The Game Ball Thread: Week 6 at the Jets
- Thread starter SeoulSoxFan
- Start date
Agreed. I can't wait until tomorrow AM at work when the whiny Pats haters are whining like that fuck head Fouts.
I thought the offensive line and RBs did a tremendous job of pass blocking and picking up a relentless number of blitzes. So, game ball to them.
Until I see replay of th defenive holding on the two running plays I cannot comment on how the touchback call affected the game.
are the standards for recovering a fumble inbounds the same as for making a catch inbounds?
I was in the stands today thinking exactly this. And it was very hard to figure out what happened from the replays shown on Met Life. We were with a bunch of fans from both teams and the general mood was confusion followed by elation for us Pats fans and enraged frustration from the Jets fans.
Just like last week in Tampa, I'll say that any win, especially on the road, in the NFL, is a very, very good thing and hard to do. Game balls to Lewis and Hightower and Gronk. I thought Cooks was solid but for one drop.
Chiefs lost and have to go play in Oakland on short rest so it's entirely possible that in 5 days, the Chiefs will have as many losses as the Patriots.
Chiefs lost and have to go play in Oakland on short rest so it's entirely possible that in 5 days, the Chiefs will have as many losses as the Patriots.
Deflategate allowed Brady to be well rested for the playoffs, it was a false flag all the way
LOL Boo Hoo
Yes. And as discussed in game thread for this week, there are no excellent teams after 6 weeks, much less super teams. Some good ones, many mediocre.
The good news in that should be obvious. So should the bad -- it is really going to fucking suck if the Pats cannot get some of their defense problems squared away.
The way Corrente explained the rule that’s a pretty easy touchback call. ASJ not only has to regain possession he has to “complete the process of the recovery again” meaning he has to hit the ground inbounds and show clear possession and not lose the ball when he hits the ground (Corrente said he clearly lost it again when he knee hit)
Goal line rules are so quirky.
Goal line rules are so quirky.
Guys, here is the breakdown of the play:
ASJ caught the ball, and made a football move. Thus, when he got hit, and lost control of the ball, it was a fumble, regardless of whether or not the ball actually ever hit the ground. In the picture posted in this thread, you clearly see the fumble. This is exactly why Malcolm Butler lost his mind after the touchdown call. He knew he stripped the ball out, and he also knew that there was literally no chance that ASJ could have re-established possession of the ball between that point, and when he landed out of bounds. The replay clearly showed a fumble, and it clearly did not show a recovery before he was OOB, so it's a touchback. I realize it's a "tough call" and a "shitty rule" but it's certainly not the first time this rule has been implemented.
And as far as I'm concerned, it nowhere near evens out the number of bullshit offensive pass interference, defensive holding on running plays, hands to the face away from the play, and non-calls on defensive pass interference calls that are being made against the Patriots on a weekly basis. At almost every key point in every game, there is a flag coming out against the Patriots that is never called ever, and it's literally making these games closer than they are, but there are genuine, clear as day penalties that always get called that are being ignored when they happen to the Patriots. Until these calls truly even out, and the NFL gives us our first round draft pick, and Tom Brady's four games back, I say fuck everyone who thinks this call shouldn't have gone our way. It feels like the only fucking correct call that's gone on our way this year.
ASJ caught the ball, and made a football move. Thus, when he got hit, and lost control of the ball, it was a fumble, regardless of whether or not the ball actually ever hit the ground. In the picture posted in this thread, you clearly see the fumble. This is exactly why Malcolm Butler lost his mind after the touchdown call. He knew he stripped the ball out, and he also knew that there was literally no chance that ASJ could have re-established possession of the ball between that point, and when he landed out of bounds. The replay clearly showed a fumble, and it clearly did not show a recovery before he was OOB, so it's a touchback. I realize it's a "tough call" and a "shitty rule" but it's certainly not the first time this rule has been implemented.
