The Game Ball Thread: Week 6 at the Jets

soxfan121

JAG
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
23,043
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.
I haven't seen a final number, but they gave up at least three 30+ yard plays (Kerley TD, Kearse catch to start 4Q FG drive, final drive to Anderson) and several other instances of Jets wide open deep-intermediate.

I think it just feels like there were fewer breakdowns because several of the big plays didn't directly result in TDs.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
37,069
Hingham, MA
We have to remember they were playing without 2 of their top 3 CBs; they didn't even dress a 4th. So one of the reasons they dropped 7 and 8 a ton is that they were trying to protect those guys. All in all I think they did a good job, with the glaring exception of the Kearse catch to start the 4Q FG drive - that was horrid. The Kerley catch wasn't horrible, Jones was close to making a play there. Not some huge breakdown.
 

Super Nomario

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2000
14,012
Mansfield MA
I haven't seen a final number, but they gave up at least three 30+ yard plays (Kerley TD, Kearse catch to start 4Q FG drive, final drive to Anderson) and several other instances of Jets wide open deep-intermediate.

I think it just feels like there were fewer breakdowns because several of the big plays didn't directly result in TDs.
I see that as a significant improvement, though. A breakdown that results in a 75-yard TD is a score. A breakdown that results in a 35-yard completion gives you a chance to hold them to a FG or get a turnover. And McCown at least had to run around a little to open some of that stuff up, whereas dudes were just uncovered off the snap against the Panthers.

It's still not good.
 

In Vino Vinatieri

New Member
Nov 20, 2009
139
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.
You said it was kicked. I said it was kicked. It's pretty simple: you can lose yards on a fumble you recover. You can gain yards on a fumble you recover. You can lose yards on a fumble out of bounds. You cannot gain yards on a fumble out of bounds. If it's kicked, and you touch it or fumble it from outside of the endzone into the endzone, then it will be a safety just like if there were no fumble. If, like in your scenario, it's caught in the endzone and then fumbled, it will be a touchback. You can't fumble it forwards out of the endzone.

If you catch a kick, attempt to return it, run backwards and then do things, then it can be a safety. But that is also consistent with the other rules and has nothing to do with fumbling whatsoever, it has to do with you ending the play with a loss. It's irrelevant to fumbling and can't be a touchback.

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.
You can't advance the ball on a fumble out of bounds. That's why this rule is nonsense. Ball is never recovered, never changes possession, and he never crossed the goal line with possession, but it's fumbled and ruled forwards (into the end zone) with an assumed recovery by the Pats. A ball fumbled forwards out of bounds should just be down at the spot of the fumble, which is necessarily before the endzone.
 

Stitch01

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
18,155
Boston
We have to remember they were playing without 2 of their top 3 CBs; they didn't even dress a 4th. So one of the reasons they dropped 7 and 8 a ton is that they were trying to protect those guys. All in all I think they did a good job, with the glaring exception of the Kearse catch to start the 4Q FG drive - that was horrid. The Kerley catch wasn't horrible, Jones was close to making a play there. Not some huge breakdown.
Im say it was more competitive than good. They didnt just give up a long TDs and conversions to uncovered players like they were doing at a horrifying rate for the first month of the year. They competed. But they weren't very effective. Pats had injuries, but the Jets are a bad offense that was missing probably their best offensive skill players. They put up 5.6 yards per play and converted 10/20 3rd and 4th downs despite not having a running game to convert short yardage/help set up favorable third down situations. That's still a pretty bad defense, but this team can compete with a bad defense so Im encouraged. They rolled the AFC last year with an average one.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
37,069
Hingham, MA
I don't disagree with any of that. My thinking is that if Gilmore and Rowe were in there yesterday, it would have been better than competitive.
 

Stitch01

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
18,155
Boston
Maybe, but probably takes a fair bit of optimism to get there. We're like two weeks clear of calls for Gilmore to be benched or cut.
 

CFB_Rules

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 29, 2016
1,604
You can't advance the ball on a fumble out of bounds. That's why this rule is nonsense. Ball is never recovered, never changes possession, and he never crossed the goal line with possession, but it's fumbled and ruled forwards (into the end zone) with an assumed recovery by the Pats. A ball fumbled forwards out of bounds should just be down at the spot of the fumble, which is necessarily before the endzone.
A backwards pass that hits the ground is NOT a fumble. If it somehow goes out of bounds, you snap the ball from the spot regardless of where it goes out. If it goes out ten yards downfield, you gain ten yards. A fumble that goes out of bounds downfield is brought back. 8-7-2 and 8-7-3 would be your rules reference

loshjott said:
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.
No it doesn't. Pass is thrown from the 1. Hits receiver's hands at the 2. Clangs off his hands into the pylon.
 

