Question re: Stewart fumble play

[Argus Plexus]

Doesn't matter anymore

[Hawk]

mmmm..... doubtful... I don't believe Rivera would be smart enough to think that way. He was probably texting at the time.

hi honey...I'm at work right now, I can't really be texting...you know, I'm on national television.

oh really...the cat threw up in the bedroom again, I'm sorry to hear that, maybe we need to change her dry food...umm...but anyway, I have to go, I'll see you after work ok...

yes...I'll be coming straight home and I'll get a quart of milk on the way

ok ok ok...I have to go.

[The NFL Shield At Midfield]

that's what I was wondering when I first saw it too...if the illegal touching was called...would they overturn the recovery and give the ball at that spot to the Hawks or just add on the penalty. Not sure if I remember that happening before...but then...my memory card is full and slow

you know, whether or not the officiating crew could turn the ball over is something i hadn't considered.

i'm leaning ever so slightly toward "no" due to a scenario i remember from a steelers/dolphins game a few years back-i think it was the first season where plays with a player whistled down could be reviewed for fumbles which might have been 2009 (edit: it was 2010). the crew ruled that the steelers clearly fumbled but there was no "clear recovery" of the ball by miami and as such it was turned back over to pittsburgh who scored on the next play. i remember it because my uncle is a huge dolphins fan and he was shitting bricks over it for a week.

in this case though, there was a clear illegal touch which does not count as a recovery by an eligible player. however, the seahawks obviously did not have an eligible player recover either. i'm not too clear as to whether the crew could then turn the ball over to the other team after a replay review because doing that in real time would be contingent on a flag being thrown.

[Montsta]

I should ask mike pereira on twitter about this. Does anyone know the time/quarter when this happened?

[CRA]

what would happen in this case though since it wasn't a scoring play? i don't know if it'd be ball placed at the spot of the touch in light of the illegal touch seen in the replay or ball placed at the spot of the fumble because there wasn't a "clear recovery" in the sense of an eligible player recovering the ball when the play was whistled dead on the field.

Well, I assume that means an illegal touch is something they can enforce upon a review since they did it against NE. It would be a penalty from the spot of the illegal touch I woud assume.

[JawnyBlaze]

I'm almost positive they couldn't have given it to Seattle since no Seattle guy recovered it. They can't say "well a Seattle guy COULD have gotten it if not for the illegal touching, so let's give it to them." Whether it should have been a penalty for illegal touching, I dunno.

[Herbert The Love Bug]

I would have to say we're cursed.

I would have to agree

[Marguide]

I'm almost positive they couldn't have given it to Seattle since no Seattle guy recovered it. They can't say "well a Seattle guy COULD have gotten it if not for the illegal touching, so let's give it to them." Whether it should have been a penalty for illegal touching, I dunno.

Agree. They couldn't do that. The only choice would be to enforce an illegal touch penalty against us, and if Stewart did indeed go out of bounds, that would have been an appropriate call.