Did the Patriots get jobbed in SB52?

[RedOctober3829]

"New England Patriots fans might have another reason to be angry at the NFL. The 32 NFL owners on Tuesday unanimously approved a revamped catch rule that will go into effect this season — one that eliminates the need for a receiver to “survive the ground.” While the new rule has its own flaws, it seems to be a step in the right direction. The Patriots benefited from the old, flawed definition of a catch — which negated a potential game-winning touchdown by Jesse James in their dramatic Week 15 win over the Pittsburgh Steelers — and they might have been burned by an early implementation of the new standard.

During “NFL Live” on Tuesday, ESPN’s Chris Mortensen and Sal Paolantonio reported that replay officials utilized the league’s new catch rule during Super Bowl LII — a rule that, of course, wouldn’t be voted on until nearly two months later. Paolantonio cited a conversation he had Monday with NFL senior vice president of officiating Al Riveron, who was stationed at the replay center during New England’s 41-33 loss to the Philadelphia Eagles.

Here’s a transcript of the report: (h/t Bleacher Report’s Marcus Mosher)
Mortensen: “I will still maintain, as I said (Monday), that we saw this rule in action during the Super Bowl when the Eagles played the Patriots.”

Paolantonio: “There is no question about that.” Mortensen: “I think all that was in action in that game.”

Paolantonio: “I talked to Al Riveron (on Monday) after the press conference — the vice president of officiating — and it was pretty clear to me that it was already in place when they ruled on the Zach Ertz catch for the touchdown and the Corey Clement catch for a touchdown. When (Riveron) had those conversations, he was in New York, with Troy Vincent sitting next to him, with Gene Steratore the referee on the field. They were having that conversation, and they were basically legislating on the fly during the Super Bowl. And now, we’ve seen it enacted unanimously by the owners.”

Read more at: https://nesn.com/2018/03/nfl-rumors-super-bowl-lii-refs-were-legislating-on-the-fly-with-catch-rulings/

If the Clement play in the end zone was ruled the same as in the regular season, that definitely would not have been a touchdown. The Ertz play is questionable as well, but the Clement play was not a catch by the letter of the law up until the Super Bowl. How in the hell can they change a rule during the season?

 

[Ed Hillel]

The Ertz catch was 100% a TD, but the Clement 100% was not. Both were pretty obvious to me. No idea how they fucked up the Celement play, nor do I understand why each review took 5 minutes.

 

[RedOctober3829]

The Ertz catch was 100% a TD, but the Clement 100% was not. Both were pretty obvious to me. No idea how they fucked up the Celement play, nor do I understand why each review took 5 minutes.

In their mind, they didn't fuck up the Clement play because they were operating under a new rule. Totally shady.

 

[Marbleheader]

I can't bring myself to get worked up about it. The defense got their asses kicked for 60 minutes and that's why they lost.

 

[EricFeczko]

No, the Pats did not get "jobbed".

Chris Mortensen and Sal Paolantonio are both idiotic airheads trying to gin up controversy where none exists. Both should be ignored on the topic of the NFL, period. My nine year old nephew is a better source of NFL news.

I can't bring myself to get worked up about it. The defense got their asses kicked for 60 minutes and that's why they lost.

Yup. Possibly a coaching issue, since Butler wasn't in.

Let us not take the view of Colts fans and blame the loss on everything but the team.

 

[Ed Hillel]

I can't bring myself to get worked up about it. The defense got their asses kicked for 60 minutes and that's why they lost.

Yeah, no way this was the issue or anything, but as a fan it just made no sense watching Clement not be incomplete. That was third down, too, I believe.

 

[RedOctober3829]

Yeah, no way this was the issue or anything, but as a fan it just made no sense watching Clement not be incomplete. That was third down, too, I believe.

That's my stance too. Pats did enough to put themselves in the position they were in, but if they called that play differently than they should have it's a big difference in the game.

 

[lexrageorge]

This is stupid.

