One of the most controversial plays in yesterday's Texans-Colts game was the Ryan Moats fumble near the Colts goal line just before the two-minute warning in the first half.
The Texans were down 13-0 but had driven to the Colts 10-yard line. On 1st and goal at the 10, Matt Schaub took the snap with the clock at 2:30 and threw a quick out to Moats who caught the ball at the 8 and headed toward the corner of the end zone.
Moats was hit at the 3-yard line by Colts defender Antoine Bethea and both players hit the ground and rolled out of bounds at the 2-yard line.
Moats, however, lost control of the ball before he hit the ground. The ball, which stayed in bounds as Moats' and Bethea went out of bounds, rolled toward the end zone and was picked up by another Colts defender, Jerraud Powers.
Powers had also stepped out of bounds during his pursuit but when he saw the loose ball, he hopped back in bounds and picked up the ball as it was laying on the goal line.
The officials blew the play dead at 2:24, apparently based on the observation that Moats was out of bounds at the 2. Bethea got up and could be seen saying something to the officials -- something like 'that was a fumble.'
You can watch the play full speed and the official explanation on this video from NFL.com.
The CBS broadcast showed two quick replays immediately after the play, and on the second one, color analyst Solomon Wilcots commented that Moats fumbled while in bounds. I saw the same thing.
The next thing we saw on the broadcast was the Texans lined up at the 1 1/2 yard line ready to run a play on 2nd and goal. The clock, now re-started since it was still outside of two minutes, was rolling at 2:14. At about 2:08 you can see Schaub get the message in the helmet to let the clock run to the 2:00 warning.
I wrote yesterday how the Texans coaching staff blew it by not running a play at that point and eliminating the possibility of a replay reversal.
At his press conference today, Kubiak stated that they weren't aware of a potential issue.
"Well, I think hindsight obviously is 20-20; we'd like to have done something. I know that we didn't think there was an issue there," said Kubiak. "We thought he was out of bounds, we were moving forward. I can't speak for the Colts, but I'm not sure they knew there was an issue there, neither, until we got to the two-minute warning."
As I said in yesterday's entry, anyone watching the CBS broadcast was aware of a potential issue the minute they showed the first replay just before they re-started the clock at 2:24. Wilcots was all over it. I said enough about that yesterday.
Then, of course, once the 2:00 warning hit everyone was all over it, including Colts head coach Jim Caldwell who challenged the play coming out of the 2:00 warning.
Texans fans worst fears were realized as the officials confirmed it was a fumble in bounds, but their attention then focused on the player who picked up the ball (Powers) and his position on the field.
The officials ruled the play a touchback because Powers touched the ball as it was laying on the goal line before he fully re-established in bounds with two feet down (the official explained that he had only one foot down when he touched the ball). The ruling would be the same as the recovery of a loose ball at the back or side of the end zone by a player who has a foot out of bounds. Verdict: Touchback -- Colts ball at the 20. And seemingly the right call.
But here's what the officials missed that should have made Powers' touch of the ball a moot point. The loose ball contacted Bethea's left arm as he tackled Moats and while Bethea's right leg was out of bounds at the 2-yard line. That means it should have been a dead ball there (based on the same rule they applied to Powers - just at the 2 and not in the endzone). Whatever happened after Bethea touched the loose ball while he was out of bounds is irrelevant. During the review, not only should it have been ruled a fumble, it should also have been ruled a dead ball at the 2 because of Bethea's touch (Texans ball).
Here's a photo I posted yesterday by Tom Strattman of the Associated Press. As you can see, the ball is already out. Moats is still in bounds and isn't down because he's laying on Bethea (41) who's in the process of rolling out of bounds at the 2-yard line. Also notice that Bethea's left forearm is in contact with the loose ball and that Bethea appears to be on or very close to the sideline. The only problem is that it was difficult to tell from this angle whether Bethea was really out of bounds. There was a similar replay angle shown during the broadcast.
I went back and reviewed the play on my DVR about 50 times and was able to capture the following image from the CBS broadcast which shows the opposite angle at the precise time that Strattman shot the photo above. The lower image clearly shows that Bethea's right leg was out of bounds while in contact with the loose ball at the moment the upper photo was taken. Bethea's right elbow (that fuzzy black spot - he was wearing a large pad on his elbow) was also on the white line. Immediately after this screen capture - as Bethea is even further out of bounds - you can see Bethea's left arm move backward and push the ball toward the goal line where Powers (25) was waiting.