And as far as I'm concerned, it nowhere near evens out the number of bullshit offensive pass interference, defensive holding on running plays, hands to the face away from the play, and non-calls on defensive pass interference calls that are being made against the Patriots on a weekly basis. At almost every key point in every game, there is a flag coming out against the Patriots that is never called ever, and it's literally making these games closer than they are, but there are genuine, clear as day penalties that always get called that are being ignored when they happen to the Patriots. Until these calls truly even out, and the NFL gives us our first round draft pick, and Tom Brady's four games back, I say fuck everyone who thinks this call shouldn't have gone our way. It feels like the only fucking correct call that's gone on our way this year.
I agree with this completely. On the first drive of the game, the Jets converted a third and 10 on a 22 yard pass, a 3rd and 8 on a 16 yard scramble, a 3rd and 6 on a hail Mary throw that Kerley made a ridiculous catch while well covered, and then a third down touchdown. The second drive was more of the same.
If you eliminate the third down plays on the 1st two drives of the game, and the breakdown in coverage and the fourth down play over the middle in the fourth quarter, this defense actually played a pretty good, if not great, game. IMO, the offense was much more culpable for this loss, had there been one, than the defense was. Coming off a decent game on the road against a good offense in Tampa, and this game, I'm much more optimistic about our chances against Atlanta next week than I was a few weeks ago, especially with Atlanta spitting the bit at home against Miami coming off a bye with a 17-0 lead. It's hard to win in the NFL, and there was a time we were happy any time we got a road win around here. We may not be blowing teams out like we had hoped, but we've had more seasons with games like this that ended with Super Bowl wins than we did with blowout wins like in 2007.
He may have explained it that way, but both Pereira and Blandino said not enough to overturn and they each was Corrente's boss.
It's important when talking about replays to separate two things: what should have been called initially (here, there's a case for a touchback as the proper inital call I think) and whether the replay standard was satisfied to overturn the call on the field, whether it was right or wrong. The case there was enough to overturn is very tough to make.
I also agree with DOTB that, really, screw the league and the Jets and take the few calls that go our way. I have no problem saying it was a missed call, or it shouldn't have been overturned, and still happily taking it.
Last edited:
It's not tough to make if the rule is he has to regain control and maintain it through the ground in bounds. I didn't know that was the rule, so I was surprised at the overturn. I thought if ASJ resecured the ball that was enough, didn't know that he now had to land in bounds and, like a catch, survive the ground. As Corrente explained the rule I think It was a reasonably straightforward overturn. Maybe he has the rule wrong.
The “not enough to overturn” thing is weird to me, because it’s not like the camera misses anything. It’s a question of the rule and whether a shift/bobble when he hits counts as not having control, because there’s clearly a little bobble.
I thought the Tuck Rule was the worst call ever?
Once again, it seems as though the rule is the rule, and the ref called it correctly
Once again, it seems as though the rule is the rule, and the ref called it correctly
Not just a little bobble I thought... If you watch which hand the ball is in, it went from left, lost ball, recovered with right.
As I noted, his two former bosses see it differently. They both agree he lost control; no one is disputing that. Blandino stated the rule the same way Corrente did. Blandino felt he regained control and the left knee may have hit in-bounds before he went out of bounds. Pereira noted that he is still in-bounds when he hits the pylon--so the contact with the ground to re-establish control has only to be before he touches out of bounds, not before the pylon. They both agreed that there is significant uncertainty in the replay, and because it is not clear that 're control' did NOT occur, they both felt the call on the field can't be overruled via replay. There's a video of them discussing it on Pereira's twitter. https://twitter.com/MikePereira
I don't actually like the NFL replay standard (I think the bar for an overturn is too high) but it is well-established and given that standard of review there just isn't much of an argument anything that has been shown meets the standard even if one thinks the 'correct' initial call would have been a touchback. But hey, I'll take it.
I love all this reply and rule talk (not sarcastic), I'm learning a lot, but to get us back on track to Game Ball mode...
Run D DL, and I guess the DL overall, played their best game of the season. (Damning with faint praise...almost certainly.) Special mini gold star to Alan Branch for showing up finally. Possibly the best game of disappointing first round pick Malcolm Brown's iffy career.
OL, while not great, played their best game of the season. (Damning with faint praise 2.0)
Running back, esp Dion. Really looking sharp.
GRONK SPIKE.
