Fair point. But I brought up the Geno Smith thing just out of snark. The bottom line is that that was a horrible call. The pile-on of sodenj5 for pointing out the obvious is just lame.
The Game Ball Thread: Week 6 at the Jets
- Thread starter SeoulSoxFan
- Start date
If the player loses possession of the ball before the end zone and the ball lands out of bounds it is a touchback. ASJ lost possession of the ball and regained it while out of bounds to the side of the end zone. It's not hard here, guys.
But the ball never landed out of bounds. I don’t know why that was called a fumble.
The ball moved a bit and ended up back in his arms. It was clearly a TD to the naked eye. It could possibly be construed as the receiver not having possession inbounds-- incomplete pass. To interpret that sequence of events as reception-fumble-recovery out of bounds is just bizarre. This board would be absolutely incensed if the sides were reversed.
It's definitely not an incomplete pass as he was running with the ball. ASJ regained established possession of the ball out of bounds. That's the call they made.
Because there's obvious proof of him losing the ball and no obvious recovery. The next time the ball is seen the player is out of bounds touching it. You cannot assume a fumble recovery, it has to be clear and convincing per the rules.
https://nesn.com/2017/10/jets-have-touchdown-overturned-with-bizarre-controversial-call-vs-patriots/
At 8 seconds on the video he loses it but at 9 seconds he appears to regain control...yes?
At 8 seconds on the video he loses it but at 9 seconds he appears to regain control...yes?
I watched every one of the 182 replays they showed and simpy can't see that. I see a juggling catch with the ball never touching the ground.
Again, to award a fumble recovery on instant replay there has to be a clear recovery. "Appears" isn't enough.
Replay confirmed a fumble, could not confirm a recovery.
In #NEvsNYJ, player can't break plane if he's juggling ball. He has to reestablish possession, but does so as he lands out/bounds→touchback
I guess I’ve just never seen a bobble like that called a fumble. Take the sideline/end zone out of it and we’ve all seen receivers have possession, bobble a ball, and reclutch it for a reception. I’ve never seen that ruled a fumble and recovery in a box score.
Look above. The fact that it's the end zone is the main point. If no end zone he would likely have been given the ball where he lost control.
Yeah, definitely not an incompletion, I realized that was dumb as soon as I posted it, hence my quick edit.
This is the best defense of the overturned call I've seen, but that raises the question of how "incontrovertible evidence" (or whatever the standard is) is applied. My understanding has always been that there has to be incontrovertible evidence that the call on the field (of a TD) should be overturned, and if it was a TD on the field, and we don't know when he regained control but can't prove that he hadn't by the time he hit the pylon, then it shouldn't be overturned. I'd be furious if I were a Jets fan.
OK. I’m happy the call went as it did obviously. I just understand why Jets fans would be furious. And I know we would be too.
If had regained possession and landed in the end zone, it would be a TD.
He regained possession out of bounds, hence the call. I get that it’s an odd play, but it shouldn’t be that hard to understand.
I’m just glad all TDs get reviewed. Can you imagine if the Patriots challenged the ruling?
He regained possession out of bounds, hence the call. I get that it’s an odd play, but it shouldn’t be that hard to understand.
I’m just glad all TDs get reviewed. Can you imagine if the Patriots challenged the ruling?
That sounds right, but remember, once they have "proof" of fumble everything changes. That changes the calculus of the call.
Yep, being out of bounds through the end zone is the most important factor in this play. It's the same as if a runner got the ball knocked out of his hands and bounced through the end zone. That's a touchback. Same here.
Pretty much this. Ruling on the field was a TD. I didn’t see anything indisputable that he didn’t have possession of the ball crossing the plane. He clearly bobbled it before the goal line and regained possession. If there’s not an indisputable angle of the ball being out of his hand while crossing the plane (there isn’t) the call should have stood as called on the field.
I don’t want to fire coaches from a staff that’s has lots of success after six games.
Harmon, Chung, and McCourty have for sure not playing the worst of their careers. Maybe McCourty since he’s been a safety.
But once it's out, it changes to having to see indisputable angle of the ball being IN his hand while crossing the plane.
Again, once the officials determine he lost control, the burden of proof now comes in on showing he UNEQUIVOCALLY recovered it.