.jpg)
If there are any Zapruder conspiracy theorists out there who doubt the images are from the exact moment in time, check out the position of Moats' feet, the position of the ball on his left wrist, the position of Bethea's left leg and the angle of Bethea's back to the ground.
During his presser today, Kubiak said that the Texans have contacted the league regarding the call.
"We basically filed our report," said Kubiak. "The bottom line, (the officials said) that the ball was not touched by anybody who was out of bounds. Or if it was, it was only touched by Ryan (Moats), who was on top of another player. We thought looking at it that 41 (DB Antoine Bethea) is touching the ball and he's out of bounds. So we'll hear back from them."
It will be interesting to see if the clarification (if any) is made public. You can bet I'll be watching NFL Network Wednesday evening to see if Mike Pereira addresses this on his Official Review segment.
Of course there's nothing anyone can do now. But it would be nice to hear an official explanation of the part of the play where Bethea was in contact with the loose ball while his leg was clearly out of bounds.
Comments
I said it when I saw the fumble. There was a shot on the first replay, if you look, where I think actually Powers touched the ball as he went out of bounds. Which in and of itself should've negated this whole fumble nonsense. Your evidence in light of the fact this was on instant replay is intriguing.
That play would've resulted in Texans on the 4 yard line. A score there, and we most likely put ourselves in position to win the game without needing that last second field goal.
People will harp on the fact that the Texans should've lost the game anyways, but this isn't the first time the Texans have had bad calls hurt them. This season has been riddled with some pretty outrageous calls by the guys in stripes, but the best teams win in spite of that.
I'd hate to be our opponents in two weeks. This team will be chomping at the bit for redemption. I'd hate to be the opposing QB. He's gonna get Cushed...multiple times.
Good work on this. Also, even if a fumble, the ball should have been downed at the half yard line. He picked up the ball in the endzone but brought it out before going out at the half yard line. Could have meant inning them back and the Texans getting 7 instead of 3 on the ensuing possession.
I'll admit I was so down after the game that I just assumed the officials got this right. I didn't want to be like the Titans fans who cried because they thought the Jacoby Jones flub was a bad call against them. Thanks for shedding some accurate light on the matter.
@JMay, it was a fumble, no question. The reason it was ruled a touchback was because Powers went out of bounds before returning to the field of play and the officials said he had only one foot down when he touched the ball as it was laying on the goal line. So it was not a 'legal' recovery. I watched the video a million times and it's really hard to tell whether Powers had one or two feet down when he touched the ball. If he would have had two feet down, then yes, the ball should have been placed at the 1/2 yard line because he jumped back out of bounds after picking up the ball.
@Sean R. - I looked at that and I don't think Powers touched the ball as he went out of bounds. It's like his natural reaction was to grab it but the trajectory and spin on the ball doesn't change so I don't think he hit it.
As a Texans fan, I would like to think that this is an outrage and that it is important. The reality is that this happened before the half. We came back in the second half to take the lead, only to give it up with stupid mistakes that were less than controversial. This is the NFL. There are always close calls like this. Sometimes they go your way and sometimes they don't. I hope the players and coaches do not use this to ease their pain about the loss. As fans, we SHOULD be complaining about the terrible amount of penalties the Texans incurred at no fault of the refs, not the close call of a fumble in the second quarter. Don't be a baby Texans. Put the blame where it belongs. On the coach.
As for the article... Well done on the analysis Mr. Burge. Please don't think I am taking anything away from the fact that you wrote a good article. Plus, we'll get em next week. Go Texans!
@Marty
I wouldn't be complaining about this call if it wasn't reviewed. The whole point of an official review is to get the call right. If the guy in the booth can't look at all the angles and come to the right conclusion, then there is something very wrong with their system. It needs to be rectified and everyone should be made aware of the rule.
I think what happened is the official was looking for the fumble, which clearly occurred before Moats was out of bounds. But then he didn't analyze whether the ball was dead from it touching Bethea. He went on to determine Powers' effect on the spot/touchback etc and Indy ended up with the ball.