Blue Monkey

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 23, 2006
5,353
Reading
A9648326-B1E3-4BB1-A45C-CDDA1FD6ACF3.jpeg
Im say it was more competitive than good. They didnt just give up a long TDs and conversions to uncovered players like they were doing at a horrifying rate for the first month of the year. They competed. But they weren't very effective. Pats had injuries, but the Jets are a bad offense that was missing probably their best offensive skill players. They put up 5.6 yards per play and converted 10/20 3rd and 4th downs despite not having a running game to convert short yardage/help set up favorable third down situations. That's still a pretty bad defense, but this team can compete with a bad defense so Im encouraged. They rolled the AFC last year with an average one.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
37,069
Hingham, MA
Ehhhhh. It's not like they were stopping anyone through the air even with Gilmore and Rowe active.
Totally shut down Tampa until the 4th last week, but I get what you guys are saying. I think they get closer each week though. Really, I think they had one big blown play yesterday - the 50 yard play on the FG drive in the 4th - and the rest was, at worst, fairly competitive.
 

DennyDoyle'sBoil

Found no thrill on Blueberry Hill
SoSH Member
Sep 9, 2008
42,297
AZ
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.
It's really hard. Each time you try to fix one problem, you cause another. I think replay is actually pretty good even when you have to go slo mo on certain types of calls, like whether the runner was down before he fumbled. That has probably been replay's highest and best use. They get that one right now, which is hard to call in real time and often was called wrong even by the best refs, and the review is usually fast and conclusive. Same with whether the ball crossed the goal-line. Even though it takes slo mo to figure it out, and even though it's often not conclusive, that is one that needs to be done right when you have a good view. Imagine the ref on the field had called Amendola short on the two-point conversion in the Super Bowl. I want replay there, even if it's slo mo.

I just think we may be debating a question that has no great answer and is always a bit of a compromise.
 

InstaFace

The Ultimate One
SoSH Member
Sep 27, 2016
21,770
Pittsburgh, PA
Game balls to Gronk, the OL and the replay officials. Jets fans should be upset, if that call went against the Pats we’d have a Deflategate length thread about it already.
Can you remember the 2005 playoff game in Denver, and the Ben Watson play? That one was far more blatant.

The rule's in the rulebook. We can argue whether the ball should go to the defense in these situations, or simply be given back to the offense at the point of fumble (barring a defensive recovery). But there's no arguing what the rule says today.
 

dcmissle

Deflatigator
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 4, 2005
28,269
Can you remember the 2005 playoff game in Denver, and the Ben Watson play? That one was far more blatant.

The rule's in the rulebook. We can argue whether the ball should go to the defense in these situations, or simply be given back to the offense at the point of fumble (barring a defensive recovery). But there's no arguing what the rule says today.
Going back eleven and one half years for grievances.

You just made his point.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
37,069
Hingham, MA
I said this yesterday, but the more I watch the replay, the more obvious it seems. While ASJ appears to regain possession while still in the air, he clearly does not land in bounds and officially re-establish possession. That seems clear as day at this point. I don't think there is anything truly controversial or incorrect about this call.

Edit: the way I am thinking about it is this: pretend this is a pass. Would it be a catch? No way, easy call.
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
53,850
I saw upthread where NYJ were 10/20 on 3rd/4th down and that’s not good but I believe they started the game 5/5 so either there were in-game adjustments or they just figured it out.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
37,069
Hingham, MA
BB has a message for the haters

So why, Belichick seemed to be asking, is everyone expecting a finished product at this point?

Touching on how teams evolve over the course of the year, Belichick went on for six minutes and 45 seconds at the end of his day-after-game conference call, capping things off with sarcasm when he said, “I mean, I don’t know, maybe I just can’t figure it out. It’s incomprehensible to me how anybody could think a team that’s practiced for six months and played 19 regular-season and postseason games and had triple-digit practices; five months later, after not playing the game, after having a fraction of that type of experience could be anywhere close to the level of execution that they were five months before that.

“I mean, it’s impossible in my view. So each year, you start all over again. You build your team over the course of the year through practice repetitions, preseason and regular-season games, through the evolving of your scheme. That’s why each year is different and unique.

“But I understand I’m in the minority. Most other people don’t see it that way, which is OK. That’s the way I see it.”
 

wnyghost

New Member
Aug 8, 2010
149
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 just want to know what the deal was with defensive lineman holding on those 2 running plays.
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.
 

Stitch01

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
18,155
Boston
BB has a message for the haters

So why, Belichick seemed to be asking, is everyone expecting a finished product at this point?

