Gene Steratore flip-flops on controversial Jarrett Stidham fumble call

Late in the second quarter of Sunday’s AFC Championship Game between the New England Patriots and Denver Broncos, a forward-pass controversy left the CBS broadcast crew confused and unable to give a clear explanation to fans watching at home.

Facing a third down with 3:09 left in the second quarter, Broncos quarterback Jarrett Stidham found himself in trouble and attempted to throw the ball away under duress, leading to a sequence that left everyone watching, including the officials on the field and the broadcasters in CBS’s booth, completely flummoxed.

Jim Nantz called the play, initially suggesting Stidham’s pass attempt appeared to be a fumble, recovered by New England and returned for a touchdown. However, the officials on the field never signaled fumble, actually blowing the play dead prior to the Patriots’ trot into the end zone. One ref at the bottom of the screen can be seen signaling incomplete, with a flag down in the backfield in the area of intentional grounding.

That possibility was not brought up by Nantz and his partner Tony Romo for a good 30 seconds. Instead, Nantz praised Romo, who before the play had mentioned how a turnover in this scenario would be devastating for the Broncos. The ensuing analysis featured Romo discussing the turnover, until the officials formally ruled a forward pass and intentional grounding.

Mass confusion ensued.

CBS brought on rules analyst Gene Steratore for further explanation. “When Stidham goes this way, he’s pushing it with two hands forward, not backward. That’s why the flag hit the ground. The rest of the officials are playing it live and letting it go, but after discussion they went with intentional grounding,” Steratore explained.

Only, that call was just the beginning. The broadcast then showed Patriots head coach Mike Vrabel talking with an official while holding the red challenge flag. Romo says, “I would look to see if it’s a backward pass, because that’s the only way it’d be a touchdown for New England.”

Then, all of the sudden, the official opens his microphone to announce, “After discussion on the field, it was a backward pass by the quarterback, picked up by New England. It’s first down for the Patriots at the spot of the recovery.”

Enter Gene Steratore, again, who failed to address why the call was now a backward pass when he had originally agreed it was a forward pass.

“Because they blew that dead, he can’t get the advancement of the backward pass, so they’ve gotta give the defense the ball at the spot where they possessed it,” Steratore said, explaining why New England was getting the ball back and not receiving a touchdown.

“Gene, I have a question for you. If someone were to tip the ball as you’re throwing it forward and it ends up going backwards,” Romo posed before Steratore interjected. “No, you would rule on where it was tipped at. It was where it would leave his hand and if the defense tipped it. That’s clearly backward though,” the rules analyst said, backtracking on his original stance.

The entire incident again called into question why we have these rules analysts in the first place. Here, Steratore simply agreed with whatever the call on the field was at various times throughout the process. That’s not providing analysis, that’s providing validation.

Nantz and Romo weren’t exactly sharp during this sequence either. It took the pair awhile to call out the potential for intentional grounding, and they also spoke as if the call being overturned would’ve resulted in a Patriots touchdown, rather than simply gaining possession of the ball from the spot of recovery.

These situations are complicated. We can’t expect perfection from announcers in the booth, especially when it’s not entirely clear if it was a pass or fumble, forward or backward, etc. But even bringing in the professional rules analyst didn’t do anything to provide clarity to an otherwise confusing situation. In fact, the rules analyst only created more confusion by flip-flopping opinions within the same couple of minutes.

CBS was dealt a tricky situation here, but didn’t do itself any favors.