Malcom - for high-fiving my six year old son in the Pats hotel last night, but also for the two forced turnovers today. Not a clean game for him today, not by a long shot, but never gave up and made some big plays. Scrap, indeed.
Brandin Cooks for that catch, and others, but mostly for that catch.
Run D DL, and I guess the DL overall, played their best game of the season. (Damning with faint praise...almost certainly.) Special mini gold star to Alan Branch for showing up finally. Possibly the best game of disappointing first round pick Malcolm Brown's iffy career.
OL, while not great, played their best game of the season. (Damning with faint praise 2.0)
Running back, esp Dion. Really looking sharp.
GRONK SPIKE.
Malcom - for high-fiving my six year old son in the Pats hotel last night, but also for the two forced turnovers today. Not a clean game for him today, not by a long shot, but never gave up and made some big plays. Scrap, indeed.
Brandin Cooks for that catch, and others, but mostly for that catch.
Corrente said it was very clear that the ball came out again when the knee hit the ground which made it straightforward. So seems like a difference in judgment about the standard for clear and convincing evidence. Seemed clear enough to me as the rule was described, but whatever. I certainly didn’t know the rule before the play. We will see what the current boss says.
But I don't think it is--once you see the fumble, it becomes very easy. Exactly like the official said. Once he loses control the burden changes. Add the second bobble, and it seems straightforward.
Lewis
Hightower
McCourty
Pass rush was abysmal, again.
Secondary is a coin flip on any given play.
Offense is hit or miss.
Such a frustrating team to watch because both units flash moments of brilliance and then follow it up with JVesque shit.
Hightower
McCourty
Pass rush was abysmal, again.
Secondary is a coin flip on any given play.
Offense is hit or miss.
Such a frustrating team to watch because both units flash moments of brilliance and then follow it up with JVesque shit.
Both the guys who ran officiating have said it is not straightforward.
I think the question Pereira and Blandino focus on that Corrente did not discuss is the possbility that a knee touched down after control and before ASJ went out of bounds, so to him the question is maintaining control when he lands out of bounds (which is where the second bobble comes in). If the knee touched down in-bounds the second bobble is actually irrelevant because the knee touching down is the end of the time control needs to be maintained. Blandino thought it most likely did touch, and Pereira thought it was uncertain. There is definitely not a replay that shows that conclusively.
If I were guessing, Corrente missed that possibility and looked only at the ball moving when ASJ lands out of bounds and said "oh, didn't maintain control". But I don't think that's actually the only theory for control and contact with the ground.
Then Corrente got the rule wrong. He says the second bobble matters even if the knee hits inbounds. That’s what I’m going by when I say it looks straightforward as Corrente describes, he said once it’s bobbled he has to maintain possession after he hits the ground no matter what. If that’s not the case then its inconclusive to me
Comments on the touchback from ASJ and from Blandino on a time last season when the same play was called.
When asked about the play, Seferian-Jenkins was realistic about the result.
“It’s a fumble and a touchback,” he said. “That’s what it is. It’s not like I’m taking the high road, I’m just saying what the facts are. I don’t think it does anything for me to come up here and blast the official or blast the rule. The rule is the rule. They called it. It is what it is. I have to do a better job of having better ball security so it doesn’t happen again. If I catch the ball and run through both of them and don’t fumble, then that’s what it is.”
Last season, the play came up in a game between the Ravens and Redskins. The following week, then-VP of Officiating Dean Blandino discussed it on video.
“This has been discussed in the past,” Blandino said “It will continue to be discussed [and] compared to the fumble forward out of bounds in the field of play where the offense maintains possession. That has been part of the discussion. But again the Competition Committee has not felt compelled to change this rule. And I’m sure they’ll discuss it again and we’ll see where they land after the season.
“Because the goal line is involved — and this is a consistent application of the impetus rule,” Blandino continued. “Impetus is the force that puts the ball into an end zone. So if a team provides the impetus that puts a ball into their opponent’s end zone . . . then they are responsible for it. They’re responsible for it. And if the ball gets out of bounds through the end zone then it is a touchback.”
