The Patriots pulled away from the Steelers for a 36-17 victory Sunday in the AFC Championship. It's hard to say whether any one play could have changed the course of the game in favor of the Steelers, but if there was, it came with about 11 minutes remaining in the third quarter.Leading Pittsburgh by one score, Tom Brady fumbled a QB sneak near midfield on third-and-one, and Steelers lineman Javon Hargrave appeared to recover the ball. Officials on the field didn't see it that way, and gave New England credit for a first down—but hold everything because Steelers coach Mike Tomlin threw his challenge flag. As referee Terry McAuley stated, "Pittsburgh is challenging that the runner fumbled and they clearly recovered."
Advertisement
This is kind of a confusing way of describing the situation, since usually a challenge is framed as disputing the call on the field. Here, McAuley framed it as what Tomlin was seeking to prove, not disprove. Further compounding the confusion on the CBS broadcast was Jim Nantz interpreting McAuley's words as having identified a clear recovery by Pittsburgh. However, if a clear recovery had been identified, then there would be no need for Tomlin to challenge, he would just say "thank you" and put his offense on the field. We don't know what McAuley's actual call was other than that the Patriots had the ball, and he made that call almost immediately after the play, as you can see him at the top of the screen in the white cap, signaling first down for New England. Since the call was Patriots ball, it did not matter that Hargrave emerged from the pile holding the ball, which he clearly was.
As so often happens with these hyper-technical rules and the demands of replay review, the ruling was a narrow one. The call on the field was not "confirmed," but rather, McAuley informed the crowd that "the call on the field stands." Which is just another way of saying there wasn't enough evidence to overturn the call. It's an understandable limitation, especially in this case because how could anyone even see the ball in that mass of humanity. NFL senior vice-president of officiating Dean Blandino echoed this sentiment in a tweet, and FOX analyst and former head of officiating Mike Pereira added that the guy emerging from the pile with the ball is not necessarily the one who actually recovered the ball, which is a fair point.Long story short: there was a fumble, but the referees were quick to call it Patriots ball and it therefore did not matter that Pittsburgh actually came out of the pile with it. When it came to review the play, there wasn't enough on tape to definitely say they got it wrong.Not that the Steelers necessarily would have turned the game around with possession of the ball at that point, but it is an example of the ball bouncing New England's way in a big moment—something, outside of their matchups with the New York Giants, perhaps, that the Patriots and their fans must be used to by now.
ONE EMAIL. ONE STORY. EVERY WEEK. SIGN UP FOR THE VICE NEWSLETTER.
By signing up, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy & to receive electronic communications from Vice Media Group, which may include marketing promotions, advertisements and sponsored content.
This is kind of a confusing way of describing the situation, since usually a challenge is framed as disputing the call on the field. Here, McAuley framed it as what Tomlin was seeking to prove, not disprove. Further compounding the confusion on the CBS broadcast was Jim Nantz interpreting McAuley's words as having identified a clear recovery by Pittsburgh. However, if a clear recovery had been identified, then there would be no need for Tomlin to challenge, he would just say "thank you" and put his offense on the field. We don't know what McAuley's actual call was other than that the Patriots had the ball, and he made that call almost immediately after the play, as you can see him at the top of the screen in the white cap, signaling first down for New England. Since the call was Patriots ball, it did not matter that Hargrave emerged from the pile holding the ball, which he clearly was.