And a lot of good an explanation will do. They still get the loss and we will continue to see completely unacceptable calls in every single game. The product is a disaster
Runner loses control of the ball on the way into the end zone. Other team never touches it. Ball never hits the ground. He never had control of the ball in the end zone, so it's not a TD, fine. But it shouldn't be a "fumble into the end zone."
It's a fluky situation, but the offense should get the ball at the spot the ball carrier lost it. Or maybe at the 1.
the pass interference call earlier in ther game was ridiculous
Runner loses control of the ball on the way into the end zone. Other team never touches it. Ball never hits the ground. He never had control of the ball in the end zone, so it's not a TD, fine. But it shouldn't be a "fumble into the end zone."
It's a fluky situation, but the offense should get the ball at the spot the ball carrier lost it. Or maybe at the 1.
From every single angle I seen, including the still shot in the link in the op, shows that he clearly regained possession. And even if you want to debate whether he did or didn't, the call on the field was a touchdown. So where is the indisputable evidence to overturn it?
Runner loses control of the ball on the way into the end zone. Other team never touches it. Ball never hits the ground. He never had control of the ball in the end zone, so it's not a TD, fine. But it shouldn't be a "fumble into the end zone."
It's a fluky situation, but the offense should get the ball at the spot the ball carrier lost it. Or maybe at the 1.
He had control again when he hit the pylon
Jets got screwed. Typical Patriots. Even when they should lose
Runner loses control of the ball on the way into the end zone. Other team never touches it. Ball never hits the ground. He never had control of the ball in the end zone, so it's not a TD, fine. But it shouldn't be a "fumble into the end zone."
It's a fluky situation, but the offense should get the ball at the spot the ball carrier lost it. Or maybe at the 1.
From every single angle I seen, including the still shot in the link in the op, shows that he clearly regained possession. And even if you want to debate whether he did or didn't, the call on the field was a touchdown. So where is the indisputable evidence to overturn it?
he juggled the ball going out of bounds but never lost it. absolutely the worst call I've ever seen. Truly unreal that they overturned a TD there.
sure they blew some calls but nothing has changed except more commercials.
This is flat false. Trust me you don't want to go back to the days of no replay. For every bad call there are 5 good ones. The refs suck but the replay process isn't making things worse. Replay is a much needed aid.
Baseball replay is another story entirely. I'm convinced the umpires are missing more calls because they know replay can and will bail them out.
In comment 13649318 81_Great_Dane said:
Quote:
but then there's a problem with the rule.
Runner loses control of the ball on the way into the end zone. Other team never touches it. Ball never hits the ground. He never had control of the ball in the end zone, so it's not a TD, fine. But it shouldn't be a "fumble into the end zone."
It's a fluky situation, but the offense should get the ball at the spot the ball carrier lost it. Or maybe at the 1.
He had control again when he hit the pylon
Watching the replays IMO he loses the ball b4 breaking the plane then it's tough to tell when he gets it back. It's fluky but I'm not sure there's a rule change to be made. In fact, he doesn't really have possession again until it ends up in his right hand after he bobbles it - if he had held it in his left the whole way I'd say TD. But when he falls into the pylon w/o possession its a touchback. Looked right to me
The only thing is maybe they shouldn't have overturned the call on the field being so close, but I'm surprised at the outrage even by the announcers
was that they determined he did not have control of the ball until he went to the ground and lost it. That should result in the no TD, but I don't see how it is ruled a fumble if they are saying he didn't have control.
Had he had complete control before going to the ground, it would have been a TD because at that point he was a runner and would have crossed the plane in control.
RE: The explanation I heard in the Jets post-game radio show
was that they determined he did not have control of the ball until he went to the ground and lost it. That should result in the no TD, but I don't see how it is ruled a fumble if they are saying he didn't have control.
Had he had complete control before going to the ground, it would have been a TD because at that point he was a runner and would have crossed the plane in control.
Bit, I don't understand that explanation. The problem was that it was incorrectly ruled a TD on the field. The replay shows he did fumble the ball before being down and before crossing the plane/hitting the pylon. The review actually yielded the correct call, in my opinion.
