question about Eli's fumble...

But Pereira said the NFL is trending toward staying with the original call. Of course they are. The field officials don't want to have their calls overturned. Truly think it is a power/ego thing.

Only way replay review works is if they go with the NCAA replay system where the play is checked by a replay ref who tells the field what the call is.

judged that the video evidence showed Eli's leg down before losing control of the ball, they did mention that there was a new officiating emphasis this year to defer more strongly to the calls on the field and unless the video evidence was overwhelming, the officials should now stand by the play as called.

It is the only explanation I can come up with for why the fumble ruling stood. Last year that would have been overturned.

they have the technology to make the right call, they will stick with the wrong call sometimes so as to not hurt the ref's feelings??? or putting a beyond reasonable doubt standard on the review instead of balance of probabilities?

In comment 13130903 Les in TO said:

Quote:

they have the technology to make the right call, they will stick with the wrong call sometimes so as to not hurt the ref's feelings??? or putting a beyond reasonable doubt standard on the review instead of balance of probabilities?

Yes. Their union has fought for this and have been somewhat open about their authority being questioned on the field.

But I will bitch about the fact that the refs who make the call on the field are the same ones who decide whether or not to overturn it. That is a conflict of interest 101.

And I'm not even saying they will defend their calls on the field more, but maybe they'll go the other way. Something subconscious in them wanting to prove they're impartial and they rule calls too often the other way.

I think if anyone takes a look at that video with a fresh set of eyes, the ruling is overturned.

Thanks Eli!

hands to work properly. It doesn't slow the college games down any more than looking under the hood through 6 commercials does.

In comment 13130892 SwirlingEddie said:

Quote:

judged that the video evidence showed Eli's leg down before losing control of the ball, they did mention that there was a new officiating emphasis this year to defer more strongly to the calls on the field and unless the video evidence was overwhelming, the officials should now stand by the play as called. It is the only explanation I can come up with for why the fumble ruling stood. Last year that would have been overturned.

It looked pretty overwhelming to me. The knee was down and the ball came out after. It happened very quickly on real time; there is no shame in not getting the call right the first time.

If the Giants had lost, people would be howling bloody murder about that call. It was clearly wrong, and I hope the Giants are letting the league know about it.

The call on the field stands unless the video evidence is conclusive. On the replay it looked like Eli's knee was down, but you could not see if the ball had already started coming loose. It was most likely not a fumble, but the replay call was correct. It was inconclusive. The call on the field - either way - should have stood.

In my opinion this is the right way to do it. If you can't freeze the video on a frame the indisputably shows it, you stay with the call on the field.

...was that the shot from behind Eli clearly showed the knee, but not his grip on the ball, while the angle from his front showed the his hand on the ball (and eventually losing it), but not the knee. Without seeing both things in the same image, it wasn't possible to tell conclusively whether he still had control when the knee touched. In past years, there has been some willingness to "infer" the sequence by stitching the images together mentally. The League may be moving away from that.

In short, I thought it was an incorrect call, but it might still have been a correct non-reversal.

In comment 13130928 Mike from Ohio said:

Quote:

The call on the field stands unless the video evidence is conclusive. On the replay it looked like Eli's knee was down, but you could not see if the ball had already started coming loose. It was most likely not a fumble, but the replay call was correct. It was inconclusive. The call on the field - either way - should have stood. In my opinion this is the right way to do it. If you can't freeze the video on a frame the indisputably shows it, you stay with the call on the field.

I'm not sure what you were looking at. While his arm and the ball position moved, he very clearly had possession until after his knee hit the ground.

Does anyone have a gif or a slow motion replay they can imbed? I'm limited as to what I can do here at work.

Great minds...

In comment 13130934 Big Blue Blogger said:

Quote:

...was that the shot from behind Eli clearly showed the knee, but not his grip on the ball, while the angle from his front showed the his hand on the ball (and eventually losing it), but not the knee. Without seeing both things in the same image, it wasn't possible to tell conclusively whether he still had control when the knee touched. In past years, there has been some willingness to "infer" the sequence by stitching the images together mentally. The League may be moving away from that. In short, I thought it was an incorrect call, but it might still have been a correct non-reversal.

There was a shot showing Eli from the front that showed both. He didn't lose possession.

...

which basically makes it inconclusive. I would lean towards the ball coming out a split second after the knee hit the ground, but due to the way Eli was holding the ball, its hard to tell [i[definitively[/i] if that was the case.

Replays need to be done by the central office just to speed things up and get consistent calls. They could have a 3 man team in the league office review the play and make the decision and it would likely be much quicker. No need to waste time having the ref run 100 yards, get under the hood, watch the replay, discuss things with a side judge, and run 100 yards back to the action. Still plenty of time for a commercial break with a streamlined review system.

or wasn't a directive given to the crews a few years ago to let the plays go on if you aren't sure on the right call so that fumbles or interception returns wouldn't be whistled dead. The assumption being that all turnovers are reviewed and the correction would be made if they were wrong?

Am I just making that up?

That Eli fumble led to a blocked FG
I Love Clams Casino : 4:12 pm : link : reply
Thanks Eli!

the 7 points!

sucked.

In comment 13130934 Big Blue Blogger said:

Quote:

In short, I thought it was an incorrect call, but it might still have been a correct non-reversal.