Anywhere else on the field, a ball fumbled out of bounds is returned to the team that last possessed it at the spot it was last possessed. Blandino acknowledged the harshness of the result, saying, That may seem like an egregious penalty but again, think about it, they put the ball into their opponent’s end zone. If it’s not fourth down or inside two minutes, if they recover it, it’s a score. So that’s potentially a big play, so the penalty for not recovering it . . . has to be big as well. That’s why it’s a touchback. That’s consistent with other loose balls that go into an opponent’s end zone. Kicks, punts, fumbles, backward passes.
“You’re responsible for putting the ball into your opponent’s end zone, you’re responsible for recovering it,” Blandino said. “If you don’t and it goes out of bounds or the defense recovers, they’ve defended their goal line, and they get a touchback.”
http://www.nbcsports.com/boston/patriots/jets-can-hate-rule-not-call-overturned-touchdown
When asked about the play, Seferian-Jenkins was realistic about the result.
“It’s a fumble and a touchback,” he said. “That’s what it is. It’s not like I’m taking the high road, I’m just saying what the facts are. I don’t think it does anything for me to come up here and blast the official or blast the rule. The rule is the rule. They called it. It is what it is. I have to do a better job of having better ball security so it doesn’t happen again. If I catch the ball and run through both of them and don’t fumble, then that’s what it is.”
Last season, the play came up in a game between the Ravens and Redskins. The following week, then-VP of Officiating Dean Blandino discussed it on video.
“This has been discussed in the past,” Blandino said “It will continue to be discussed [and] compared to the fumble forward out of bounds in the field of play where the offense maintains possession. That has been part of the discussion. But again the Competition Committee has not felt compelled to change this rule. And I’m sure they’ll discuss it again and we’ll see where they land after the season.
“Because the goal line is involved — and this is a consistent application of the impetus rule,” Blandino continued. “Impetus is the force that puts the ball into an end zone. So if a team provides the impetus that puts a ball into their opponent’s end zone . . . then they are responsible for it. They’re responsible for it. And if the ball gets out of bounds through the end zone then it is a touchback.”
Anywhere else on the field, a ball fumbled out of bounds is returned to the team that last possessed it at the spot it was last possessed. Blandino acknowledged the harshness of the result, saying, That may seem like an egregious penalty but again, think about it, they put the ball into their opponent’s end zone. If it’s not fourth down or inside two minutes, if they recover it, it’s a score. So that’s potentially a big play, so the penalty for not recovering it . . . has to be big as well. That’s why it’s a touchback. That’s consistent with other loose balls that go into an opponent’s end zone. Kicks, punts, fumbles, backward passes.
“You’re responsible for putting the ball into your opponent’s end zone, you’re responsible for recovering it,” Blandino said. “If you don’t and it goes out of bounds or the defense recovers, they’ve defended their goal line, and they get a touchback.”
http://www.nbcsports.com/boston/patriots/jets-can-hate-rule-not-call-overturned-touchdown
I disagree with this. The Pats had 4 sacks today, and they hit McCown 10 times (Brady was hit 4 times, and never sacked, and yet people are barely acknowledging how good the Pats offensive line played). The Pats now have 14 sacks on the season, and if you add in the additional sacks that have been wiped out by penalties (mostly bullshit penalties I might add), they'd be well into the top 10 in the NFL in that category. When you figure they are only rushing 3 at least half the time, because they need to drop 8 to make sure their defensive backs don't get burned, I think the defensive line is doing just about all they can do, and coming up big in some big spots on top of it.
The defensive line contributed not very much pass rush, though. Van Noy had two sacks and Hightower one, with the other being a cleanup sack by Malcom Brown when McCown scrambled and didn't quite back to the LOS. They got some pressure at times when they sent a DB or a LB, but the base DL had IMO their worst day of the season getting after the QB.
The knee is irrelevant. He had to maintain possession all the way through the process of going to the ground. He didn't. The knees hit, his back hit, the ball moved, he came to a stop and then fully controlled the ball. The knee being the first part of his body to hit the ground does not matter.
Oh, and am I crazy, or was Johnson Bademosi OK? I don't remember him getting thrown at and he had some nice physical tackles. I watched him enough in Detroit last year to expect disaster but he seemed to hold up all right.