RE: RE: In hindsight we were better off before replay
sure they blew some calls but nothing has changed except more commercials.
This is flat false. Trust me you don't want to go back to the days of no replay. For every bad call there are 5 good ones. The refs suck but the replay process isn't making things worse. Replay is a much needed aid.
Baseball replay is another story entirely. I'm convinced the umpires are missing more calls because they know replay can and will bail them out.
Agree they missed a lot of calls. Just see how many are correctly reversed.
RE: RE: The explanation I heard in the Jets post-game radio show
was that they determined he did not have control of the ball until he went to the ground and lost it. That should result in the no TD, but I don't see how it is ruled a fumble if they are saying he didn't have control.
Had he had complete control before going to the ground, it would have been a TD because at that point he was a runner and would have crossed the plane in control.
Bit, I don't understand that explanation. The problem was that it was incorrectly ruled a TD on the field. The replay shows he did fumble the ball before being down and before crossing the plane/hitting the pylon. The review actually yielded the correct call, in my opinion.
He never fumbled. The ball never hit the ground. He might not have had possession, but then the TD just should have been reversed.
RE: RE: The explanation I heard in the Jets post-game radio show
was that they determined he did not have control of the ball until he went to the ground and lost it. That should result in the no TD, but I don't see how it is ruled a fumble if they are saying he didn't have control.
Had he had complete control before going to the ground, it would have been a TD because at that point he was a runner and would have crossed the plane in control.
Bit, I don't understand that explanation. The problem was that it was incorrectly ruled a TD on the field. The replay shows he did fumble the ball before being down and before crossing the plane/hitting the pylon. The review actually yielded the correct call, in my opinion.
Had he landed inbounds in the endzone, it would have remained a TD because he regained control on the ground. But, while the ball was out, he hit the pylon which is both the end zone and out of bounds and was not yet down. He landed down out of bounds. So he never re-gained control inbounds.
Ball remains loose while it's in the end zone, never in ball carrier's possession in end zone.
Ball goes over sideline.
Ball carrier regains possession but is out of bounds.
Therefore, since the ball was fumbled, was never in anyone's possession in the end zone, and then went out of bounds before it was regained, it's a fumble out of the end zone. So, technically, the call is correct.
I think the moral of the story for ball carriers going to the corner of the end zone is: DON'T DO THAT.
Regardless of whether the call was technically correct
Ball remains loose while it's in the end zone, never in ball carrier's possession in end zone.
Ball goes over sideline.
Ball carrier regains possession but is out of bounds.
Therefore, since the ball was fumbled, was never in anyone's possession in the end zone, and then went out of bounds before it was regained, it's a fumble out of the end zone. So, technically, the call is correct.
I think the moral of the story for ball carriers going to the corner of the end zone is: DON'T DO THAT.
IT WAS NEVER FUMBLED. The ball never hit the ground in bounds.
what makes you think that the ball has to hit the ground for it to be fumbled?
If a Patriot snagged it out of the air before ASJ regained possession, what would it be? An interception? I think not.
'
Quote:
ARTICLE 5. FUMBLE
A Fumble is any act, other than passing, handing, or legally kicking the ball, which results in a loss of player possession. The use of the term Fumble always means that the ball was in possession of a player when the act occurred (8-7).
RE: The ball is clearly in his possession when he hits the pylon.
what makes you think that the ball has to hit the ground for it to be fumbled?
If a Patriot snagged it out of the air before ASJ regained possession, what would it be? An interception? I think not.
'
Quote:
ARTICLE 5. FUMBLE
A Fumble is any act, other than passing, handing, or legally kicking the ball, which results in a loss of player possession. The use of the term Fumble always means that the ball was in possession of a player when the act occurred (8-7).
Did a Patriot catch the ball? No. So the issue is whether the ball hit the ground.p
Had possession in the end one. The ball came out at the 1/2 yard line and was not recovered in the end zone, it was recovered out of bounds.
That s the only explanation they can give. By rule that is a touchback.
The Jets have an argument that there was not enough evidence to show he did not have possession in the end zone.
I don t think we will see NFL saying this was a mistake.