The Ertz TD was a clear catch and run; he took about 5 steps with the ball securely in his hands before he got into the end zone. Under any definition of any rule, he was a runner, so "survive the ground" after cross the plane of the goal line does not apply. Not sure why this play is even under discussion.

As for the Clement TD, I'm not sure the replay was enough to overturn, but reasonable people can disagree on that point. Unless it's egregious, I don't usually mind if the call on the field is allowed to stand, and that call was hardly egregious.

 

[streeter88]

I can't bring myself to get worked up about it. The defense got their asses kicked for 60 minutes and that's why they lost.

The Pats just could not stop the Eagles. Maybe if that catch had been overturned, the need to answer every time would have changed to the Pats doing the scoring and the Eagles having to answer, but that call is not anywhere near the reason why they lost. If you can't stop the other team, you won't win. The Eagles D did just enough at the end of the game to win. Pats D did not.

 

[Bernie Carbohydrate]

Well, Clement scored on third down. Had it been overturned, I have no doubt the Eagles would have turned around and scored on fourth down.

1. Here's our "pass rush":



The defense gave Foles about 5 seconds to scan the field, and he threw because he had a target, not because he was under duress. When he released the ball there was no Patriots near him. Foles could have stood back there another 3-5 seconds if he'd wanted to. He didn't even scramble. Just took his drop and calmly surveyed the field as if it was a minicamp drill and he was wearing a red jersey.

2. Here's our "coverage."




Any narrative that involves the Patriots getting "jobbed" rather than the Pats "pissing down their own legs with a terrible defensive effort" is idiocy.

 

[BaseballJones]

If that's called incomplete (Clement), they kick the FG on fourth down. Obviously the butterfly effect and all, but if the rest of the game played out as it did, when Philly scored their last TD, they'd have gone up 36-33 instead of 38-33 (because they don't go for two there and just kick the PAT). That means that NE would just have to have kicked a FG to tie. They'd have had the ball, 2:21 left, down just three...yes that's a very different drive than needing a touchdown.

It probably doesn't really change the game, but let's put it this way (Pats' persecution complex alert!!): If the Patriots were the ones that benefitted from the refs literally changing the rules during the game, the entire nation would have been in an uproar and probably it would have led to some sort of investigation by the media or the league or something. I mean, imagine: the Pats benefit from the James call against Pittsburgh and the incomplete call in the Buffalo game, and then if the Pats are in a position to have something like that called against them and the refs decide on the spot to alter the way they call that play and it benefits the Pats again?

Armageddon. Let's not pretend otherwise.

 

[lars10]

I can't bring myself to get worked up about it. The defense got their asses kicked for 60 minutes and that's why they lost.

You take away at least one touchdown...does that start to change things? How about two? How about a few holding calls? I still think Foles had all day to throw because there wasn't a single holding call all day and players were getting tackled worse than the Eli play. A fact that benefitted Philly far more given how quickly TB gets rid of the ball (usually).

edit: not to say that the overall defensive effort and game plan wasn't flawed.

 

[ifmanis5]

The "jobbing" was a terrible defensive gameplan, no effective adjustments and a disastrous personnel decision. They did it to themselves and the Eagles executed their offense very well.

 

[Bongorific]

Troy Vincent admitted as much earlier this week.

The Clement TD was not a catch. It wasn’t really all that close. They changed the rule specifically for the Super Bowl and the confirmation is finally coming out.

 

[RedOctober3829]

Well, Clement scored on third down. Had it been overturned, I have no doubt the Eagles would have turned around and scored on fourth down.

1. Here's our "pass rush":

View attachment 20264

The defense gave Foles about 5 seconds to scan the field, and he threw because he had a target, not because he was under duress. When he released the ball there was no Patriots near him. Foles could have stood back there another 3-5 seconds if he'd wanted to. He didn't even scramble. Just took his drop and calmly surveyed the field as if it was a minicamp drill and he was wearing a red jersey.

