Based on all this discussion, can you guys believe we put people in cages based on eye witness testimony? That's my societal takeaway.
The Game Ball Thread: Week 6 at the Jets
- Thread starter SeoulSoxFan
- Start date
At 21 seconds you can see the bobble and then how he wraps his hand around it again and on the deadspin can see it right at the end at 1:15
https://deadspin.com/the-jets-got-screwed-out-of-a-touchdown-1819488051
https://deadspin.com/the-jets-got-screwed-out-of-a-touchdown-1819488051
Oh, I see what you're saying. Yeah. It's kind of the same with a catch too. You cross the plane with possession but it's not enough until you complete the catch through the ground.
I think the easiest way to think of what happened today is to imagine a handoff in the middle of the field on the one. It bounces off the running back's stomach and he bats it forward to himself and catches it cleanly with both feet down five yards in the end zone but he gets hit hard as he's catching it, stumbles and falls and then when he hits the turf it falls out of his hand. I think if we saw that play we would understand that even though he clearly had it in control for a second or two in the end zone, it's still not a TD because he didn't establish possession through the ground.
It's really the same play, just harder to see that it is because of the pylon and the sideline and the nonobvious fumble, and the fact that he bobbled but didn't lose the ball.
That's the initial fumble, nobody disputes that. And it appears that he grabbed it after that and got a knee down in bounds.
The question is after grabbing the ball again did he maintain control through the ground or was it bobbled or still moving when he was in contact with the ground out of bounds.
From the higher resolution deadspin link it looks like it was moving to me.
Rashomon?
God, we are such fucking nerd losers. I hate you for making that reference and I hate myself for understanding it
Why the heck do you say the pass rush was abysmal? They had 4 sacks today and hit MaCown at least 10 times. Are you Fucking blind? In my opinion the DL as a group deserve a game ball. I was particularly happy with Malcolm Brown's performance. His name was called out for a couple of key stops.
Overall unlike most of the posters here I guess, I thought the defense turned in a good not great game. I would give the defense probably a B today. There were a couple of misplays but after the first quarter they played well. They forced the Jets into turnovers and made the key stops when it was required.
Last edited:
Pass rush was just ok, but they played some really weird schemes. I swear Flowers was in coverage double digit plays, which was rather interesting.
The rush defense was stellar, especially up the middle. I’d be interested to see snap counts, but to my eyes Brown was a beast.
The rush defense was stellar, especially up the middle. I’d be interested to see snap counts, but to my eyes Brown was a beast.
Lost in all this talk is the great play Butler made to strip the ball, having already made a fantastic game-changing interception at the end of the first half. If he doesn't get that pick, good chance we go into the half down 17-7. And if he doesn't strip this ball, who knows what happens.
Game ball to Malcolm.
Game ball to Malcolm.
Only got to see first half.
First quarter was tough. Second quarter was much better. Defense buckled down after two horrific first possessions.
Brady looked awful, with some terrible passes including the pick and the near pick.
RBs were solid outside the fumble.
Game ball to Gronk for me. Nice to see him out there again and catching TDs
First quarter was tough. Second quarter was much better. Defense buckled down after two horrific first possessions.
Brady looked awful, with some terrible passes including the pick and the near pick.
RBs were solid outside the fumble.
Game ball to Gronk for me. Nice to see him out there again and catching TDs
I had the same thought. According to Kyed, Bademosi wound up playing 72 total snaps on defense and let up just two catches on two targets for 23 yards.
Which is pretty sensational in my opinion.
Not including McCown scrambles, the Jets had 21 rushes for 53 yards. That's good and mostly due to the DL being very stout.
In a vacuum, I think one might chalk up the porous passing defense to being without 2 of their top 3 CBs, but we know the rest of that sorry tale of woe.
In a vacuum, I think one might chalk up the porous passing defense to being without 2 of their top 3 CBs, but we know the rest of that sorry tale of woe.
Hey, I'll tell you what. Let's switch. I'll give up this fumble/possession-change if we're allowed to go back and get the fucking Ben Watson fumble/possession-change correct. No? Cant do it?
Dumb rule applied appropriately. ASJ fumbled the ball out of bounds at the goal line. That the rule is fucking stupid isn't our problem. It's Sodens.
Going to cut against the grain here and give a game ball out to Matt Patricia. The Jets only scored 3 points in the second half, largely due to Patricia changing his scheme and only bringing pressure with three lineman. I hate giving a quarterback so much time, but McCown wasnt able to find anyone open through all of those Pats jerseys in the secondary. Not fun to watch, but it worked.