Touching on how teams evolve over the course of the year, Belichick went on for six minutes and 45 seconds at the end of his day-after-game conference call, capping things off with sarcasm when he said, “I mean, I don’t know, maybe I just can’t figure it out. It’s incomprehensible to me how anybody could think a team that’s practiced for six months and played 19 regular-season and postseason games and had triple-digit practices; five months later, after not playing the game, after having a fraction of that type of experience could be anywhere close to the level of execution that they were five months before that.

“I mean, it’s impossible in my view. So each year, you start all over again. You build your team over the course of the year through practice repetitions, preseason and regular-season games, through the evolving of your scheme. That’s why each year is different and unique.

“But I understand I’m in the minority. Most other people don’t see it that way, which is OK. That’s the way I see it.”
Its certainly fair to say the team will continue to evolve and that how a team performs in week 6 doesnt define how the team will perform come playoff time (particularly Pats teams, which have tended to improve as the season progresses).

Its not really relevant when talking about the struggles of the defense to date. Everyone plays under the same rules and something like 28-31 of 32 teams have managed to perform better on defense to date.
 

InstaFace

The Ultimate One
SoSH Member
Sep 27, 2016
21,770
Pittsburgh, PA
Going back eleven and one half years for grievances.

You just made his point.
My point, which I perhaps should have elaborated, is that fans have a legitimate grievance when the game isn't called by the rulebook, either because it happened too fast or it was all inconclusive. I think the Jets fans here have no more valid a case than the Raiders did with the tuck-rule play. Perhaps it's a silly rule, and I would even support changing it, but it is still the rule.

There have been bad calls that went in the Pats' favor, e.g. the non-call on Hogan's block on Amendola's 2PC in the Super Bowl... but this isn't one of them. Dallas fans who were scarred by Dez Bryant's shoulda-been-a-catch in the playoffs will share a good cry with Jets fans, but the rest of us should bear them little sympathy.

So where I disagree with 8slim is that if the reverse happened to us, there would be a brief outpouring of despair and whining around here, but it would be largely muted by the sensible posters saying "uh, sorry, tough play for us but that's the rule". It certainly wouldn't be a Ballghazi-length mass protest of "they're all our to get us!", where nobody can really offer a strong case for the other point of view.

edit: in other words, to quote a wise man,
I enjoy that Deflategate has done nothing to discourage people from the whole "NFL HQ cheats for the Pats".

Time to buy a boat. And sail it down the river of troll tears.
 

Nator

Member
SoSH Member
NFLN treating the call as routine and no big deal
The one thing I dislike about this network and give ESPN credit for is that when there is something clearly controversial in regard to officiating, the NFLN will barely give it a passing mention and even then treat it with kid gloves (Please note I have not watched anything since the late night highlights show on NFLN, maybe they got into it this morning).

The best example of this was ESPN's and NFLN's reaction to the "Fail Mary" back in 2012. ESPN was rightfully hammering the officiating crew just after the game. NFLN was something more along the lines of,"Heh heh heh...wow...what a crazy ending."

This of course was the final blow to the replacement refs, considering the horror show the previous night's SNF Patriots/Ravens game's numerous bad calls.
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
30,096
Its certainly fair to say the team will continue to evolve and that how a team performs in week 6 doesnt define how the team will perform come playoff time (particularly Pats teams, which have tended to improve as the season progresses).

Its not really relevant when talking about the struggles of the defense to date. Everyone plays under the same rules and something like 28-31 of 32 teams have managed to perform better on defense to date.
History and past performance IS relevant however when discussing one particular head coaches schemes and growth curve during the course of each individual season since the year 2000. In other words, "we've seen this movie before" and the sample of the improvement curve of Belichick coached teams is long enough to be identified as a trend. Is there anyone who felt that a BB coached team isn't going to make greater improvements over the course of a season than any other non-BB coached team?
 

Stitch01

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
18,155
Boston
Particularly Pats teams, which have tended to improve as the season progresses.

But this is, alongside maybe 2011, the worst early season baseline to improve from and they're underperforming pretty much every other team in the league.

The track record is reason to be optimistic about seeing some improvement. "Well this isnt a finished product" isnt a great explanation for the team being worse than almost all the other teams on defense so far and worse than almost every other Pats team since 2000. The grade for "defensive performance" so far would be a D if we're being generous.
 

Super Nomario

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2000
14,012
Mansfield MA
Going back eleven and one half years for grievances.

You just made his point.
I would think the 2013 game against the Jets would be a more prominent questionable-referring-revenge touchpoint. Remember that one, the Jets missed a FG in OT but then the Patriots were called for a penalty that had never been called in the history of the NFL and gave the Jets 15 yards for the game-winner?