2. Here's our "coverage."

View attachment 20265


Any narrative that involves the Patriots getting "jobbed" rather than the Pats "pissing down their own legs with a terrible defensive effort" is idiocy.

Does that change the fact that Clement didn't catch the ball? It's OK to admit the Pats played poor D and also say that the referees got the call wrong and the TD shouldn't have counted.

 

[McBride11]

The defense sucked. Everyone agrees. But the D did just enough on that drive to cause an incomplete pass. It was incomplete based upon how the season had been called. Was it because there was a new rule or a bad call be the refs? Who knows. Yes, in the screen grab, 3 pats rushers v 5 oline sucked, but that was the epitome of bend dont break. They dropped 8 into coverage to make it a hard completion. Foles threaded a great pass, but Clement was oob on 'completion' of the pass, because of the coverage.

If that was Burkhead and the NFL office admitted they wanted it called differently than in the regular season then this entire SB would have a giant asterisk for the entire country.

End of the day, Eagles made the one stop that counted and the Pats didn't, but I don' think it's fair to say this call wasn't important, regardless of whether is was a blown call or new rule.

 

[Mugsy's Jock]

Certainly the defense sucked and didn't do enough to merit winning a Super Bowl, but at the same time the Pats' offense was exceptional and did more than enough to earn a sixth ring.

That said, I am moved by the maturity of the posters in this thread. I can't even imagine the heads that would be exploding at TGG.

 

[Marciano490]

No no no no no. Please stop.

 

[Morgan's Magic Snowplow]

I do wonder what the plan was if a Patriots player made a Jesse James or Clement-style catch.

Because had the Patriots won another Super Bowl because a catch was allowed that wasn’t allowed weeks beforehand we would have seen rioting and heads exploding across the land

On the other hand, to enter the game with the plan that they would enforce new rules for Eagles catches but not for Patriots catches would obviously have been blatantly unfair.

 

[j44thor]

For everyone saying the NE defense sucked, you know who else was awful on D the #1 rated PHI D.
They gave up more passing yards and got to Brady exactly one time that mattered.
I'm pretty sure not only did the NFL change the catch rule on the fly but they also changed the holding rules on the fly as well.

 

[Marciano490]

They were going against Brady. We were going against Foles. Foles might be legit, but Brady is the GOAT.

 

[kenneycb]

And if Nick Foles were going against the Eagles D, that would be a reasonable line of thinking.

 

[Super Nomario]

I can't bring myself to get worked up about it. The defense got their asses kicked for 60 minutes and that's why they lost.

Right. And the argument here is not even that the Patriots defense made a good play and got no credit for it. It's arguing that the Eagles technically made an unforced error and it shouldn't have counted. Whether they call the Clement play a TD or not (and I think the call was correct), it was trash defense, as it was trash defense all night (and much of the season).

 

[j44thor]

They were going against Brady. We were going against Foles. Foles might be legit, but Brady is the GOAT.

Foles had just made the supposedly elite MN D look just as bad as NE in the NFC Championship and to the best of my knowledge they did so without any controversial TDs.

 

[Oil Can Dan]

I am as big of an Eagle fan as you’ll ever see. The Clement TD was not a catch as per the rules at that time.

 

[CantKeepmedown]

The Clement catch was not a catch all year long. The minute you saw him bobble it, I figured it was a guarantee incomplete pass. But our defense got shredded all game long and it's not really worth it to get too worked up or say we got jobbed.

If the shoe was on the other foot, however.......

 

[Ralphwiggum]

Put me in the "I can't get worked up about it" camp. A call went against them that could or maybe should have gone for them, which describes how every team has felt in every NFL game ever played. Definitely helps that there are 5 other Lombardis in the trophy case to admire, I'd probably feel differently if there weren't.

Pats offense, for as great as it played and the historic numbers it put up, only managed 3 points out of two red zone trips in the first half. Plus the defense was hot garbage all game. They didn't play well enough to win.