The second bobble is relevant and why Corrente pointed out his interpretation that there was a bobble. It is the Megatron rule of needing to be in the endzone and maintain possesion through completion of the catch (or here recovery) for it to count.
Why are people appealing to Blandino or Perreira? People have never had bosses who made mistakes in their jobs? Or didnt know something as well as a junior person? These guys get disagreed w weekly by the refs. Jeez especially Blandino.
People keep showing that pic from over ASJ left shoulder that shows the knee down? Great, cant see ball possesion anyway.
Soo..
Ruled TD.
Conclusive evidence he fumbled prior to goalline.
No conclusive evidence he reestablished control inbounds or he did but bobbled it.
Pretty easy to go by the letter of the law and say he conclusively fumbled (so TD ruling is null) and then the call becomes fumble thru endzone, touchback. No evidence present to overturn that.
The guys that run it now say it is. Because they actually made the decision.
Corrente isn't the one making the call. It's not one guy misinterpreting the rule. It's Corrente talking to "senior officiating staff" in NY and the final decision is made by them. If we're saying that the senior NFL rules officials got the rule wrong, that seems like a strong take. If we're saying the Perreria and Blandino have a different opinion than the guys making the call that's another.
And everyone thought Blandino was an idiot last season.
The key is Corrente saying the second bobble happened after he went down to ground. I still haven’t seen a good replay of it all the way as I’ve been away from tv and computer.
Everything before is meaningless. Other than the initial fumble that made the whole going to the ground thing matter.
If someone can find a replay that shows the second bobble or the one when he is on his back as I’m unclear when it happens. It would be great.
Everything before is meaningless. Other than the initial fumble that made the whole going to the ground thing matter.
If someone can find a replay that shows the second bobble or the one when he is on his back as I’m unclear when it happens. It would be great.
When you only rush 3, you aren't going to get pressure very often. When they brought 4, or more, they got to the quarterback at a very, very good rate. But, that's also when McCown was able to get off quick passes to open receivers. With the way the defensive backs are playing right now, Patricia has to pick his poison. Go for the quarterback, and hope you get there before he hits an open receiver, or drop 8 into coverage, and hope the secondary can do their job for a long period of time. At the end of the day, they gave up 3 points after the 2nd possession, and got 6 sacks/interceptions, and a total of 7 tackles for loss. Patricia was able to disguise some stuff to get some pressure from spots in which the Jets/McCown weren't ready for it, but that's not an easy thing to do when you'e trying to beat 5-6 blockers with less rushers.
If folks are looking for more than that from this team, with 2 of their 3 best corners out injured, then I'm confident in saying the only thing that will satisfy those folks is a shut out, and zero yards for the opposition, which is IMO, a bit unrealistic.
I don't believe that the application of the rule here was any quirky goalline rule (other than the rule that a ball fumbled out of bounds goes back to the defense instead of to the fumbling team).
Corrente seems to be the only one who understands the rule correctly and it's very frustrating that nobody else in the press seems able to articulate what happened on that play. Here is the thing to remember: There is a rule in the NFL that says that if you are going to the ground in the act of trying to possess the ball, you must maintain possession through the ground. Nobody is thinking of that rule here, because they are so used to it being applied to catches. That is, definitely, where it is most famously applied. But it also applies to any attempts to possess, including a catch interception or fumble recovery.
How does the rule work? If a ball is loose (that is, has been fumbled, or has been thrown to you) you must maintain possession of the ball through the process of the catch and through the ground if you're going to ground. If you land in bounds, this means that you need to gather it back up before it hits the ground. But, if you land out of bounds, it means you must complete the process of the catch, through the ground for all such time as you are touching out of bounds. If any part of the gathering the ball to complete the act of going through the ground involves a bobble while any part of you (or even another player also touching the ball) is out of bounds, then the ball is immediately at that point out of bounds.