History and past performance IS relevant however when discussing one particular head coaches schemes and growth curve during the course of each individual season since the year 2000. In other words, "we've seen this movie before" and the sample of the improvement curve of Belichick coached teams is long enough to be identified as a trend. Is there anyone who felt that a BB coached team isn't going to make greater improvements over the course of a season than any other non-BB coached team?
We are starting from such a low starting point that the D can make greater improvements than most units on other teams and still be awful.
 

PedroKsBambino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2003
31,212
My point, which I perhaps should have elaborated, is that fans have a legitimate grievance when the game isn't called by the rulebook, either because it happened too fast or it was all inconclusive. I think the Jets fans here have no more valid a case than the Raiders did with the tuck-rule play. Perhaps it's a silly rule, and I would even support changing it, but it is still the rule.

There have been bad calls that went in the Pats' favor, e.g. the non-call on Hogan's block on Amendola's 2PC in the Super Bowl... but this isn't one of them. Dallas fans who were scarred by Dez Bryant's shoulda-been-a-catch in the playoffs will share a good cry with Jets fans, but the rest of us should bear them little sympathy.

So where I disagree with 8slim is that if the reverse happened to us, there would be a brief outpouring of despair and whining around here, but it would be largely muted by the sensible posters saying "uh, sorry, tough play for us but that's the rule". It certainly wouldn't be a Ballghazi-length mass protest of "they're all our to get us!", where nobody can really offer a strong case for the other point of view.

edit: in other words, to quote a wise man,
People have gone overboard in saying this is not a judgment call it is about the rule, or in saying it is obvious what the play was. Pereira and Blandino (plus essentially every color analyst on TV) felt there was ambiguity about what occurred. And, many also think the rules sucks. But those are distinct things.

The Tuck Rule play is one that, a day later, there was very little factual debate about what occurred, but a great deal about whether the rule sucks.
 

dcmissle

Deflatigator
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 4, 2005
28,269
BB has a message for the haters

So why, Belichick seemed to be asking, is everyone expecting a finished product at this point?

Touching on how teams evolve over the course of the year, Belichick went on for six minutes and 45 seconds at the end of his day-after-game conference call, capping things off with sarcasm when he said, “I mean, I don’t know, maybe I just can’t figure it out. It’s incomprehensible to me how anybody could think a team that’s practiced for six months and played 19 regular-season and postseason games and had triple-digit practices; five months later, after not playing the game, after having a fraction of that type of experience could be anywhere close to the level of execution that they were five months before that.

“I mean, it’s impossible in my view. So each year, you start all over again. You build your team over the course of the year through practice repetitions, preseason and regular-season games, through the evolving of your scheme. That’s why each year is different and unique.

“But I understand I’m in the minority. Most other people don’t see it that way, which is OK. That’s the way I see it.”
I don't see any point in bashing your team, unless they are not giving a professional grade effort. And even then, he tends to bench them and eventually get rid of them (absent improvement) without elaborate commentary.
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
30,096
Particularly Pats teams, which have tended to improve as the season progresses.

But this is, alongside maybe 2011, the worst early season baseline to improve from and they're underperforming pretty much every other team in the league.

The track record is reason to be optimistic about seeing some improvement. "Well this isnt a finished product" isnt a great explanation for the team being worse than almost all the other teams on defense so far and worse than almost every other Pats team since 2000. The grade for "defensive performance" so far would be a D if we're being generous.
How much worse is it than 2014 when Miami and KC each rushed for 200 yards against us allowing Tannehill and Alex Smith to control the game from pretty much start to finish? If not for facing Matt Cassel and rookie Derek Care, and an awful Raider team, our defensive numbers would have been similar if not worse as we seemed to be much worse off in '14 to begin the season. Do you remember the line at the Tobin following that Chiefs game?
 

Stitch01

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
18,155
Boston
On defense? This has been much worse and its not very close. Do you remember that in 2014 the biggest problem to start the season was actually with the offensive (and the offensive line) in particular, not the defense?

Pats were 10th in defensive DVOA after week 4 in 2014. Yes, imperfect metric and schedule adjustments hadnt kicked in so that probably overstates how well they were playing, but we werent reading articles asking "are the 2014 Patriots the worst NFL defense in a decade". That defense at least shut down terrible quarterbacks rather than being carved up by them.

That team improved dramatically on offense when they made personnel changes on the OL and Gronk returned to being Gronk. I dont see as much personnel improvement coming on defense here. Hightower being back at full strength and Gilmore playing closer to his potential probably the best sources of personnel help? I expect they'll get better, but I think "bad defense" is probably the best realistic goal.
 