There certainly was enough evidence. He lost the ball before he crossed the plane. He was airborne at that point, so he would have to gain control when he landed, which was out of bounds. Had he landed inbounds in the end zone, I think it would be a TD.
except it looked like the Jets receiver kept possession to the ground.
Damn NFL.
Runner loses control of the ball on the way into the end zone. Other team never touches it. Ball never hits the ground. He never had control of the ball in the end zone, so it's not a TD, fine. But it shouldn't be a "fumble into the end zone."
It's a fluky situation, but the offense should get the ball at the spot the ball carrier lost it. Or maybe at the 1.
Runner loses control of the ball on the way into the end zone. Other team never touches it. Ball never hits the ground. He never had control of the ball in the end zone, so it's not a TD, fine. But it shouldn't be a "fumble into the end zone."
It's a fluky situation, but the offense should get the ball at the spot the ball carrier lost it. Or maybe at the 1.
From every single angle I seen, including the still shot in the link in the op, shows that he clearly regained possession. And even if you want to debate whether he did or didn't, the call on the field was a touchdown. So where is the indisputable evidence to overturn it?
except it looked like the Jets receiver kept possession to the ground.
Damn NFL.
Runner loses control of the ball on the way into the end zone. Other team never touches it. Ball never hits the ground. He never had control of the ball in the end zone, so it's not a TD, fine. But it shouldn't be a "fumble into the end zone."
It's a fluky situation, but the offense should get the ball at the spot the ball carrier lost it. Or maybe at the 1.
He had control again when he hit the pylon
Quote:
but then there's a problem with the rule.
Runner loses control of the ball on the way into the end zone. Other team never touches it. Ball never hits the ground. He never had control of the ball in the end zone, so it's not a TD, fine. But it shouldn't be a "fumble into the end zone."
It's a fluky situation, but the offense should get the ball at the spot the ball carrier lost it. Or maybe at the 1.
From every single angle I seen, including the still shot in the link in the op, shows that he clearly regained possession. And even if you want to debate whether he did or didn't, the call on the field was a touchdown. So where is the indisputable evidence to overturn it?
he juggled the ball going out of bounds but never lost it. absolutely the worst call I've ever seen. Truly unreal that they overturned a TD there.
He has the ball cradled in his arms as he hits the pylon.
How can the NFL keep living with calls like this.
he juggled the ball going out of bounds but never lost it. absolutely the worst call I've ever seen. Truly unreal that they overturned a TD there.
If he juggled the ball going out of bounds, then he might as well have lost it.
This is a perfect example of why I don't watch the NFL any more.
This is flat false. Trust me you don't want to go back to the days of no replay. For every bad call there are 5 good ones. The refs suck but the replay process isn't making things worse. Replay is a much needed aid.
Baseball replay is another story entirely. I'm convinced the umpires are missing more calls because they know replay can and will bail them out.
Quote:
but then there's a problem with the rule.
Runner loses control of the ball on the way into the end zone. Other team never touches it. Ball never hits the ground. He never had control of the ball in the end zone, so it's not a TD, fine. But it shouldn't be a "fumble into the end zone."
It's a fluky situation, but the offense should get the ball at the spot the ball carrier lost it. Or maybe at the 1.
He had control again when he hit the pylon
Watching the replays IMO he loses the ball b4 breaking the plane then it's tough to tell when he gets it back. It's fluky but I'm not sure there's a rule change to be made. In fact, he doesn't really have possession again until it ends up in his right hand after he bobbles it - if he had held it in his left the whole way I'd say TD. But when he falls into the pylon w/o possession its a touchback. Looked right to me
The only thing is maybe they shouldn't have overturned the call on the field being so close, but I'm surprised at the outrage even by the announcers
The problem is the "fumble out of the end zone" rule.
The problem is the "fumble out of the end zone" rule.
What fumble? The ball never hit the ground.
Had he had complete control before going to the ground, it would have been a TD because at that point he was a runner and would have crossed the plane in control.
Had he had complete control before going to the ground, it would have been a TD because at that point he was a runner and would have crossed the plane in control.
Quote:
sure they blew some calls but nothing has changed except more commercials.
