Based on all this discussion, can you guys believe we put people in cages based on eye witness testimony? That's my societal takeaway.
Oh, I see what you're saying. Yeah. It's kind of the same with a catch too. You cross the plane with possession but it's not enough until you complete the catch through the ground.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.
But yes, that’s exactly how Corrente explained the rule. He said it was straightforward and I agree if he’s interpreting the rule right. Your post seems to show he is interpreting it right. If the knee hitting inbounds kills the play, then seems like hard to overturn.
That's the initial fumble, nobody disputes that. And it appears that he grabbed it after that and got a knee down in bounds.At one point neither arm was on the ball
Edit: ok, Kurosawa. 0)Based on all this discussion, can you guys believe we put people in cages based on eye witness testimony? That's my societal takeaway.
Edit: ok, Kurosawa. 0)
It's the ones that nobody ever gets that are most embarrassing.Rashomon?
God, we are such fucking nerd losers. I hate you for making that reference and I hate myself for understanding it
Why the heck do you say the pass rush was abysmal? They had 4 sacks today and hit MaCown at least 10 times. Are you Fucking blind? In my opinion the DL as a group deserve a game ball. I was particularly happy with Malcolm Brown's performance. His name was called out for a couple of key stops.Lewis
Hightower
McCourty
Pass rush was abysmal, again.
Secondary is a coin flip on any given play.
Offense is hit or miss.
Such a frustrating team to watch because both units flash moments of brilliance and then follow it up with JVesque shit.
I had the same thought. According to Kyed, Bademosi wound up playing 72 total snaps on defense and let up just two catches on two targets for 23 yards.Oh, and am I crazy, or was Johnson Bademosi OK? I don't remember him getting thrown at and he had some nice physical tackles. I watched him enough in Detroit last year to expect disaster but he seemed to hold up all right.
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?The instant replay apologists here--and the PI-call-false-equivalency line-- are embarrassing. I'm a dyed-in-wool homer Pats fan and that was one of the very worst calls I've ever seen. And perhaps the worst-ever application of replay. It's ok to own it, guys.
My take is that it redeems the Geno Smith OT Jets win, which involved one of the other worst calls I've ever seen. Edit: or what DrewDawg said.
But the yards are a direct correlation with the shift to a 3-man front. Isn't this how a BB/Patricia defense is constructed? Force below average quarterbacks to make the reads and throws? Out of the three long drives, 1 of them ended with an interception and the other was the controversial fumble. It seems pretty myopic - and certainly ignores BB's historical tendencies to give up yards, not points - to focus on the yards, but ignore the two turnovers and 3 points given up.The second-half defensive performance is almost totally contingent on the fumble/touchback. The Jets only had four drives in the whole second half because the Patriots D couldn't get off the field and the Patriots O dominated time of possession in the third quarter. The Jets moved the ball most of the second half - the four drives covered 52, 74, 55, and 24 yards - but they only came away with three points. That looks a lot different if they get the ASJ TD and have 10 points on four drives.
The D did play great in the second quarter - they forced three straight three-and-outs and got the Butler pick late. It was a weird game where both defenses and offenses were inconsistent.
I'm going to quote myself because there's nobody better to quote...I'd have to rewatch the game, but did the shift to a 3-man front actually transpire in the second quarter when their defense started making plays? I was a little inebriated and can't recall off the top of my head.But the yards are a direct correlation with the shift to a 3-man front. Isn't this how a BB/Patricia defense is constructed? Force below average quarterbacks to make the reads and throws? Out of the three long drives, 1 of them ended with an interception and the other was the controversial fumble. It seems pretty myopic - and certainly ignores BB's historical tendencies to give up yards, not points - to focus on the yards, but ignore the two turnovers and 3 points given up.
Brilliant, sad, and true. You're of course entirely correct. And now my day has been sobered a bit.Based on all this discussion, can you guys believe we put people in cages based on eye witness testimony? That's my societal takeaway.
It's 3 points because they got the call; it's 10 points if they don't get the call. 0.75 points per drive is great, 2.5 points per drive is terrible. Even if you think it's the right call, it seems more of a fortunate break than skilled defense to me.But the yards are a direct correlation with the shift to a 3-man front. Isn't this how a BB/Patricia defense is constructed? Force below average quarterbacks to make the reads and throws? Out of the three long drives, 1 of them ended with an interception and the other was the controversial fumble. It seems pretty myopic - and certainly ignores BB's historical tendencies to give up yards, not points - to focus on the yards, but ignore the two turnovers and 3 points given up.