Last edited:

InstaFace

The Ultimate One
SoSH Member
Sep 27, 2016
21,770
Pittsburgh, PA
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.
This is easier than you're making it. Here is a simple, and true, statement, which I've found has been the best way to discuss this in the office this morning: "ASJ NEVER HAD POSSESSION IN THE END ZONE".

He had plenty of possession before the end zone (so it can't be an incompletion). He had possession just as he was about to reach the end zone. But once his body crossed the goal line, as he scrambled to re-clutch the ball, his body fell out of bounds. When he finally did get possession, he was out of bounds.

After his fumble, he needed to re-establish possession. That possession requires that he both secure the ball and land in bounds, and the reasons for the latter should be obvious if you consider how catches on the sideline work, or catches in the endzone. And he never had that possession while in the end zone.

Based on all this discussion, can you guys believe we put people in cages based on eye witness testimony? That's my societal takeaway.
This right here is why you're a great poster.

People have gone overboard in saying this is not a judgment call it is about the rule, or in saying it is obvious what the play was. Pereira and Blandino (plus essentially every color analyst on TV) felt there was ambiguity about what occurred. And, many also think the rules sucks. But those are distinct things.

The Tuck Rule play is one that, a day later, there was very little factual debate about what occurred, but a great deal about whether the rule sucks.
Your retelling of the play, through Pereira and Blandino's discussions, clearly ignores the second bobble. If they didn't look at it long enough to see the second bobble, I'm not going to credit their interpretation of the rules against the facts of the play.

Color analysts are not exactly known for having technocratic levels of clarity on the nuances of the rules (sorry @ConigliarosPotential ). "The crowd" is not always wise. I'm not sure why you're making an argument of "well there were lots of people who felt differently!" when the frame-by-frame replays are obvious and are posted in this exact thread. We're not low-information people giving a hot take. We can get to a right answer here.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
37,069
Hingham, MA
On defense? This has been much worse and its not very close. Do you remember that in 2014 the biggest problem to start the season was actually with the offensive (and the offensive line) in particular, not the defense?

Pats were 10th in defensive DVOA after week 4 in 2014. Yes, imperfect metric and schedule adjustments hadnt kicked in so that probably overstates how well they were playing, but we werent reading articles asking "are the 2014 Patriots the worst NFL defense in a decade". That defense at least shut down terrible quarterbacks rather than being carved up by them.

That team improved dramatically on offense when they made personnel changes on the OL and Gronk returned to being Gronk. I dont see as much personnel improvement coming on defense here. Hightower being back at full strength and Gilmore playing closer to his potential probably the best sources of personnel help? I expect they'll get better, but I think "bad defense" is probably the best realistic goal.
As much as I believe they will be fine this year, this is spot on. The worst defensive performance through the first 7 weeks of 2014 was 443 yards to the Chiefs. The D is AVERAGING giving up 440 a game this year. The concerns in 2014 were that the D was supposed to be elite but was only playing middle of the pack, and the offense was also not playing very well, so they were basically an average team. This year it is more like the offense is playing pretty well, the D is horrible, so the overall result is similar, just different components.
 

PedroKsBambino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2003
31,212
Your retelling of the play, through Pereira and Blandino's discussions, clearly ignores the second bobble. If they didn't look at it long enough to see the second bobble, I'm not going to credit their interpretation of the rules against the facts of the play.

Color analysts are not exactly known for having technocratic levels of clarity on the nuances of the rules (sorry @ConigliarosPotential ). "The crowd" is not always wise. I'm not sure why you're making an argument of "well there were lots of people who felt differently!" when the frame-by-frame replays are obvious and are posted in this exact thread. We're not low-information people giving a hot take. We can get to a right answer here.
My guess, based on what they said, is that they felt control was fully re-established before the second bobble. But I don't know--though I think you lack a basis to suggest they ignored it altogether. These are, I assume most would agree, the two most credible folks on a question like this and (at least in Pereira's case) have been cited around here as authorities for years. That doesn't mean they are always right, but I do think it matters in the discussion and puts them above the casual dismissal above. Riveron's description (as quoted on ESPN, at least) does not rely on the second bobble---it says he never had possession again before touching out of bounds.

I find the need to not just say 'we'll take it' or 'it's close, I think they got it right in the end' but instead to say 'there is no absolutely no ambiguity about the call' is odd in this case given the play itself and the commentary I've read/heard on it. Perhaps people have adopted that because of the standard for replay review; I think (and many said contemporaneously) that there real uncertainty. I guess if someone wants to throw out all the conclusions that do not say it is obvious that is their right...
 