This is flat false. Trust me you don't want to go back to the days of no replay. For every bad call there are 5 good ones. The refs suck but the replay process isn't making things worse. Replay is a much needed aid.
Baseball replay is another story entirely. I'm convinced the umpires are missing more calls because they know replay can and will bail them out.
Agree they missed a lot of calls. Just see how many are correctly reversed.
Quote:
was that they determined he did not have control of the ball until he went to the ground and lost it. That should result in the no TD, but I don't see how it is ruled a fumble if they are saying he didn't have control.
Had he had complete control before going to the ground, it would have been a TD because at that point he was a runner and would have crossed the plane in control.
Bit, I don't understand that explanation. The problem was that it was incorrectly ruled a TD on the field. The replay shows he did fumble the ball before being down and before crossing the plane/hitting the pylon. The review actually yielded the correct call, in my opinion.
He never fumbled. The ball never hit the ground. He might not have had possession, but then the TD just should have been reversed.
Quote:
was that they determined he did not have control of the ball until he went to the ground and lost it. That should result in the no TD, but I don't see how it is ruled a fumble if they are saying he didn't have control.
Had he had complete control before going to the ground, it would have been a TD because at that point he was a runner and would have crossed the plane in control.
Bit, I don't understand that explanation. The problem was that it was incorrectly ruled a TD on the field. The replay shows he did fumble the ball before being down and before crossing the plane/hitting the pylon. The review actually yielded the correct call, in my opinion.
The fact that he didn't have it in his arm OUTSIDE the end zone is meaningless because he got it back into his arm again.
The final ruling is absolutely bullshit wrong.
Ball remains loose while it's in the end zone, never in ball carrier's possession in end zone.
Ball goes over sideline.
Ball carrier regains possession but is out of bounds.
Therefore, since the ball was fumbled, was never in anyone's possession in the end zone, and then went out of bounds before it was regained, it's a fumble out of the end zone. So, technically, the call is correct.
I think the moral of the story for ball carriers going to the corner of the end zone is: DON'T DO THAT.
Use a little common sense for fuck's sake.
This is the most outrageously bad call I have ever seen.
This call was a travesty. It's a travesty of a mockery of a sham of a mockery of a travesty of two mockeries of a sham
Ball remains loose while it's in the end zone, never in ball carrier's possession in end zone.
Ball goes over sideline.
Ball carrier regains possession but is out of bounds.
Therefore, since the ball was fumbled, was never in anyone's possession in the end zone, and then went out of bounds before it was regained, it's a fumble out of the end zone. So, technically, the call is correct.
I think the moral of the story for ball carriers going to the corner of the end zone is: DON'T DO THAT.
IT WAS NEVER FUMBLED. The ball never hit the ground in bounds.
Refs do what they want when they want to do it. The league is a fraud.
If a Patriot snagged it out of the air before ASJ regained possession, what would it be? An interception? I think not.
'
A Fumble is any act, other than passing, handing, or legally kicking the ball, which results in a loss of player possession. The use of the term Fumble always means that the ball was in possession of a player when the act occurred (8-7).
This is the most outrageously bad call I have ever seen.
It's up there but not the worst I've seen.
This was the worst I have seen - ( New Window )
If a Patriot snagged it out of the air before ASJ regained possession, what would it be? An interception? I think not.
'
Quote:
ARTICLE 5. FUMBLE
A Fumble is any act, other than passing, handing, or legally kicking the ball, which results in a loss of player possession. The use of the term Fumble always means that the ball was in possession of a player when the act occurred (8-7).
Did a Patriot catch the ball? No. So the issue is whether the ball hit the ground.p
That s the only explanation they can give. By rule that is a touchback.
The Jets have an argument that there was not enough evidence to show he did not have possession in the end zone.
I don t think we will see NFL saying this was a mistake.
Therefore, replay must defer to the ruling on the field which was a touchdown.
I guess we can't blame Blandino for the NFL fuckups anymore...
Up by 8 i'd be up by 16.
That s the only explanation they can give. By rule that is a touchback.
The Jets have an argument that there was not enough evidence to show he did not have possession in the end zone.
I don t think we will see NFL saying this was a mistake.