The scenario isn't 100% clear here (does he posses the ball before fumbling? etc.), but regardless, this is trivially easy to solve for.For all those who think the fumble-touchback rule is dumb, how would you change it? Before answering, consider how your rule would apply to this situation:
Team A kicks off to team B. A team B player is standing in the end zone where he attempts to catch the ball, but it goes through his hands. The ball bounces along the ground where it:
A) Goes out of bounds at the 1 yard line
B) Goes out the back of the end zone.
Currently, in situation A team B snaps from the 1. In situation B team B snaps from the 25. New and improved rule would change this how?
Totally agree here. All I've heard on FB and on this mornings radio is, "Yeah I know what the rule is but its the worst call ever, these officials stink, etc etc etc."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?
After those first two defensive possessions the defense was very good the rest of the day. I do question some of the schemes like only rushing 3 on several of those late drives. The safety blitz when Harmon(?) shifted sides pre-snap and forced McCown out of the pocket was designed and executed brilliantly.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.
The only rule change I would like to see is that if a player fumbles and the ball is not recovered before going OOB, the ball goes to the fumbling team either at the spot at which he fumbled it or where it went out bounds if it went backwards. If either is in his own end zone, it's a safety.For all those who think the fumble-touchback rule is dumb, how would you change it? Before answering, consider how your rule would apply to this situation:
Team A kicks off to team B. A team B player is standing in the end zone where he attempts to catch the ball, but it goes through his hands. The ball bounces along the ground where it:
A) Goes out of bounds at the 1 yard line
B) Goes out the back of the end zone.
Currently, in situation A team B snaps from the 1. In situation B team B snaps from the 25. New and improved rule would change this how?
1) Fumbles out of bounds can't change possession.For all those who think the fumble-touchback rule is dumb, how would you change it?
This isn't even relevant if the player only touches (not catches) the ball. If the player catches it in the end zone, starts to return but fumbles out of bounds before ever leaving the end zone, it's a touchback regardless of where the ball went out of bounds.Before answering, consider how your rule would apply to this situation:
Team A kicks off to team B. A team B player is standing in the end zone where he attempts to catch the ball, but it goes through his hands. The ball bounces along the ground where it:
A) Goes out of bounds at the 1 yard line
B) Goes out the back of the end zone.
Currently, in situation A team B snaps from the 1. In situation B team B snaps from the 25. New and improved rule would change this how?
You could easily change it to a punt and have the same conflict. True you could write a rule for this one specific situation, but it would require a lot of revisions to the existing touchback and safety rules. Guaranteed it would take a couple years to actually get the kinks ironed out completely, as you would basically be re-writing a quarter of the definitions in the book. (At a minimum: force/impetus across the goal line, ball dead by rule, forward fumble OOB, incomplete pass in the end zone exception, safety, touchback)The scenario isn't 100% clear here (does he posses the ball before fumbling? etc.), but regardless, this is trivially easy to solve for.
Make rules on kick-offs different than rules for other plays.
You would only be "penalized" 20 yards (touchbacks only come to the 25 on kickoffs). It's perfectly relevant if the player touches the ball, because its a touchback due to the exact same rule. Team A put the ball in the end zone (in this case, via kick), and it was declared dead there.If you do it at the 1, you blow the scoring opportunity and are penalized 25 yards. It's an incredibly dumb rule, there's no two ways to look at it.
This isn't even relevant if the player only touches (not catches) the ball. If the player catches it in the end zone, starts to return but fumbles out of bounds before ever leaving the end zone, it's a touchback regardless of where the ball went out of bounds.
For those having a hard time conceptualizing the example, let me change it a bit:The end. Same rule on kickoffs. Balls that go out of the end zone on kickoffs are almost never fumbles but if they are they are already safeties so I don't understand your question.
That's a completely different rule that has nothing to do with the ASJ play, though, right?For those having a hard time conceptualizing the example, let me change it a bit:
Team A punts from the 40. Team B has an aggressive kick returner, who tries to field the punt in the end zone. He drops the kick (never completes the catch) and the loose ball rolls toward the pylon.
Currently, if it goes out of bounds at the 1 team B snaps there. If it hits the pylon team B snaps from the 20.
Oh, only penalized with an arbitrary turnover and 20 (not 25) of the most important yards on the field. Okay.You would only be "penalized" 20 yards (touchbacks only come to the 25 on kickoffs). It's perfectly relevant if the player touches the ball, because its a touchback due to the exact same rule. Team A put the ball in the end zone (in this case, via kick), and it was declared dead there.