I'm generally an optimistic guy and I really came out of that with some positive feelings on the D. The pass rush was decent, they were great against the run and much better in the secondary after the tire-fire that was the first two drives. Third down D was a problem early, to say the least. The continue to be realllllllly bad against mobile QBs, and an aged McCown isn't exactly a burner at this point. But overall lots to like defensively with a big test coming up this week.
Other game balls will be Gronk, Lewis and Brady. TB12 was really good in the second half.
Other game balls will be Gronk, Lewis and Brady. TB12 was really good in the second half.
It looked to me like the D was successful when they rushed 3, and when they blitzed, but when they rushed 4 they'd get picked apart. Couldn't cover or get to the QB fast enough.
Game balls to Gronk, Cooks, Lewis and the run D. Secondary still seems like a mess.
Game balls to Gronk, Cooks, Lewis and the run D. Secondary still seems like a mess.
The second-half defensive performance is almost totally contingent on the fumble/touchback. The Jets only had four drives in the whole second half because the Patriots D couldn't get off the field and the Patriots O dominated time of possession in the third quarter. The Jets moved the ball most of the second half - the four drives covered 52, 74, 55, and 24 yards - but they only came away with three points. That looks a lot different if they get the ASJ TD and have 10 points on four drives.
The D did play great in the second quarter - they forced three straight three-and-outs and got the Butler pick late. It was a weird game where both defenses and offenses were inconsistent.
The D did play great in the second quarter - they forced three straight three-and-outs and got the Butler pick late. It was a weird game where both defenses and offenses were inconsistent.
I thought the last two games were a fair approximation of the defenses the Pats have had for about a decade. Particularly yesterday. They made some adjustments early in the game to the scheme, they stopped the run effectively, and they got a couple of turnovers and key third down stops. It wasnt what Id call a good effort against a bad offense, but it was passable professional level football. Im somewhat more optimistic this can become a garden variety bad defense than I was a couple of weeks ago. That would give them a shot in January.
But the yards are a direct correlation with the shift to a 3-man front. Isn't this how a BB/Patricia defense is constructed? Force below average quarterbacks to make the reads and throws? Out of the three long drives, 1 of them ended with an interception and the other was the controversial fumble. It seems pretty myopic - and certainly ignores BB's historical tendencies to give up yards, not points - to focus on the yards, but ignore the two turnovers and 3 points given up.
For all those who think the fumble-touchback rule is dumb, how would you change it? Before answering, consider how your rule would apply to this situation:
Team A kicks off to team B. A team B player is standing in the end zone where he attempts to catch the ball, but it goes through his hands. The ball bounces along the ground where it:
A) Goes out of bounds at the 1 yard line
B) Goes out the back of the end zone.
Currently, in situation A team B snaps from the 1. In situation B team B snaps from the 25. New and improved rule would change this how?
Team A kicks off to team B. A team B player is standing in the end zone where he attempts to catch the ball, but it goes through his hands. The ball bounces along the ground where it:
A) Goes out of bounds at the 1 yard line
B) Goes out the back of the end zone.
Currently, in situation A team B snaps from the 1. In situation B team B snaps from the 25. New and improved rule would change this how?
I'm going to quote myself because there's nobody better to quote...I'd have to rewatch the game, but did the shift to a 3-man front actually transpire in the second quarter when their defense started making plays? I was a little inebriated and can't recall off the top of my head.
Brilliant, sad, and true. You're of course entirely correct. And now my day has been sobered a bit.
It's 3 points because they got the call; it's 10 points if they don't get the call. 0.75 points per drive is great, 2.5 points per drive is terrible. Even if you think it's the right call, it seems more of a fortunate break than skilled defense to me.
The yardage doesn't really matter, but the time of possession does, because the Patriots offense also only got four drives in the whole second half, and they did not have good field position when they did get the ball (which I guess does relate to the yardage).
The scenario isn't 100% clear here (does he posses the ball before fumbling? etc.), but regardless, this is trivially easy to solve for.
Make rules on kick-offs different than rules for other plays.
Totally agree here. All I've heard on FB and on this mornings radio is, "Yeah I know what the rule is but its the worst call ever, these officials stink, etc etc etc."
Painful reads and listens. Zolak is making a complete fool of himself on the air right now. You simply cannot say you know what the rule reads then say it was the worst call ever or even a bad call. As Corrente pointed out, this play by rule was not that hard to disseminate via slo-mo replay as you see the ball disengaged from his hands initially then juggled/shifted as he hit the ground.