If I was the coach, and my guy upstairs told me what the monitor showed, I would have thrown the challenge flag on it. If nothing else than to be defiant and make a statement.
Also note that the refs called this as a touchback. The touch back occurred when the clock was at about 2:24. But after the reversal, they never reset the clock. The Colts possession started from the 20 with 2:00 on the clock. While irrelevant to the reasons they blew the call, it shows a complete lack of effort on the part of the officials to get these disputed calls complely right. I don't believe they ever even considered whether the ball touched Bethea. If they had, they would have realized the replay was inconclusive, and they would have given it "play stands" rather than "play confirmed."
"Houston,we have a problem!"
Obviously the Texans didn't pay off the refs enough,before the game. Remember Houston,"it takes money to make money[win games].
How do you think we get off to such great starts every season? Jim Irsay has very,very deep,deep pockets & the refs just love to bet on these games,so they kill two birds with one stone.
Coach Dungy
There is no evidence that Bethea is out of bounds when he is touching the ball. You can use the bottom picture, but the bottom picture doesn't show Bethea touching the ball at all. There has to be clear evidence. I think you are making a far reach.
<p>Great analysis as always AJ.</p>
<p>I'm no conspiracy nut so I certainly don't think that anyone is "out to get" the Texans, but this was definitely a bad call. The fact that Bethea was out of bounds in contact with the ball didn't even occur to me at the time until the guy sitting next to me brought it up. I think Chris B. is right. The official was probably so focused on the fumble and touchback that he didn't think to look at whether all that was even relevant because the play was already dead. That's not an excuse. He needs to get it right.</p>
<p>Also, Kubiak saying that "we didn't think there was an issue there" doesn't wash. You need to assume that the Colts will challenge a fumble on the goal line. Run a dive play on a quick count or whatever. Just run a play; maybe you'll even catch the Colts off guard and score.</p>
<p>Bad officiating and bad coaching potentially cost the Texans 7 points. That's nothing to sneeze at. Points are hard to come by in the NFL.</p>
Also note that the refs called this as a touchback. The touch back occurred when the clock was at about 2:24. But after the reversal, they never reset the clock. The Colts possession started from the 20 with 2:00 on the clock. While irrelevant to the reasons they blew the call, it shows a complete lack of effort on the part of the officials to get these disputed calls complely right. I don't believe they ever even considered whether the ball touched Bethea. If they had, they would have realized the replay was inconclusive, and they would have given it "play stands" rather than "play confirmed."
The Colts are constantly getting generous calls. this is just another example of poor officiating that effects the outcome of games. It is sad to see.
If you have the booth take the time of the video where u see him touching the ball and freeze frame the other angle at that exact same time you knew he was touching the ball then you can easily tell he was out of bounds. That is your evidence. You don't need to see both at the same time as long as the videos are synched... which they are.
Tony said, "There is no evidence that Bethea is out of bounds when he is touching the ball. You can use the bottom picture, but the bottom picture doesn't show Bethea touching the ball at all. There has to be clear evidence. I think you are making a far reach."
It is just the opposite. The original call was that it was a dead ball. To overtun the call, it had to be indisbutible. The refs had to prove that, without a doubt, that it wasn't touched by a player out of bounds. The answer to that is that it wasn't clear, so the call on the field stands.
I know you need "indisputable visual evidence" to overturn the call on the field and the call on the field was that the runner was out of bounds. Clearly he wasn't out; it was a fumble so I get that; but there is no way (at the time) you could tell without question if the ball touched Bethea while he was out of bounds. I guess my question is does the ref need "indisputable visual evidence" on that part of the review (separate from the fumble) or if they can just use best judgement at the time? My thought would be that the refs would need 100% visual evidence throughout the play to overturn the call on the field...I hope my question makes sense...
I know you need "indisputable visual evidence" to overturn the call on the field and the call on the field was that the runner was out of bounds. Clearly he wasn't out; it was a fumble so I get that; but there is no way (at the time) you could tell without question if the ball touched Bethea while he was out of bounds. I guess my question is does the ref need "indisputable visual evidence" on that part of the review (separate from the fumble) or if they can just use best judgement at the time? My thought would be that the refs would need 100% visual evidence throughout the play to overturn the call on the field...I hope my question makes sense...