Last edited:

Van Everyman

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2009
26,993
Newton
So, isn't the call on the field as simple as "We had clear visual evidence that the runner lost possession of the ball as well as clear evidence that he never regained it"?

Once ASJ loses possession of the ball, the only way this could have been a touchdown was if two things happened to convince the referees that he had re-gained possession:

First, the ball had to be re-secured in bounds, and

Second, the ball had to be secure as ASJ went to the ground.

The latter clearly didn't happen as we saw the ball move around once he was rolling on the ground. But since we do not have evidence of possession as he touched the pylon, what happened once he went to the ground is actually irrelevant.

Point being, once the ball was no longer in his possession, the burden of proof was to re-establish possession was not on the refs but on ASJ -- and it needed to happen before he touched the pylon/went into the end zone and after he went out of bounds. He needed to demonstrate he did both -- and he actually did neither.
 

m0ckduck

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2005
1,714
It's really hard. Each time you try to fix one problem, you cause another. I think replay is actually pretty good even when you have to go slo mo on certain types of calls, like whether the runner was down before he fumbled. That has probably been replay's highest and best use. They get that one right now, which is hard to call in real time and often was called wrong even by the best refs, and the review is usually fast and conclusive. Same with whether the ball crossed the goal-line. Even though it takes slo mo to figure it out, and even though it's often not conclusive, that is one that needs to be done right when you have a good view. Imagine the ref on the field had called Amendola short on the two-point conversion in the Super Bowl. I want replay there, even if it's slo mo.

I just think we may be debating a question that has no great answer and is always a bit of a compromise.
I agree that every supposed fix carries its own drawbacks.

It's just.... the assumption I've come to question is there's value in capturing what really happened on a forensic frame-by-frame level as it relates to sports. Yes, you can capture whether a football came loose for a split second... but to what end? This isn't CSI Miami. Sports only have meaning as perceived drama about who wins a contest— and the rules of sports exist only to reward acts that align with the goals of the contest. The drama takes place in real time and is perceived at real speed, at which speed 50 out of 50 guys in a bar would see yesterday's play completely differently than it was eventually called. If a slo-mo replay yields a narrative that's totally different than the mutually-perceived narrative on the field, than the slo-mo is likely at fault. You may think it's showing you what 'really' happened— but at a certain point, you're only observing a very large man carrying a pig anyway. What's the point?

Now, if slo-mo always produced accurate calls, then I admit this would be an obscure wankerish complaint. (And the Amendola 2PC example is a very good instance of where frame-by-frame replay helped get it right). But slo-mo does actually yield calls that are inaccurate in many cases— for example, our perception of whether a player established possession is often just flat-out wrong when viewing a slo-mo replay because we apply standards of time that come from real-time viewing. To put it another way, slo-mo replays often establish their own intrinsic weird, arbitrary burdens of proof. And, to return to an earlier point, the animating spirit of replay has been to address cases where everyone in the stadium sees one thing and the ref somehow sees another— not to introduce this whole different layer of analysis that is invisible to the naked eye.

I've come to think that full-speed only replays would probably produce the same ratio of correct/incorrect calls as slo-mo ones currently do, but they would (a) speed up the review process, (b) remove this lame pseudo-legalistic faux-objectivity from the process and (c) spare us some of the endless pedantic parsing that currently happens in the middle of what is supposed to be my freaking weekly sports fix.
 

PedroKsBambino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2003
31,212
So, isn't the call on the field as simple as "We had clear visual evidence that the runner lost possession of the ball as well as clear evidence that he never regained it"?

Once ASJ loses possession of the ball, the only way this could have been a touchdown was if two things happened to convince the referees that he had re-gained possession:

First, the ball had to be re-secured in bounds, and

Second, the ball had to be secure as ASJ went to the ground.

The latter clearly didn't happen as we saw the ball move around once he was rolling on the ground. But since we do not have evidence of possession as he touched the pylon, what happened once he went to the ground is actually irrelevant.

Point being, once the ball was no longer in his possession, the burden of proof was to re-establish possession was not on the refs but on ASJ -- and it needed to happen before he touched the pylon/went into the end zone and after he went out of bounds. He needed to demonstrate he did both -- and he actually did neither.
No, this is where the replay standard comes into play. The call on the field (rightly or wrongly) was a touchdown. That means the replay review must meet a very high standard showing clearly that there was NOT re-possession and contact within the field (alternatively, that if those occurred he did not maintain possession when he hit the ground---though interesting that none of Pereira, Blandino, or Riveron focused on this aspect as Corrente did).