I'm with Mike and BBB on this, the call on the field appeared wrong upon replay but it didn't meet the standard of 20 drunks at a bar being in agreement. He still has all five fingers on the ball when his knee hits, but does he still have a grip on it? We're are talking milliseconds here between when his knee touches turf and he loses control of the ball.
p.s.-- When replay was first introduced, the standard was incontrovertible evidence to overturn, but then they started moving towards the "more likely than not" standard, and now they are back to incontrovertible evidence. Sad for the Giants, but I think this was the perfect example of a bad call on the field not deserving to be overturned. Just a couple of milliseconds in either direction and there would've been 100% certainty, but this just happened to hit the sweet spot.

I think most of us thought it was not a fumble, but the replies here demonstrate that it was not conclusive. As much as we may disagree with the original call being correct, letting the call stand was the right decision.

CONCLUSIVELY so. From the repay I'd say it was very likely, but not incontrovertible or conclusive.

was that he was down. It sure was close, but the second angle from behind looked like his knee was on the ground before the ball came out.

In comment 13130928 Mike from Ohio said:

Quote:

The call on the field stands unless the video evidence is conclusive. On the replay it looked like Eli's knee was down, but you could not see if the ball had already started coming loose. It was most likely not a fumble, but the replay call was correct. It was inconclusive. The call on the field - either way - should have stood. In my opinion this is the right way to do it. If you can't freeze the video on a frame the indisputably shows it, you stay with the call on the field.

Exactly

Replay is all messed up and I blame the fact that Dean Blandino sits atop of the officiating pile at NFL. I've written here several times, the fact that Blandino has never officiated a football game at any level is a serious problem.

Either the rules are the rules and replay is used to get the play absolutely correct in so far as possible by video review, or the rules are based on the best ability of the officials on the field of play. Personally, I'm happy with the rules being entirely up to the refs and leaving replay out of the game entirely. But if we're going to have replay, then why any reluctance to overturn the ruling on the field?

Blandino is, by most accounts in the media, a smart guy and a hard worker. But I think its undeniable that officiating has been a mess under his administration. He's just not up to the task. Time for a change and maybe this time we can put someone in charge who's actually worked as a football official?

In this case they did not show the viewers the best sequence of images. Their desire to defer to the on-the-field call was less consequential than it appeared.

get a "black eye" every time a former official, like Pereira,gives a differing ruling on a replay.
An official in the TV booth says he's sees enough to overturn the ruling on the field, but the officials on the field don't ?

Makes the whole replay thing look suspicious

Was clearly down before he lost control of the ball. It was a horrendous call given the replay. Hard to fault the officials making the call in real time, but to not get it right in replay. Get the fuck out

that there is a big push to stay with the call on the field unless there is overwhelming evidence to the contrary. I don't know what the ref saw under the hood, but it looked overwhelming to me; and I don't think this was an case where I was blinded by my Giants bias.

...while he still had control of the ball. That said, it was pretty damn close... and although I was bummed that they didn't overturn it, I was not surprised nor angry that they did not. Seemed like inconclusive was actually the right call.

take care of The Duke

In comment 13131134 Bill in UT said:

Quote:

take care of The Duke

👿

FatMan you are 100% correct.

Steratore flat out F'd that up. So much so that both O and D's stayed on the field cause they knew it would be reversed. It was so bad that Sean Payton couldn't believe it and was laughing at the damn decision.

In comment 13130944 FatMan in Charlotte said:

Quote:

or wasn't a directive given to the crews a few years ago to let the plays go on if you aren't sure on the right call so that fumbles or interception returns wouldn't be whistled dead. The assumption being that all turnovers are reviewed and the correction would be made if they were wrong? Am I just making that up?

Just like Baseball or college football. What kind of antiquated bullshit is looking under a covered hood.How about a dude sitting in a room with 10 angles on 10 different 60 inch tvs deciding what the right call is. Awful that the game refs have anything to do with the review process.

In comment 13130961 Milton said:

Quote:

In comment 13130934 Big Blue Blogger said: Quote: In short, I thought it was an incorrect call, but it might still have been a correct non-reversal. I'm with Mike and BBB on this, the call on the field appeared wrong upon replay but it didn't meet the standard of 20 drunks at a bar being in agreement. He still has all five fingers on the ball when his knee hits, but does he still have a grip on it? We're are talking milliseconds here between when his knee touches turf and he loses control of the ball. p.s.-- When replay was first introduced, the standard was incontrovertible evidence to overturn, but then they started moving towards the "more likely than not" standard, and now they are back to incontrovertible evidence. Sad for the Giants, but I think this was the perfect example of a bad call on the field not deserving to be overturned. Just a couple of milliseconds in either direction and there would've been 100% certainty, but this just happened to hit the sweet spot.

i just don't agree with this. The whole point of the thing...refs, video, whatever, is to get the call right. And there is an absolute truth here; something either is or it isn't. If it's only about feelings, or not showing someone up, at the expense of truth, then they should stop replays altogether. If nobody cares enough to get it right, then flip a coin and move on.

Eli was most likely losing control of the ball well before his knee hit. his hand was still in contact with the ball, but that doesn't mean control. I was hoping it was enough to overturn the call, but in all reality there wasn't enough sign of control to do so. there's a bit of guesswork in that, but my best guess is that he didn't have control, and that's what the refs saw: hand on the ball does not equal control, or at least enough to overturn the call. nothing happened after his knee was down to cause the ball to come out. therefore, it was on its way out.

It was a tough call to swallow, but it was, in all likelihood, the right one.

I have seen several calls this year overturned where the video was far from conclusive. So, as usual, Pereira is full of shit.

So, instead we are left with two layers of incompetence and inconsistency

video evidence it irrefutable I would prefer the call on the field stands.

I though it was going to be over turned by I prefer they don't overturn call unless it is 100% that is was wrong.

I like the need direction as long as they are consistent with it. Somehow I have my doubts that they will be.