Amen.We won. Fuck it.
I give no fucks if other teams, especially the Jets, are pissed and think they are screwed. I. Just. Don't. Care.
Agreed. I can't wait until tomorrow AM at work when the whiny Pats haters are whining like that fuck head Fouts.Amen.
are the standards for recovering a fumble inbounds the same as for making a catch inbounds?One knee suffices.
I was in the stands today thinking exactly this. And it was very hard to figure out what happened from the replays shown on Met Life. We were with a bunch of fans from both teams and the general mood was confusion followed by elation for us Pats fans and enraged frustration from the Jets fans.Surprised no one has said this is payback for Ben Watson.
Yep. Spot onI thought the offensive line and RBs did a tremendous job of pass blocking and picking up a relentless number of blitzes. So, game ball to them.
Can't. Stop. Laughing.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.
Deflategate allowed Brady to be well rested for the playoffs, it was a false flag all the wayI 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.
Yes. And as discussed in game thread for this week, there are no excellent teams after 6 weeks, much less super teams. Some good ones, many mediocre.As ugly as its been, this team is in second in the AFC
I agree with this completely. On the first drive of the game, the Jets converted a third and 10 on a 22 yard pass, a 3rd and 8 on a 16 yard scramble, a 3rd and 6 on a hail Mary throw that Kerley made a ridiculous catch while well covered, and then a third down touchdown. The second drive was more of the same.The Jets had 2 nice drives in the first quarter, one where they converted four third downs. Besides that the defense forced 4 3-and-outs and got two INTs, then at the end it was desperation time. The Jets aren't good but they're not the putrid team we were expecting and they usually play us close at home. I thought this was a step forward, especially with two of their top 3 CBs out.
He may have explained it that way, but both Pereira and Blandino said not enough to overturn and they each was Corrente's boss.The way Corrente explained the rule that’s a pretty easy touchback call. ASJ not only has to regain possession he has to “complete the process of the recovery again” meaning he has to hit the ground inbounds and show clear possession and not lose the ball when he hits the ground (Corrente said he clearly lost it again when he knee hit)
Goal line rules are so quirky.
The “not enough to overturn” thing is weird to me, because it’s not like the camera misses anything. It’s a question of the rule and whether a shift/bobble when he hits counts as not having control, because there’s clearly a little bobble.He may have explained it that way, but both Pereira and Blandino said not enough to overturn and they each was Corrente's boss.
Not just a little bobble I thought... If you watch which hand the ball is in, it went from left, lost ball, recovered with right.The “not enough to overturn” thing is weird to me, because it’s not like the camera misses anything. It’s a question of the rule and whether a shift/bobble when he hits counts as not having control, because there’s clearly a little bobble.
As I noted, his two former bosses see it differently. They both agree he lost control; no one is disputing that. Blandino stated the rule the same way Corrente did. Blandino felt he regained control and the left knee may have hit in-bounds before he went out of bounds. Pereira noted that he is still in-bounds when he hits the pylon--so the contact with the ground to re-establish control has only to be before he touches out of bounds, not before the pylon. They both agreed that there is significant uncertainty in the replay, and because it is not clear that 're control' did NOT occur, they both felt the call on the field can't be overruled via replay. There's a video of them discussing it on Pereira's twitter. https://twitter.com/MikePereiraIt'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.
But I don't think it is--once you see the fumble, it becomes very easy. Exactly like the official said. Once he loses control the burden changes. Add the second bobble, and it seems straightforward.The case there was enough to overturn is very tough to make.
Both the guys who ran officiating have said it is not straightforward.But I don't think it is--once you see the fumble, it becomes very easy. Exactly like the official said. Once he loses control the burden changes. Add the second bobble, and it seems straightforward.
I disagree with this. The Pats had 4 sacks today, and they hit McCown 10 times (Brady was hit 4 times, and never sacked, and yet people are barely acknowledging how good the Pats offensive line played). The Pats now have 14 sacks on the season, and if you add in the additional sacks that have been wiped out by penalties (mostly bullshit penalties I might add), they'd be well into the top 10 in the NFL in that category. When you figure they are only rushing 3 at least half the time, because they need to drop 8 to make sure their defensive backs don't get burned, I think the defensive line is doing just about all they can do, and coming up big in some big spots on top of it.Lewis
Pass rush was abysmal, again.
The defensive line contributed not very much pass rush, though. Van Noy had two sacks and Hightower one, with the other being a cleanup sack by Malcom Brown when McCown scrambled and didn't quite back to the LOS. They got some pressure at times when they sent a DB or a LB, but the base DL had IMO their worst day of the season getting after the QB.I disagree with this. The Pats had 4 sacks today, and they hit McCown 10 times (Brady was hit 4 times, and never sacked, and yet people are barely acknowledging how good the Pats offensive line played). The Pats now have 14 sacks on the season, and if you add in the additional sacks that have been wiped out by penalties (mostly bullshit penalties I might add), they'd be well into the top 10 in the NFL in that category. When you figure they are only rushing 3 at least half the time, because they need to drop 8 to make sure their defensive backs don't get burned, I think the defensive line is doing just about all they can do, and coming up big in some big spots on top of it.