 

[Smiling Joe Hesketh]

The Ertz catch was 100% a TD, but the Clement 100% was not. Both were pretty obvious to me. No idea how they fucked up the Celement play, nor do I understand why each review took 5 minutes.

This.

Upon live viewing and then upon replay, the Clement catch was clearly no catch under the rules at the time. For the NFL to pretty much admit "Oh we want that to be a TD so let's call that under the new rules" is WWE-level match fixing.

Imagine the fucking outcry had it been the Patriots on the positive end of such a catch.

 

[Smiling Joe Hesketh]

I am as big of an Eagle fan as you’ll ever see. The Clement TD was not a catch as per the rules at that time.

I'm so glad to see I'm not the crazy one here. We're all in agreement. And honestly I can't believe it was even in discussion.

 

[tims4wins]

Right. And the argument here is not even that the Patriots defense made a good play and got no credit for it. It's arguing that the Eagles technically made an unforced error and it shouldn't have counted. Whether they call the Clement play a TD or not (and I think the call was correct), it was trash defense, as it was trash defense all night (and much of the season).

Can't the same be said for say the dropped Brady catch on the trick play? Or Ghost missing an easy FG or the PAT? All were completely unforced errors that went Philly's way. We have to give credit to Philly's offense for executing slightly better than the Pats (like the Philly special), but sometimes luck is all it takes. Both defenses played like trash, but the Philly D got luckier than the Pats.

Edit: and I would argue that the degree of difficulty on the Clement play was far higher than say the Brady play. It wasn't a layup to to speak. Forcing the offense to make a catch and throw into a somewhat tight window and then the bobble happening doesn't mean the D completely fucked up the play, like the Philly D did on the Brady drop which was wide open. Some things are luckier than others.

 

[Super Nomario]

Can't the same be said for say the dropped Brady catch on the trick play? Or Ghost missing an easy FG or the PAT? All were completely unforced errors that went Philly's way. We have to give credit to Philly's offense for executing slightly better than the Pats (like the Philly special), but sometimes luck is all it takes. Both defenses played like trash, but the Philly D got luckier than the Pats.

Pats also got a missed XP, and they got a lucky tip ball INT. And the Eagles D also made a play, something the Pats D didn't do. Neither team was playing good defense.

Edit: and I would argue that the degree of difficulty on the Clement play was far higher than say the Brady play. It wasn't a layup to to speak. Forcing the offense to make a catch and throw into a somewhat tight window and then the bobble happening doesn't mean the D completely fucked up the play, like the Philly D did on the Brady drop which was wide open. Some things are luckier than others.

It was a layup by NFL standards. Clement was wide open almost immediately and Foles had a totally clean pocket. The pass had to travel some distance but there was nothing the Patriots defense did well on that play.

 

[tims4wins]

There was some luck on the tip in terms of where it bounced but that was pretty damn good coverage by Gilmore on the play. I fully agree that neither team was playing good defense. Just saying the Philly D got a bit luckier, and that was the difference in the game.

 

[Smiling Joe Hesketh]

Foles threw the ball into some very small windows during the game and he did so repeatedly. The Pats did not play well on defense but Foles was outstanding.

 

[TheoShmeo]

The plays that will stick out in my mind were the non-calls on the illegal formation on the Philly Special and Hogan getting knocked on his ass on the Hail Mary attempt at the end. Those mistakes sucked ass and may have impacted the outcome.

But bad calls and missed calls are part of every game.

If the Pats D had shown up, this latest revelation and those non-calls, never mind that the zebras called precious few holdings on both offensive lines, might upset me more.

In the end, the Eagles got some breaks but you don’t deserve to win a SB when you can’t get a stop on D.

 

[Smiling Joe Hesketh]

I can't get upset about the Philly Special formation call, the actual violation was small and had zero impact on the play.

