Need explanation to this play from Super Bowl LIX. (24 Viewers)

[football]

I don't like both teams. But karma was nice having the Chiefs lose this way. However on this strip/sack play, a penalty was called for roughing. But the ref allows the Eagles to keep the ball. I have seen a lot of football. 100 percent of the time if roughing the passer is called, the ball is awarded back to the offense. What change this time? I and so confused everytime I look at this replay.

Edit: Unsportsmanlike penalty was called.

 

[blotch1]

I don't like both teams. But karma was nice having the Chiefs lose this way. However on this strip/sack play, a penalty was called for roughing. But the ref allows the Eagles to keep the ball. I have seen a lot of football. 100 percent of the time if roughing the passer is called, the ball is awarded back to the offense. What change this time? I and so confused everytime I look at this replay.

The roughing happened after the fumble.

 

[guidomerkinsrules]

I don't like both teams. But karma was nice having the Chiefs lose this way. However on this strip/sack play, a penalty was called for roughing. But the ref allows the Eagles to keep the ball. I have seen a lot of football. 100 percent of the time if roughing the passer is called, the ball is awarded back to the offense. What change this time? I and so confused everytime I look at this replay.

He’s no longer a passer when the ball is out of his hands

 

[Rouxble]

According to the box score, the penalty was unsportsmanlike conduct on 93, which is a dead ball foul. They didn’t call roughing the passer.

 

[football]

The roughing happened after the fumble.

That is my only explanation to myself when I first saw it. But I always seen the offense retaining possession. I was so surprised.

 

[football]

According to the box score, the penalty was unsportsmanlike conduct on 93, which is a dead ball foul. They didn’t call roughing the passer.

Didn't catch that one. I really thought it was roughing. If that the case, then the ref miss the roughing call.

 

[LogeEndZone]

93 dunked the ball over the goal post, the Jimmy Graham Special.

 

[blotch1]

That is my only explanation to myself when I first saw it. But I always seen the offense retaining possession. I was so surprised.

Yeah. They would have kept possession if the hit that was flagged caused the fumble.

 

[Brandon13]

They didn't call/ missed the roughing. It was an unsportsmanlike conduct penalty after that play that they actually called.

Lol once the NFL saw how the game was going they were like "okay, perfect opportunity to kill this narrative."

 

[football]

They didn't call/ missed the roughing. It was an unsportsmanlike conduct penalty after that play that they actually called.

Lol once the NFL saw how the game was going they were like "okay, perfect opportunity to kill this narrative."

yeah but if a roughing was called then the Chiefs retain possession.

 

[RJS]

yeah but if a roughing was called then the Chiefs retain possession.

I'm guessing the official's eyes went to the loose ball and missed the hit to the head. It probably should have been called and 1st down Chiefs.

 

[fishing4food]

The player who hit Mahomes in the face mask was also being held. Ref saw neither of the fouls in front of him.. The penalty was for the player dunking the ball at he goal post after the fumble.

 

[football]

The player who hit Mahomes in the face mask was also being held. Ref saw neither of the fouls in front of him.. The penalty was for the player dunking the ball at he goal post after the fumble.

So in all they miss the calls then. I was watching the game in the bar with lots of people and didn't hear the penalty on tv. That explained it.

 

[Nolan]

It was a missed call, the Chiefs would have maintained possession. The unsportsmanlike conduct was on the celebration.

Not really worth discussing though, the Chiefs still would have lost by multiple scores even if this is called.