The knee is irrelevant. He had to maintain possession all the way through the process of going to the ground. He didn't. The knees hit, his back hit, the ball moved, he came to a stop and then fully controlled the ball. The knee being the first part of his body to hit the ground does not matter.Both the guys who ran officiating have said it is not straightforward.
I think the question Pereira and Blandino focus on that Corrente did not discuss is the possbility that a knee touched down after control and before ASJ went out of bounds, so to him the question is maintaining control when he lands out of bounds (which is where the second bobble comes in). If the knee touched down in-bounds the second bobble is actually irrelevant because the knee touching down is the end of the time control needs to be maintained. Blandino thought it most likely did touch, and Pereira thought it was uncertain. There is definitely not a replay that shows that conclusively.
If I were guessing, Corrente missed that possibility and looked only at the ball moving when ASJ lands out of bounds and said "oh, didn't maintain control". But I don't think that's actually the only theory for control and contact with the ground.
The second bobble is relevant and why Corrente pointed out his interpretation that there was a bobble. It is the Megatron rule of needing to be in the endzone and maintain possesion through completion of the catch (or here recovery) for it to count.Both the guys who ran officiating have said it is not straightforward.
I think the question Pereira and Blandino focus on that Corrente did not discuss is the possbility that a knee touched down after control and before ASJ went out of bounds, so to him the question is maintaining control when he lands out of bounds (which is where the second bobble comes in). If the knee touched down in-bounds the second bobble is actually irrelevant because the knee touching down is the end of the time control needs to be maintained. Blandino thought it most likely did touch, and Pereira thought it was uncertain. There is definitely not a replay that shows that conclusively.
If I were guessing, Corrente missed that possibility and looked only at the ball moving when ASJ lands out of bounds and said "oh, didn't maintain control". But I don't think that's actually the only theory for control and contact with the ground.
Coverage sacks and hits, McCown had all day to throw on most plays.I disagree with this. The Pats had 4 sacks today, and they hit McCown 10 times (Brady was hit 4 times, and never sacked, and yet people are barely acknowledging how good the Pats offensive line played). The Pats now have 14 sacks on the season, and if you add in the additional sacks that have been wiped out by penalties (mostly bullshit penalties I might add), they'd be well into the top 10 in the NFL in that category. When you figure they are only rushing 3 at least half the time, because they need to drop 8 to make sure their defensive backs don't get burned, I think the defensive line is doing just about all they can do, and coming up big in some big spots on top of it.
The guys that run it now say it is. Because they actually made the decision.Both the guys who ran officiating have said it is not straightforward.
I think the question Pereira and Blandino focus on that Corrente did not discuss is the possbility that a knee touched down after control and before ASJ went out of bounds, so to him the question is maintaining control when he lands out of bounds (which is where the second bobble comes in).
When you only rush 3, you aren't going to get pressure very often. When they brought 4, or more, they got to the quarterback at a very, very good rate. But, that's also when McCown was able to get off quick passes to open receivers. With the way the defensive backs are playing right now, Patricia has to pick his poison. Go for the quarterback, and hope you get there before he hits an open receiver, or drop 8 into coverage, and hope the secondary can do their job for a long period of time. At the end of the day, they gave up 3 points after the 2nd possession, and got 6 sacks/interceptions, and a total of 7 tackles for loss. Patricia was able to disguise some stuff to get some pressure from spots in which the Jets/McCown weren't ready for it, but that's not an easy thing to do when you'e trying to beat 5-6 blockers with less rushers.Coverage sacks and hits, McCown had all day to throw on most plays.
I don't believe that the application of the rule here was any quirky goalline rule (other than the rule that a ball fumbled out of bounds goes back to the defense instead of to the fumbling team).The way Corrente explained the rule that’s a pretty easy touchback call. ASJ not only has to regain possession he has to “complete the process of the recovery again” meaning he has to hit the ground inbounds and show clear possession and not lose the ball when he hits the ground (Corrente said he clearly lost it again when he knee hit)
Goal line rules are so quirky.
"Continuously"? He totally didn't. That's the easiest part of the play. There's a view through Butler's legs where you see him bobble it off his stomach and he has to regrab it. Unless I'm seeing what I want to see.^thats great and everything but he did control the ball rolling over, I don't know what the fuck the head zebra in charge is talking about is talking about.
No it’s clearly bobbled at the end of the play - just have to see from the other angle. not sure why this is so complicated other than people don’t like the result?"Continuously"? He totally didn't. That's the easiest part of the play. There's a view through Butler's legs where you see him bobble it off his stomach and he has to regrab it. Unless I'm seeing what I want to see.