I think we're all in agreement that the better team deservedly won that night, that the calls weren't biased for one team over another. The Pats didn't play well on D, but Philly had a 29-19 lead and the Pats stormed back to go ahead 33-32 in the 4th, so it's not like either team was playing great defense.


It's pretty ridiculous that Vincent admitted they were changing the rules on the fly for the Clement TD though.

 

[Oil Can Dan]

I really don't get the issue with the formation on the Philly Special play. The WR asked the ref if he was good, and the ref said he was. If the ref erred then that's not on the Eagles. And it's not too far of a leap to think through whether A) that ref error had an impact on the play, or B) what would have happened had the ref not erred (WR moves up a yard and play goes off the same exact way).

I'd be pissed at the Clement 'catch' and sure, Hogan getting nailed well down field on the last play. But I'd have no problem with the Philly Special or the Ertz TD.

 

[accidentalsuccess]

The Clement catch was not a catch all year long. The minute you saw him bobble it, I figured it was a guarantee incomplete pass. But our defense got shredded all game long and it's not really worth it to get too worked up or say we got jobbed.

If the shoe was on the other foot, however.......

I am as big of an Eagle fan as you’ll ever see. The Clement TD was not a catch as per the rules at that time.

Thx for admitting it. I couldn't help but scream at all the so-called football fans in the moment something along the lines of 'f-that, that's been overturned all season long. definitely coming back' as the replay went into commercial. I can't imagine the firestorm if the call had been FOR the pats, omg.

 

[JokersWildJIMED]

I really don't get the issue with the formation on the Philly Special play. The WR asked the ref if he was good, and the ref said he was. If the ref erred then that's not on the Eagles. And it's not too far of a leap to think through whether A) that ref error had an impact on the play, or B) what would have happened had the ref not erred (WR moves up a yard and play goes off the same exact way).

I'd be pissed at the Clement 'catch' and sure, Hogan getting nailed well down field on the last play. But I'd have no problem with the Philly Special or the Ertz TD.

100% agree on the Philly Special...how can anyone be upset about something that was checked with the official? If the official told him to move up a yard he would have moved up a yard. The Hogan play was nothing as Gronk blatantly shoved a defender going down the field as well...no way they call anything on that play. The issue remains the Clement catch...and what the ruling would have been if it was James White rather than Clement as the receiver on such a play (I think we all know the answer to that)

 

[TheoShmeo]

I really don't get the issue with the formation on the Philly Special play. The WR asked the ref if he was good, and the ref said he was. If the ref erred then that's not on the Eagles. And it's not too far of a leap to think through whether A) that ref error had an impact on the play, or B) what would have happened had the ref not erred (WR moves up a yard and play goes off the same exact way).

I'd be pissed at the Clement 'catch' and sure, Hogan getting nailed well down field on the last play. But I'd have no problem with the Philly Special or the Ertz TD.

Let me be clear that I don't think the Pats got jobbed or that they lost the game because of any particular call or set of calls. Period.

But that the error by the zebras is not on the Eagles is not the point. The point is that a penalty should have been called on the play.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2018/02/12/mike-pereira-eagles-were-in-illegal-formation-on-philly-special/

For me, the Hogan play remains incredibly annoying. How the Eagles were allowed to effectively eliminate one of the Pats receivers from the end zone and the chance to catch a tipped ball is some serious BS.

The NFL changing the rules on the fly is almost comical given the total nitwits -- Goodell, Vincent and whoever else -- who were involved in that asinine decision. Sounds like pro wrestling. But I can't get wrapped up in either catch given the state of the Pats D that day.

 

[pappymojo]

I can't bring myself to get worked up about it. The defense got their asses kicked for 60 minutes and that's why they lost.

To be fair, both defenses got their asses kicked for 60 minutes, minus the one play where Brady was sacked and fumbled. I'm not saying that the Patriots got jobbed and I'm not saying the Patriots would have won if the game had been called differently, but I am saying that there is no doubt in my mind that the officials purposely called the Super Bowl differently than they had called any other game in the season prior. As a fan, I think it's a problem, but I think the NFL is completely happy with the results - not because the Patriots lost but because they got an exciting game.