People have their own views on whether that standard was met, but the replay is not a 'de novo' review. As I've said elsewhere, I think the replay standard on the book is too high a bar, but it is the rule right now.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
37,069
Hingham, MA
Again, isn't this as simple as, ASJ might have re-gained possession in bounds, but because he didn't land in bounds, he is 100% out of bounds? Think of a regular fumble, near the sideline. Ball is in the air. Defender dives for the ball and gains possession while mid-air, but lands out of bounds. In that situation, the offense clearly retains possession, because the defensive player landed out of bounds. This seems to be the exact same scenario - ASJ landed out of bounds with the ball (which is the official point of possession - you can't have possession unless you are in bounds by a knee or two feet), and that happened in the end zone, ergo, touchback.
 

PedroKsBambino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2003
31,212
Again, isn't this as simple as, ASJ might have re-gained possession in bounds, but because he didn't land in bounds, he is 100% out of bounds? Think of a regular fumble, near the sideline. Ball is in the air. Defender dives for the ball and gains possession while mid-air, but lands out of bounds. In that situation, the offense clearly retains possession, because the defensive player landed out of bounds. This seems to be the exact same scenario - ASJ landed out of bounds with the ball (which is the official point of possession - you can't have possession unless you are in bounds by a knee or two feet), and that happened in the end zone, ergo, touchback.
Just to illustrate that people differ, Blandino said he thought ASJ's knee may have touched down inbounds after re-possession and that since he's unable to say conclusively that did not occur, the call on the field must stand.

YMMV....
 

Stitch01

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
18,155
Boston
My guess, based on what they said, is that they felt control was fully re-established before the second bobble. But I don't know--though I think you lack a basis to suggest they ignored it altogether. These are, I assume most would agree, the two most credible folks on a question like this and (at least in Pereira's case) have been cited around here as authorities for years. That doesn't mean they are always right, but I do think it matters in the discussion and puts them above the casual dismissal above.

I find the need to not just say 'we'll take it' or 'it's close, I think they got it right in the end' but instead to say 'there is no absolutely no ambiguity about the call' is odd in this case given the play itself and the commentary I've read/heard on it. Perhaps people have adopted that because of the standard for replay review; I think (and many said contemporaneously) that there real uncertainty. I guess if someone wants to throw out all the conclusions that do not say it is obvious that is their right...
The second bobble occurs right when ASJ hits the ground. So if Pereira or whoever felt control was established before the second bobble, they are describing the rule differently than Corrente describes the rule. Corrente describes ASJ as having to retain possession and survive hitting the ground. So Corrente is saying it is impossible, by rule, to re-establish control before the second bobble occurs. ASJ can only reestablish possession by surviving a hit to the ground If ASJ can reestablish possession before hitting the ground, then I think replays are inconclusive (I thought this was the rule before the discussion in this thread. That's why I posted in the game thread that the ball moves, but it doesn't matter that it moves. Discussion here has convinced me I had the rule wrong).

If ASJ can't reestablish possession by rule until he survives the ground, then I agree with Corrente and the current senior NFL officiating officials who reversed the call. It is pretty clearly a fumble out of bounds by rule. Maybe people don't think there was a clear bobble, OK,it looks clear to me but I wont argue with that. But there's a difference between how Corrente presented the rule and your explanation of how Pereira interpreted the rule. I think that Corrente's interpretation is correct based on what was posted here.

Same issue with the Blandino explanation. The second bobble occurs after the knee hits, so whether it was inbounds or not wouldn't have changed what Corrente and the current senior NFL officials decided to call the play based on Corrente's explanation.

Replay standards are a problem though. Particularly given the desire to call jump balls in a manner that forces the play to be reviewed.
 
Last edited:

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
37,069
Hingham, MA
Just to illustrate that people differ, Blandino said he thought ASJ's knee may have touched down inbounds after re-possession and that since he's unable to say conclusively that did not occur, the call on the field must stand.

YMMV....
Right, true. It is a weird standard here - clearly, the fumble is clear and obvious. Where the knee lands is not clear and obvious. Should the default be that it was in, or that it was out? There was no "call on the field" to stand by here, the officials on the field weren't ruling on that. Doesn't look like the knee lands in bounds but hard to be 100% certain.

Edit: looking at the gif posted on this page of the thread, hard to say anything landed in bounds. That is a stretch, IMO.

Edit 2: it is fascinating to think of this as "was this a catch". If we pretend ASJ is trying to catch a pass and not recover a fumble, is it obvious that it is "incomplete"? Still unsure.
 
