession. A player is in possession when he is inbounds and has a firm grip and control of the ball with his hands or arms.

yeah when he is in bounds

[heel31ok]

1 hour ago, CatTower said:

NO ONE complained because NO ONE could believe the miraculous play just made by Devin Funchess.  I'm still sitting in disbelief at how he was able to do that, yet the proof is there. 

he was out of bounds