Think about it this way. The second that ASJ fumbled the ball, it became a loose ball. At that point, since he was going to ground, he was required to establish complete possession through the ground. Imagine that instead of fumbling the ball, it was a pass and ASJ got his knee down in bounds, but then went to ground, rolled over on his back, and had a bobble -- even a small one -- when he was on the ground and out of bounds. What result? We've seen this play a zillion times. It is the Dez play. It is not a catch. That his knee was in bounds when he first caught the ball is irrelevant if he has any bobble going to ground while touching out of bounds. It is the same rule. Actually, literally, it is the same rule. The difference is that in my hypothetical, it is incomplete, not a touchback because of the odd rule that you give the ball over if you fumble out of bounds.
So, the knee is irrelevant. Unless you believe that he after that maintained possession through contact with the ground -- which he clearly did not -- then it is no recovery. And since he fumbled it, and since he touched it before completing the act of the recovery, while he was OOB, it was exactly the right call. If anyone wants to go Zapruter on the film, it is not the knee that needs to be looked at. It is the ball moving in his arms after he rolls. If you don't think the ball moved after the roll, then the knee does become relevant and it should be called a fumble recovery before hitting out of bounds. To me, the ball clearly moves. He falls on his side out of bounds and you can see it bounce of his stomach through Butler's legs on one view and he needs to resecure it with both hands as he rolls on to his back.
In fact, the knee is important, but it was important to the Patriots. If the knee had been out of bounds, and he touches any part of the ball while the knee is out of bounds after he has lost it as a fumble, then the fumble should be declared out of bounds right there, which is short of the end zone, and thus the Jets retain possession like any fumble OOB in the field of play.
Here's the rule:
PLAYER POSSESSION Article 7A player is in possession when he is in firm grip and control of the ball inbounds (See 3-2-3). To gain possession of a loose ball (3-2-3) that has been caught, intercepted, or recovered, a player must have complete control of the ball and have both feet or any other part of his body, other than his hands, completely on the ground inbounds, and maintain control of the ball long enough to perform any act common to the game. If the player loses the ball while simultaneously touching both feet or any other part of his body to the ground or if there is any doubt that the acts were simultaneous, there is no possession. This rule applies in the field of play and in the end zone. The terms catch, intercept, recover, advance, and fumble denote player possession (as distinguished from touching or muffing). Note 1: A player who goes to the ground in the process of attempting to secure possession of a loose ball (with or without contact by an opponent) must maintain control of the ball throughout the process of contacting the ground, whether in the field of play or the end zone. If he loses control of the ball, and the ball touches the ground before he regains control, there is no possession. If he regains control prior to the ball touching the ground, it is a catch, interception, or recovery. Note 2: If a player goes to the ground out-of-bounds (with or without contact by an opponent) in the process of attempting to secure possession of a loose ball at the sideline, he must maintain complete and continuous control of the ball throughout the process of contacting the ground, or there is no possession. Note 3: If a player has control of the ball, a slight movement of the ball will not be considered loss of possession. He must lose control of the ball in order to rule that there has been a loss of possession.
Last edited:
^thats great and everything but he did control the ball rolling over, I don't know what the fuck the head zebra in charge is talking about is talking about.
"Continuously"? He totally didn't. That's the easiest part of the play. There's a view through Butler's legs where you see him bobble it off his stomach and he has to regrab it. Unless I'm seeing what I want to see.
No it’s clearly bobbled at the end of the play - just have to see from the other angle. not sure why this is so complicated other than people don’t like the result?
What’s quirky to me is how if a runner crosses the plane its a TD. But, if the runner bobbles the ball then has control again and then cross the plane, now its not a TD until the runner goes to the ground and maintains control through hitting he ground. Then the goofy touchback stuff.
But yes, that’s exactly how Corrente explained the rule. He said it was straightforward and I agree if he’s interpreting the rule right. Your post seems to show he is interpreting it right. If the knee hitting inbounds kills the play, then seems like hard to overturn.
https://nesn.com/2017/10/jets-have-touchdown-overturned-with-bizarre-controversial-call-vs-patriots/ has the angle in question. I thought it was bobbled again at the 11 second mark when I first saw that angle, too. I'm less sure now, a higher-def version of that video might show it more definitively. Though it does seem like the ball has rotated from where he was holding it at 10 seconds to where he's holding it at 12.