Last edited:

Stitch01

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
18,155
Boston
I think PKB's logic about the standard is right. If a fumble has no clear recovery on a fumble the call on the field stands. Logically it would seem this situation is analogous.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
12,680
The replay clearly showed that Jenkins lost possession of the ball though. The standard for replay was met. Just saying "Well he mighta regained possession!!! You don't know!!!" isn't an argument. He lost possession as he was sailing through the end zone and the ball is still moving after. All indications are that he didn't regain possession until he was out of bounds. Period.
 

InstaFace

The Ultimate One
SoSH Member
Sep 27, 2016
21,770
Pittsburgh, PA
My guess, based on what they said, is that they felt control was fully re-established before the second bobble. But I don't know--though I think you lack a basis to suggest they ignored it altogether. These are, I assume most would agree, the two most credible folks on a question like this and (at least in Pereira's case) have been cited around here as authorities for years. That doesn't mean they are always right, but I do think it matters in the discussion and puts them above the casual dismissal above. Riveron's description (as quoted on ESPN, at least) does not rely on the second bobble---it says he never had possession again before touching out of bounds.

I find the need to not just say 'we'll take it' or 'it's close, I think they got it right in the end' but instead to say 'there is no absolutely no ambiguity about the call' is odd in this case given the play itself and the commentary I've read/heard on it. Perhaps people have adopted that because of the standard for replay review; I think (and many said contemporaneously) that there real uncertainty. I guess if someone wants to throw out all the conclusions that do not say it is obvious that is their right...
I have reviewed the evidence and am confident that there can be no real uncertainty about the accuracy of the call. Others are free to differ - certainly, yours is the most cogent and reasonable of the opposing opinions I've read here.

I read with interest your earlier links to Pereira and Blandino, and found their discussion of it wanting for any consideration of some key (what I would call) facts. I think I've spilled enough digital ink on the subject for this thread, but if there were a breakout thread about "was it the right call", I'd be happy to dig in again and see if we can find common ground.

There are so few situations in life where there is a clear right answer - I find that to be one of the more fun aspects of following sports, frankly. The idea that justice as to outcomes is so transparent that a single human can dispense it in real time, with only occasional corrections by an appeals court (which itself spends maybe 1-2 minutes on a decision). It's almost romantic. So maybe I get carried away a bit on the idea that this can all be boiled down to a black-and-white answer.
 

CFB_Rules

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 29, 2016
1,604
Right, true. It is a weird standard here - clearly, the fumble is clear and obvious. Where the knee lands is not clear and obvious. Should the default be that it was in, or that it was out? There was no "call on the field" to stand by here, the officials on the field weren't ruling on that.
You don't know it the "call on the field" was touchdown because the official ruled no fumble, or touchdown because the official ruled fumble and recovery in the end zone.
 

Stitch01

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
18,155
Boston
We do know. They didnt know the ball had come loose.

The initial ruling was a touchdown. Why was that?

“Because the position of the official involved had the player’s back to him when all this action occurred, so when the player came down with the football, all he saw was the ball over the goal line and that’s why he did not know the ball came loose.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
37,069
Hingham, MA
Ah. Great point. So back to my question - if there is no ruling on the field for the piece of the play they are reviewing, what is the standard of evidence? To me, it would be that there was a clear fumble, with no clear indication he regained possession in bounds, and therefore touchback, but I may be wrong.
 

CFB_Rules

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 29, 2016
1,604
Ah. Great point. So back to my question - if there is no ruling on the field for the piece of the play they are reviewing, what is the standard of evidence? To me, it would be that there was a clear fumble, with no clear indication he regained possession in bounds, and therefore touchback, but I may be wrong.
By "we" in my post I mean replay. Replay doesn't get to talk to the calling official, they just know that the ruling is a touchdown. I'm not 100% sure about the NFL level, but at the college level the highest standard would be assumed for overturning (i.e. as soon as they see the fumble in replay, they assume the official saw it and ruled in-bounds).
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
37,069
Hingham, MA
By "we" in my post I mean replay. Replay doesn't get to talk to the calling official, they just know that the ruling is a touchdown. I'm not 100% sure about the NFL level, but at the college level the highest standard would be assumed for overturning (i.e. as soon as they see the fumble in replay, they assume the official saw it and ruled in-bounds).
Thanks. Guessing it is different in the NFL in that I would think they would know what the call on the field was, but I could be wrong, easily.
 

CFB_Rules

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 29, 2016
1,604
Thanks. Guessing it is different in the NFL in that I would think they would know what the call on the field was, but I could be wrong, easily.
The college replay system was based on the NFL (and in some cases like the SEC with the NFL itself). I believe replay not talking to the calling official is actually a feature, not a bug.