Baylor-OSU Fumble Replay Reversal

[Topspot]

Baylor running back fumbles the ball, but is incorrectly ruled down before the fumble.  The umpire blows the whistle multiple times and points to the ground.  Some players nearby appear to make no attempt to recover the ball, but one OSU player jogs in and picks up the ball about three seconds after the fumble.  Replay reversed the call.  What's the rule and was this a good call by replay?

https://youtu.be/1UHk4tRVBvc?t=1h19m12s

[NVFOA_Ump]

In my mind the reversal was 100% correct and followed the applicable guidelines.  The Baylor runner clearly and without question fumbles and the ball bounces into an area where there simply is no Baylor players and the only player in the area, the OSU defender then picks it up.  The whistle was in error and the ball was recovered uncontested in the immediate continuing action.  I don't believe that the early whistle would have changed anything except that the OSU player would have been able to return the ball without the whistle.

[bctgp]

so we have an inadvertent whistle then right?  Dead ball signal given by official and multiple,whistles beforew OSU recovers.  Seems like like they got this call wrong for certain.

[NVFOA_Ump]

Actually the final call was correct under the rules.

Rule 12 - Instant Replay, Section 3, Article 3, Dead Ball and Loose Ball:
Reviewable plays involving potential dead balls and loose balls include:
..... d. Loose ball ruled dead, or live ball ruled dead in possession of a ball carrier when the clear recovery of a loose ball occurs in the immediate continuing action.
..... 2. If the replay official rules that the ball was not dead, it belongs to the recovering team at the spot of the recovery and any advance is nullified.

[Osric Pureheart]

There are at least three players in white shirts standing near the runner who could have gone after that loose ball and didn't because they responded to the whistle.  I always thought that the continuing-action rule was supposed to be about recoveries by players playing through the whistle

If this sort of thing is now open to be overturned, how does it end in anything other than serious fireworks as players start hitting each other well after the whistle to go for any apparently loose ball, just in case?

[Kalle]

I have a problem with this as well. I don't think the recovery is in the immediate continued action.

[NVFOA_Ump]

I'm not going to question the judgment of the R and his crew who have to make the "continuing action" judgment here, but in my opinion the player who the ball was bouncing directly toward would have recovered with or without a whistle.  The rule clearly says that if in the opinion of the R the result of the play would have been the same without the whistle, then he has the rule support to make that call.

[Kalle]

I'm not going to question the judgment of the R and his crew who have to make the "continuing action" judgment here, but in my opinion the player who the ball was bouncing directly toward would have recovered with or without a whistle.  The rule clearly says that if in the opinion of the R the result of the play would have been the same without the whistle, then he has the rule support to make that call.

He probably would have, yes, but now he was able to make the recovery at his leisure without any opposition.