The play was whistled dead... If Whistled the play cannot be challenged... End of discussion
The point that is being missed is that the whistle blew and the referee spoted the ball where Moats was allegedly out of bounds. They never declared that a fumble and the Texans were not given a chance to recover the ball. Moats was standing there and he never makes a move towards the ball like players will when they think a fumble has occured. Typical for Houston to get the raw end of the deal. Let me remind all you Steeler fans who THINK you have 6 Super Bowl victories. You have 5 legitimate; one you stole from Houston....remember Mike Renfro in the back of the endzone...in bounds. You know...the play the NFL uses to justify the use of instant replay when questioned.
Now, when Peyton comes in here in a couple of weeks you remember this play. Make him pay for the bad call that could have cost you the game. As a Houston sports fan I'm fed up with other teams getting the benefit of calls against us.
Bottom line is Moats was in the game because Slaton can't hold onto the ball and what does he do, FUMBLE!!! Maybe we should hire a consultant to come in and teach our Running Backs how to hold on to the ball!!!
Looked like a great play by Powers to me. Even if it wasn't a fumble, it's impossible to know what would have happened next. It doesn't work that way.
You can't say beyond a shadow of a doubt that Bethea is out of bounds, in the 2nd picture, it actually looks like his leg is up in the air, and not touching out of bounds, it also looks like his righ arm is up in accordance to the 1st picture, and not touching out of bounds. Moats was the last person in possesion and to touch the ball. This is smoke and mirrors from a Texans writer too.
"You can't say beyond a shadow of a doubt that Bethea is out of bounds"
On the contrary, you can't say conclusively that he isn't out of bounds. That's the point. The ruling on the field should not be overturned by inconclusive evidence. That's how instant replay is supposed to work. The ref blew the whistle and called the play dead for a reason.
What everyone is missing is since the ref whistled the play dead, and the runner out of bounds at 2:24, why didn't the clock stop? If the runner was out of bounds, how was Kubiak able to make the decision to allow the game clock to run down to the 2 minute warning? Based on the ref's original call, the game clock should have been stopped, and it should have been 1st and goal from the 1/2 yard line. Under this scenario, which based on the refs call should have been the right scenario, the Texans have to run a play and the Colts never get 4 minutes to review the call and subsequently challenge.
@Chris B.
On the contrary, the ruling on the field was that there was NO fumble, not that there was a fumble out of bounds. Once the ref ruled there was a fumble (for which there is conclusive evidence), he then reviewed to see whether the ball was fumbled out of bounds or into the end zone. As the head of officiating for the NFL points out in a video available at NFL.com (the examiner won't let me link it here)(at the 2:46 mark), the officials specifically reviewed the film to see if the ball was ever touched by a player out of bounds and (looking at it from every angle, not just the angle on Burge's DVR) found that it was never touched until Powers touched it on the goal line.
@Chance re: "What everyone is missing is since the ref whistled the play dead, and the runner out of bounds at 2:24, why didn't the clock stop? If the runner was out of bounds, how was Kubiak able to make the decision to allow the game clock to run down to the 2 minute warning?"
--------------
That wasn't missed. I wrote about it in the detail of the play. The clock DID stop at 2:24 when Moats was ruled out of bounds. They placed the ball at the 1 1/2 yard line and started the clock (by rule) since it was still outside of 2:00. The clock only stays stopped inside 2 minutes in the first half and inside 5 minutes in the second half.
All of this is great and all and makes some good points, but it doesn't provide indisputable evidence. Oh, wait. He was rules out of bounds, so there must be indisputable evidence in there that says he fumbled... uhhhhhhh. Ooops.
Doesn't matter what really happened. There is no way to conclude what happened. The original call on the field should have stood. THAT was the BIG error.
do we really expect the officials to review the video "50 times" and compare it to still photos from various angles DURING the game to make/correct the call. I think not. It was a wild play that was difficult to call correctly in real time.
@Marc, they don't have time to do what I did but it was obvious from Pereira's explanation that the crew focused on 'where the ball went' after it was fumbled (and Powers position on the field) vs. where Bethea's right leg was when the ball was coming out. A little more scrutiny at the 2 yard line may have resulted in a different call. A more on the ball Texans coaching staff would have run another play before 2:00 and rendered this all moot.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!