The safeties? The safeties are the best thing that this team has on the field at the moment under the age of 40 IMO.
Game ball--nobody. Was a lot of good and some bad, pretty evenly spread out.
It's a cute, easy opportunity to take a potshot at BB
Plus it creates a little side narrative that can be resuscitated when frustration or boredom set in
All the makings of a textbook hot take
Yep. When I saw it on TV I thought that he was out of contact with the ball again at 11 seconds, but playing that back frame by frame I don't think that's the case. And if he had control at 9 seconds, then his knee was down in bounds and it's a TD.
Right. One of the dumbest rules in football -- that a ball fumbled out of bounds on the one inch line stays with the fumbling team but a ball two inches later is a touchback.
I think the play today was an easy call on replay. He fumbled it. Once a ball is fumbled it's a dead ball the second it is touched by a player who is also touching any out of bounds unless the ball is clearly recovered in bounds. Even if you can't see everything exactly, there is no way he recovered the ball with possession before any part of him touched OOB.
The rule ought to be that balls fumbled out of the end zone by the advancing team go back to the point of the fumble. If fumbled by the team hoping to score out of the end zone behind them it should be a safety.
Trying to parse the standard this way doesn't make sense, IMO. The call on the field didn't come with a detailed explanation--it's possible (likely) the ref missed the fumble. But it's also possible the ref there saw that there was a fumble with a recovery before he went OOB. Either way he'd signal TD.
The booth can't assume a particular unfavorable rationale, it needs to go with the call on the field (TD) unless there is clear and convincing evidence to the contrary.
Blow me where the pampers is.
I mean, assuming you follow the team, you know how much BILL agonized over putting his kid(s) on staff. You know, from reading the profiles before last season's Super Bowl, how much STEVE said BILL helped him in his first year on staff, how much time BILL spent working with STEVE'S position group to bring STEVE up to speed as a coach. And how BILL indicated that there wouldn't be as much support this season, because that's how ALL the coaches are developed (close supervision by BILL in year one, no training wheels in year 2).
Hot take. Pffft. You know what's a shitty take? Not putting any thought or research into an opinion that is unsupported by facts. Labeling something a "hot take" in order to dismiss it from discussion, mostly because your knowledge is exceeded and you can't think of anything useful to say.
But yeah, I have SUCH a history of taking "potshots" at BILL.
Tony Corrente just said that the deciding factor was that a camera angle showed him bobbling the ball slightly as he rolled out of bounds. So they had decisive evidence that he hadn't totally secured the ball and therefore did not complete the process of re-establishing possession before going out of bounds.
I believe it was the right call but cant believe they overturned the call on the field. The Champ Bailey play was 10x more obvious on replay but with no goal line shot the refs wussed out and failed to reverse
Was there an angle that showed his knee in bounds? I know CBS showed a bit more than the 2 clips online.
BTW props to CBS for missing the entire thing and showing a Geico ad during the reading of the review.
Yeah there's an angle that shows his knee down in bounds.
The question is whether the ball is secure then or not. I thought it was moving after he was OOB when I saw it on CBS, but reviewing that angle again I don't think it's clear. If the office had a better angle then the overturns's justifiable.
I find myself circling back to 'instant reply is insane as currently implemented' and 'why are we having these legalistic conversations about 'parsing the standard'?' (not to take aim at this particular post, which I agree with-- just making a more general point). The original impetus for instant reply is/was to correct calls on the field that are demonstrably wrong— not to apply a new, totally non-human standard to rule interpretation. If the Austin Seferian-Jenkins catch happened 100 times with different officiating crews without the benefit of reply, I find it impossible to believe that even one crew would look at that play and award the Pats the ball at the 20.
D
Right. I think the fumble recovery rule uses the same through the ground standard as a catch and when ASJ rolls over on his back the ball moves again -- well after the knee issue which is besides the point.
Alright guys, let's chill it a bit so I won't wake up to a messy thread tomorrow morning. It's 7:25am here and I'm beat.
I think your ire is a bit over the top here, but I could see myself writing the same kind of post if I was in your shoes so I can't really blame you. My post was knee-jerk flippancy, in retrospect, and, worse, didn't opine on the actual merits of the argument.
My bad.
It's Soxfan. His ire is always over the top, even if the point made was a good one.