Last edited:
After those first two defensive possessions the defense was very good the rest of the day. I do question some of the schemes like only rushing 3 on several of those late drives. The safety blitz when Harmon(?) shifted sides pre-snap and forced McCown out of the pocket was designed and executed brilliantly.
The only rule change I would like to see is that if a player fumbles and the ball is not recovered before going OOB, the ball goes to the fumbling team either at the spot at which he fumbled it or where it went out bounds if it went backwards. If either is in his own end zone, it's a safety.
The end. Same rule on kickoffs. Balls that go out of the end zone on kickoffs are almost never fumbles but if they are they are already safeties so I don't understand your question.
1) Fumbles out of bounds can't change possession.
2) Fumbles out of bounds can't advance the ball.
Yet here we are, where an offensive player fumbles the ball before breaking the plane -- which would end the play and result in a TD -- with the result being the ball being advanced over the end line and a change in possession to the defensive team with them being given a touchback. If you fumble the ball forwards at the 50 yard line, it ends the down and it's your ball at the 50. If you do it at the 1, you blow the scoring opportunity and are penalized 25 yards. It's an incredibly dumb rule, there's no two ways to look at it.
This isn't even relevant if the player only touches (not catches) the ball. If the player catches it in the end zone, starts to return but fumbles out of bounds before ever leaving the end zone, it's a touchback regardless of where the ball went out of bounds.
edit: fumbling out of the end of the end zone might be a safety
You could easily change it to a punt and have the same conflict. True you could write a rule for this one specific situation, but it would require a lot of revisions to the existing touchback and safety rules. Guaranteed it would take a couple years to actually get the kinks ironed out completely, as you would basically be re-writing a quarter of the definitions in the book. (At a minimum: force/impetus across the goal line, ball dead by rule, forward fumble OOB, incomplete pass in the end zone exception, safety, touchback)
At the end of the day, the end zone is just a completely different area of the field. A ball declared dead in the end zone has to be a touchdown, safety, or touchback by rule. People wonder why a fumble OOB at the 1 stays there when a fumble OOB in the end zone is a turnover. Nobody wonders why the a ball carrier tackled in the end zone is worth 6 points while it is worth nothing at the 1. The end zone is a separate area of the field with a completely different rules.
You would only be "penalized" 20 yards (touchbacks only come to the 25 on kickoffs). It's perfectly relevant if the player touches the ball, because its a touchback due to the exact same rule. Team A put the ball in the end zone (in this case, via kick), and it was declared dead there.
For those having a hard time conceptualizing the example, let me change it a bit:
Team A punts from the 40. Team B has an aggressive kick returner, who tries to field the punt in the end zone. He drops the kick (never completes the catch) and the loose ball rolls toward the pylon.
Currently, if it goes out of bounds at the 1 team B snaps there. If it hits the pylon team B snaps from the 20.
That's a completely different rule that has nothing to do with the ASJ play, though, right?
I have no problem with those rules. If you punt or kickoff into the end zone, you risk a touchback. If the guy muffs it forward, you get lucky.
Oh, only penalized with an arbitrary turnover and 20 (not 25) of the most important yards on the field. Okay.
It's not the same rule. If the player fumbles the ball and it bounces forwards out of bounds to the 1, it's a touchback because you can't advance the ball on a fumble out of bounds (or else you could lob it forwards for a gain). It's a touchback because the ball doesn't change possession arbitrarily with no recovery, unless you're the offensive team fumbling it at the 1. Kicking the ball and having it go out of bounds in the end zone is a touchback for the returning team in every situation whether it's caught, fumbled, muffed, or never touched (except possibly if the ball is fumbled backwards out of the rear of the endzone).
Fumbling the ball out of bounds without a recovery is never a change in possession, unless of course you do it at the 1. It's a really dumb rule that seems specially crafted exclusively to screw over a team in the Jets' position and, as far as I can tell, no other purpose. Footballs oob in the endzone are covered by other rules already.
It's a touchback due to the same rule, which would need to be amended. The touchback/safety rule is very simple actually. If the ball is declared dead in the end zone (and not a TD), it's a safety if the team defending the end zone caused the ball to cross the goal line and a touchback if the team attacking caused it to cross the goal line. The same rule is applied to equally to passes (interception in end zone is a touchback, because the attacking team threw the ball over the goal line), fumbles, and kicks.
Kicking scenarios need their own rule because possession is not established. By kicking, the team has given up possession. The receiving team has not claimed it yet, but has a right to it. This requires different rules than a traditional play.