 

[bankshot1]

Despite getting some tough calls, I never thought the Pats got robbed. The Pats (mostly the D) didn't play well enough to win. Eagles won fair and square.

I suspect that if the Pats won while getting those calls, the degree of the nation's uproar would have been deafening.

As an aside the only SB I thought was tainted by bad officiating was the Steelers/SeaHawks game where it seemed every call (real and imagined) went the Steelers way.

 

[Van Everyman]

On a somewhat related note, I find some of the responses in this thread (and in others) about the defense to be amusing. People sound legitimately angry about the defensive play in the Super Bowl as opposed to disappointed. The amount of "WHO CARES WHAT THE REFS DID THEY DESERVED TO LOSE" and "THE DEFENSE WAS TRASH SO THEY WOULD'VE SCORED ON FIFTH DOWN" outbursts are ... well, a bit silly to me. Yes, the defense played poorly. Yes, there's a bunch of stuff about their performance and game plan that still doesn't really make sense. But the idea that people are actually pissed about it after five rings? Give me a break.

 

[PaulinMyrBch]

I’m not pissed. My take has been you can’t keep going to the well and expect it to work every time. Being down multiple scores early in big games isn’t a recipe for continued Super Bowl success. You put it in Brady’s hands for a game winning drive, I like my odds. But I also recognize it only takes one good defensive push to end the game. It happened and it sucks, but it wasn’t unforeseen.

 

[Rudy's Curve]

The issue remains the Clement catch...and what the ruling would have been if it was James White rather than Clement as the receiver on such a play (I think we all know the answer to that)

A touchdown?

 

[lexrageorge]

Let me be clear that I don't think the Pats got jobbed or that they lost the game because of any particular call or set of calls. Period.

But that the error by the zebras is not on the Eagles is not the point. The point is that a penalty should have been called on the play.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2018/02/12/mike-pereira-eagles-were-in-illegal-formation-on-philly-special/

For me, the Hogan play remains incredibly annoying. How the Eagles were allowed to effectively eliminate one of the Pats receivers from the end zone and the chance to catch a tipped ball is some serious BS.

The NFL changing the rules on the fly is almost comical given the total nitwits -- Goodell, Vincent and whoever else -- who were involved in that asinine decision. Sounds like pro wrestling. But I can't get wrapped up in either catch given the state of the Pats D that day.

Actually, if the official said it was OK, there can be no penalty call on that play.

As for the report by Mortensen and Paolantonio, color me slightly skeptical. First, they lose quite a bit of credibility when they mention the Ertz catch. There can be no standard where that is overturned. The Paolantonio says Riveron was using the "new rule" when reviewing the Clement catch; but Paolantonio's statement is very carefully worded, basically implying he made that conclusion after speaking with Riveron. What Riveron actually told him is left as an exercise to the listener.

Were Riveron and Vincent using the new catch rule when they decided to let the call on the field stand? Or did they decide to give greater deference to the call on the field? If you recall, the latter topic was a bit of a hot topic during the regular season as well, where Riveron claimed that "irrefutable evidence" was not a standard he was using when reviewing replay.

Yes, either way, it's bad, but the distinction does actually matter. Reinterpreting the catch rule on the fly is WWE territory. But the league rules do give the replay officials some latitude, and so if Riveron was less inclined to overturn a close call in the Super Bowl, he was probably technically in his rights to do so.

 

[BigSoxFan]

Ertz was 10000% a TD. No issue there.

Philly Special. We weren’t prepared to stop anything on that play. No issue there either.

Hogan? Mildly annoying no call but likelihood of scoring was minimal.

Clement? Should have been incomplete but it only happened because Bademosi couldn’t make a simple 3rd down tackle and Flowers failed to get his hand up. Just can’t get too upset.

