No. It was a safety, because the ball had been in control of an offensive player prior to the ball entering the end zone and going out of bounds, no different than a punter stepping out of the end zone with the ball. If the offense had controlled the ball in the end zone it still would have been a safety. If the defense had controlled the ball in the end zone, they would have scored a touchdown.
Breaking news?????...uh, another no????
Not only that, Dallas deserved to lose. So thinking they have some sort of appeal is ridiculous.
Last night Dallas, in the shadow of their own goal line through a pass which was completed at about the one yard line. A Seattle player knocked the ball out of the receiver's hands towards and into the endzone. It was initially ruled that the ball was recovered by Seattle before it went out of bounds and so it was a Seattle Touchdown. Upon video review the refs (and everyone else) saw that the ball went out of bounds before it was recovered, and so it was ruled a Safety, two points for Seattle.
Should this play have been ruled a touchback and Dallas given the ball on their 20 yard line?
The announcers, oblivious to everything not whispered into their ears by someone in the production truck, didn't consider this at all. (Just as they didn't consider whether Romo got a first down, or fumbled, after the botched field goal attempt.)
I did a little searching that would seem to suggest that the play should have been ruled a touchback.
The important factor in a safety is impetus. Two points are scored for the opposing team when the ball is dead on or behind a team's own goal line if the impetus came from a player on that team. Examples of Safety: (a) Blocked punt goes out of kicking team's end zone. Impetus was provided by punting team. The block only changes direction of ball, not impetus. http://www.footballbet.net/rules.htmlI'm a Giants fan. I don't really care that much about who won the game. But rules are rules. Seattle got two points for that safety, and they won by one point.Touchback: When a ball is dead on or behind a team’s own goal line, provided the impetus came from an opponent and provided it is not a touchdown or a missed field goal.http://football.calsci.com/TheRules2.html
ML/NJ
Zee game, zee is over my friend.
The reciever caught the pass but while he was trying to secure posession and complete "a football move" (as the rules state) he lost his balance, pitched forwad and regained his balance by placing the ball on the ground.
This was apparently not seen by the officials since they initially ruled it a touchdown after the fumble.
Since this wasn't the call on the field...I think they got it right. A safety...since the Seattle player clearly gained control of the ball THEN stepped out of bounds.
You never know what might have happened, but looking it now, Dallas would have been better off not challenging the original touchdown call. Then Dallas would have got the ball back with a tie game instead of Seattle getting the safety and the ball and the touchdown to go ahead.
The ball was never possessed by the defense, so there's no way it could be a touchback. In this case, once the ball went out of bounds the last team to possess it was Dallas. The ball is placed at the spot it left the field of play; hence it is a safety.
Give it up. Seattle won. Dallas lost. Romo cries and Parcells is finished. And that's all there is to it.
Dallas had no business winning the game...period. It's an embarrassing statement on the NFC that Dallas and Seattle are even in the playoffs.
You can't make that claim against the city that's mastered victimhood!?
What a heartbreaking loss. Oh well ... maybe next year Romo will wear gloves so he can grip the ball.
Romo did not reach the first down marker with his lunge toward the goal line after the muffed field goal attempt and the ball did not come out until his body hit the ground. He may have reached the original line of scrimmage but he was well short of the first down marker.
The only questionable call was what was that linesman thinking when he spotted the ball on the previous play. Fortunately for the Seahawks, it was reviewed and moved back setting up the field goal attempt.
The first ruling was incorrect in the entire process. It wasn't a completed pass. Nothing after that should have counted.
The refs also blew the call on the ball spot on the other end of the field. They weren't right when they originally put it at the 1/2 yard line but they were equally wrong the other direction where the put it at the 1 1/2 yard line after the review. It should have been on the 1 yard line which would have been a first down.
To bad, so sad! GO SEAHAWKS!
No. The ball, still belonging to Dallas, we downed in the end zone. Safety, 2 points and the ball to Seattle.
It would only have been a touchback if a Seattle player had gained possession of the ball, out of the end zone, and fumbled it into the end zone either out of bounds or recovered by Dallas.
The replays showed Romo clearly down by contact before the ball came out, and over a yard short of the first down mark. What was there to "consider"?
The crime in that game was overturning the first down that Witten caught. On booth review yet. There was no conclusive evidience (as required by the rules) that he was a foot short.