The simple rule here is that if a team loses possession of the ball and it goes out of bounds, the team that possessed it last gets the ball back at the spot of the fumble. Your scenario here is different because the team that most recently possessed the ball does not have a claim to it (they kicked) and the other team has not yet fully possessed the ball (you mentioned bobble, not catch). That needs a different rule. The simple thing that comes to mind is to keep the current rules around touchback in the end zone in place for that, but you could easily write another consistent, intuitive rule for it.
I don't have a problem with this rule either. You can't advance the ball on a fumble or else you would have seen rugby or Aussie rules style lobbing and kicking. A muffed kick is different from a fumble because you don't need to ever have possession of the ball, it's just a live ball. A team isn't going to muff kicks on purpose to try to advance the ball a couple of yards out of bounds since it's incredibly risky. If they eliminated this rule, kicks wouldn't change at all.
Yeah. It was pretty white-knuckle overall, but one thing I noticed on that play and a few others near the end was that they managed to flush Mccown away from the side of the field where most of his best options / main reads were headed. I think it was that Harmon play where McCown audibled, and the defense countered by running Harmon across the formation to blitz... flushing McCown to the side where he only had one receiver, it seemed. Will take a better football mind than me to fully explain, but it sure seemed like sending Harmon around the other side was intended to exploit something in the blocking and / or the formation that they picked up on.
Which is why trying to extrapolate things like Points Per Drive in such a small sample size feels like an exercise in futility.
Let me really mess with you guys a bit. Let's say instead of a fumble, this is a backwards pass (lateral in the common vernacular) that the receiver muffs forward.
The difference of course is that on a backwards pass out of bounds, you get the ball wherever it goes out of bounds. If it's forward, free yards. If it's forward past the sticks, free first down.
Let's say the Jets tried a lateral that hit the pylon. Free touchdown? How does your proposed new rule handle that?
The difference of course is that on a backwards pass out of bounds, you get the ball wherever it goes out of bounds. If it's forward, free yards. If it's forward past the sticks, free first down.
Let's say the Jets tried a lateral that hit the pylon. Free touchdown? How does your proposed new rule handle that?
Neither of the above are necessarily true. Both could be safeties depending on how the ball first crossed the goal line. Where the ball became dead in the endzone (whether by knee, sideline, end line, pylon etc.) is irrelevant to the determination.
I'm not saying it's statistically valid. I'm just saying that the second-half defensive performance looks very different if ASJ scores the TD there (or is credited with the TD).
In hindsight it doesn't matter - they won, a win is a win. Looking forward, I'm not especially encouraged by the defensive performance, even though they did shore up some of the more egregious breakdowns. It was just too easy for the Jets, who have a terrible offense, to move the ball.
Rules exist in a sport to reward actions that are aligned with the goals of the game and penalize/discourage actions that are not. Nobody wonders about the bolded part above because the stated goal of a football game is to score points.
If you had 50 football fans watch the Austin Seferian-Jenkins play in real time and rate his sequence (catching ball, bobbling it, falling on pylon, retaining possession) as 'good action', 'bad action' or 'neutral action', effectively nobody would choose 'bad action'. The fact that a frame-by-frame analysis yields a moment where neither hand is touching the ball, and the rulebook yields an explanation that turns this into a touchback firmly puts it in 'dumb rule correctly applied'. I can only imagine that the Founding Fathers of Football conceived of the fumble-endzone rule to punish the Leon Lett's of the world: hubris and carelessness at the threshold of success.
I mostly agree with DennyDoyle'sBoil rule suggestion is the correct one... but then, this would have given the Cowboys the ball at the Bills 1-yard line in the Leon Lett case. To me, the more appropriate fix is just: don't conduct replays in slow motion. The entire, animating, original idea was to fix cases where the call on the field was obviously wrong to the human eye-- not to produce a frozen forensic snapshot of a split-second where Austin Seferian-Jenkins doesn't have the ball in both hands.
To me this is not a problem with the rule, it's a problem with replay. I think this is similar to the pickoff play in the Cubs-Nats game a few days ago. Nobody would argue that a tagged runner who is not in contact with a base is out. But using the same standard above, I don't think 50 baseball fans would describe the runner's actions as "bad" either.
Replay was designed originally to overturn clear and obvious officiating errors. Ideally you should be able to watch once, at full speed, and know whether to overturn or not. I don't think this play is remotely close to that standard.
Yeah, that's probably fair. Maybe I'm being too optimistic with the hopes this defense isn't a fucking nightmare...
A lateral pass that hits the pylon has to start from the end zone. So it's a TD before the lateral happens, end of play.