The Eagles answered every time the Pats scored a TD. The defense was just so pathetic.

 

[mauf]

It’s an outrage if the rules were secretly changed for the Super Bowl, and it’s fair to ask whether the NFL would have made the same call if the shoe was on the other foot, particularly since the Pats got such a huge (and high-profile) break from the application of the old rule during the regular season.

But until someone besides ESPN reports on this secret rule change, I’m assuming it’s bullshit.

 

[BaseballJones]

There are two issues. First, how poorly the Pats played on D (and how well the Eagles played on offense). Second, these officiating screw-ups. Honestly, think long and hard everyone at what the national reaction would have been if league officials like Vincent were in the room with the replay officials and on the fly decided to change the rules on what constituted a complete pass, and that allowed an incompletion from Brady to Amendola become a touchdown, when all year long that would NOT have been, but now is, in the freaking Super Bowl.

This is actually a scandalous thing worthy of discussion. It may not have changed the outcome, but that doesn't make it less scandalous.

 

[TheoShmeo]

On a somewhat related note, I find some of the responses in this thread (and in others) about the defense to be amusing. People sound legitimately angry about the defensive play in the Super Bowl as opposed to disappointed. The amount of "WHO CARES WHAT THE REFS DID THEY DESERVED TO LOSE" and "THE DEFENSE WAS TRASH SO THEY WOULD'VE SCORED ON FIFTH DOWN" outbursts are ... well, a bit silly to me. Yes, the defense played poorly. Yes, there's a bunch of stuff about their performance and game plan that still doesn't really make sense. But the idea that people are actually pissed about it after five rings? Give me a break.

Your take is way off in my case. And probably in the case of others.

It’s much more cold blooded than you’re inferring. Super Bowl winning teams always get some big stops along the way. Think back to the Pats D in the latter stages of the Seattle game. They kept getting the ball back to the offense. The same was of course true of the 3-28 game. Even when the Falcons gained big yards (the Jones catch), the Pats still pushed them back/caused a punt. (And thanks Dan Quinn, for your help.)

None of that happened against the Eagles. Every time the Pats had the chance to make a third or forth down stop down the stretch, they failed.

That, to me, is not a SB winning formula and, as a result, that the opponent got a few breaks is simply not the point. If the Pats played good enough on D to win, I probably would be more piqued by the sum total of the officiating issues.

How that relatively benign reaction gets turned into a negative is bizarre. Though not entirely unexpected given the level of nitpicking here at times.

 

[pappymojo]

http://boston.cbslocal.com/2018/03/22/corey-clement-super-bowl-touchdown-shouldnt-have-counted-troy-vincent/

Interestingly, Vincent used Clement’s touchdown catch as a perfect illustration of how the new rule can be enforced.

“That slight movement of the ball. The old language read [if there’s] slight movement, then that means you’ve got to overturn it. … [Now] you can have movement but you can still maintain control. We removed and got out of the business of slight movement. Because you can have movement but still be in control,” Vincent said. “The Clement play in the Super Bowl was the best example. The ball moved but he had complete control over the ball through the process of the catch.”

So, under the new rule proposal, Clement would not be penalized for his slight bobbling of the football during his touchdown catch. He would be rewarded a catch and a touchdown.

On the Sound FX program on Super Bowl LII, referee Gene Steratore was shown explaining the replay ruling, “It sticks here and then it goes there, but he never loses control. Is there a little ball movement? Yes. But that does not deem loss of control. You know? It goes from here, sticks on the forearm, right back to the hand, touchdown.”

So you have Vincent saying the old language clearly dictated that “slight movement” must result in an incompletion. And you have the referee (who had been communicating with head of officiating Al Riveron) saying that there was slight movement but never a loss of control. It seems as though even the people who create and enforce the rules have a hard time fully understanding and implementing the rules. Will it all be cleared up going forward? Probably not.