What’s quirky to me is how if a runner crosses the plane its a TD. But, if the runner bobbles the ball then has control again and then cross the plane, now its not a TD until the runner goes to the ground and maintains control through hitting he ground. Then the goofy touchback stuff.I don't believe that the application of the rule here was any quirky goalline rule (other than the rule that a ball fumbled out of bounds goes back to the defense instead of to the fumbling team).
Corrente seems to be the only one who understands the rule correctly and it's very frustrating that nobody else in the press seems able to articulate what happened on that play. Here is the thing to remember: There is a rule in the NFL that says that if you are going to the ground in the act of trying to possess the ball, you must maintain possession through the ground. Nobody is thinking of that rule here, because they are so used to it being applied to catches. That is, definitely, where it is most famously applied. But it also applies to any attempts to possess, including a catch interception or fumble recovery.
How does the rule work? If a ball is loose (that is, has been fumbled, or has been thrown to you) you must maintain possession of the ball through the process of the catch and through the ground if you're going to ground. If you land in bounds, this means that you need to gather it back up before it hits the ground. But, if you land out of bounds, it means you must complete the process of the catch, through the ground for all such time as you are touching out of bounds. If any part of the gathering the ball to complete the act of going through the ground involves a bobble while any part of you (or even another player also touching the ball) is out of bounds, then the ball is immediately at that point out of bounds.
Think about it this way. The second that ASJ fumbled the ball, it became a loose ball. At that point, since he was going to ground, he was required to establish complete possession through the ground. Imagine that instead of fumbling the ball, it was a pass and ASJ got his knee down in bounds, but then went to ground, rolled over on his back, and had a bobble -- even a small one -- when he was on the ground and out of bounds. What result? We've seen this play a zillion times. It is the Dez play. It is not a catch. That his knee was in bounds when he first caught the ball is irrelevant if he has any bobble going to ground while touching out of bounds. It is the same rule. Actually, literally, it is the same rule. The difference is that in my hypothetical, it is incomplete, not a touchback because of the odd rule that you give the ball over if you fumble out of bounds.
So, the knee is irrelevant. Unless you believe that he after that maintained possession through contact with the ground -- which he clearly did not -- then it is no recovery. And since he fumbled it, and since he touched it before completing the act of the recovery, while he was OOB, it was exactly the right call. If anyone wants to go Zapruter on the film, it is not the knee that needs to be looked at. It is the ball moving in his arms after he rolls. If you don't think the ball moved after the roll, then the knee does become relevant and it should be called a fumble recovery before hitting out of bounds. To me, the ball clearly moves. He falls on his side out of bounds and you can see it bounce of his stomach through Butler's legs on one view and he needs to resecure it with both hands as he rolls on to his back.
In fact, the knee is important, but it was important to the Patriots. If the knee had been out of bounds, and he touches any part of the ball while the knee is out of bounds after he has lost it as a fumble, then the fumble should be declared out of bounds right there, which is short of the end zone, and thus the Jets retain possession like any fumble OOB in the field of play.
Here's the rule:
PLAYER POSSESSION Article 7A player is in possession when he is in firm grip and control of the ball inbounds (See 3-2-3). To gain possession of a loose ball (3-2-3) that has been caught, intercepted, or recovered, a player must have complete control of the ball and have both feet or any other part of his body, other than his hands, completely on the ground inbounds, and maintain control of the ball long enough to perform any act common to the game. If the player loses the ball while simultaneously touching both feet or any other part of his body to the ground or if there is any doubt that the acts were simultaneous, there is no possession. This rule applies in the field of play and in the end zone. The terms catch, intercept, recover, advance, and fumble denote player possession (as distinguished from touching or muffing). Note 1: A player who goes to the ground in the process of attempting to secure possession of a loose ball (with or without contact by an opponent) must maintain control of the ball throughout the process of contacting the ground, whether in the field of play or the end zone. If he loses control of the ball, and the ball touches the ground before he regains control, there is no possession. If he regains control prior to the ball touching the ground, it is a catch, interception, or recovery. Note 2: If a player goes to the ground out-of-bounds (with or without contact by an opponent) in the process of attempting to secure possession of a loose ball at the sideline, he must maintain complete and continuous control of the ball throughout the process of contacting the ground, or there is no possession. Note 3: If a player has control of the ball, a slight movement of the ball will not be considered loss of possession. He must lose control of the ball in order to rule that there has been a loss of possession.
https://nesn.com/2017/10/jets-have-touchdown-overturned-with-bizarre-controversial-call-vs-patriots/ has the angle in question. I thought it was bobbled again at the 11 second mark when I first saw that angle, too. I'm less sure now, a higher-def version of that video might show it more definitively. Though it does seem like the ball has rotated from where he was holding it at 10 seconds to where he's holding it at 12.No it’s clearly bobbled at the end of the play - just have to see from the other angle. not sure why this is so complicated other than people don’t like the result?