It's a touchback due to the same rule, which would need to be amended. The touchback/safety rule is very simple actually. If the ball is declared dead in the end zone (and not a TD), it's a safety if the team defending the end zone caused the ball to cross the goal line and a touchback if the team attacking caused it to cross the goal line. The same rule is applied to equally to passes (interception in end zone is a touchback, because the attacking team threw the ball over the goal line), fumbles, and kicks.That's a completely different rule that has nothing to do with the ASJ play, though, right?
I have no problem with those rules. If you punt or kickoff into the end zone, you risk a touchback. If the guy muffs it forward, you get lucky.
Kicking scenarios need their own rule because possession is not established. By kicking, the team has given up possession. The receiving team has not claimed it yet, but has a right to it. This requires different rules than a traditional play.For those having a hard time conceptualizing the example, let me change it a bit:
Team A punts from the 40. Team B has an aggressive kick returner, who tries to field the punt in the end zone. He drops the kick (never completes the catch) and the loose ball rolls toward the pylon.
Currently, if it goes out of bounds at the 1 team B snaps there. If it hits the pylon team B snaps from the 20.
I don't have a problem with this rule either. You can't advance the ball on a fumble or else you would have seen rugby or Aussie rules style lobbing and kicking. A muffed kick is different from a fumble because you don't need to ever have possession of the ball, it's just a live ball. A team isn't going to muff kicks on purpose to try to advance the ball a couple of yards out of bounds since it's incredibly risky. If they eliminated this rule, kicks wouldn't change at all.That's a completely different rule that has nothing to do with the ASJ play, though, right?
I have no problem with those rules. If you punt or kickoff into the end zone, you risk a touchback. If the guy muffs it forward, you get lucky.
Yeah. It was pretty white-knuckle overall, but one thing I noticed on that play and a few others near the end was that they managed to flush Mccown away from the side of the field where most of his best options / main reads were headed. I think it was that Harmon play where McCown audibled, and the defense countered by running Harmon across the formation to blitz... flushing McCown to the side where he only had one receiver, it seemed. Will take a better football mind than me to fully explain, but it sure seemed like sending Harmon around the other side was intended to exploit something in the blocking and / or the formation that they picked up on.After those first two defensive possessions the defense was very good the rest of the day. I do question some of the schemes like only rushing 3 on several of those late drives. The safety blitz when Harmon(?) shifted sides pre-snap and forced McCown out of the pocket was designed and executed brilliantly.
Which is why trying to extrapolate things like Points Per Drive in such a small sample size feels like an exercise in futility.It's 3 points because they got the call; it's 10 points if they don't get the call. 0.75 points per drive is great, 2.5 points per drive is terrible. Even if you think it's the right call, it seems more of a fortunate break than skilled defense to me.
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.It's not the same rule. If the player fumbles the ball and it bounces forwards out of bounds to the 1, it's a touchback
Kicking the ball and having it go out of bounds in the end zone is a touchback for the returning team in every situation whether it's caught, fumbled, muffed, or never touched
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).Which is why trying to extrapolate things like Points Per Drive in such a small sample size feels like an exercise in futility.
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.At the end of the day, the end zone is just a completely different area of the field. A ball declared dead in the end zone has to be a touchdown, safety, or touchback by rule. People wonder why a fumble OOB at the 1 stays there when a fumble OOB in the end zone is a turnover. Nobody wonders why the a ball carrier tackled in the end zone is worth 6 points while it is worth nothing at the 1. The end zone is a separate area of the field with a completely different rules.
To me this is not a problem with the rule, it's a problem with replay. I think this is similar to the pickoff play in the Cubs-Nats game a few days ago. Nobody would argue that a tagged runner who is not in contact with a base is out. But using the same standard above, I don't think 50 baseball fans would describe the runner's actions as "bad" either.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.
Yeah, that's probably fair. Maybe I'm being too optimistic with the hopes this defense isn't a fucking nightmare...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.
Yep. No evidence he lost possession of the ball:Pretty much this. Ruling on the field was a TD. I didn’t see anything indisputable that he didn’t have possession of the ball crossing the plane. He clearly bobbled it before the goal line and regained possession. If there’s not an indisputable angle of the ball being out of his hand while crossing the plane (there isn’t) the call should have stood as called on the field.
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.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.
Let's say the Jets tried a lateral that hit the pylon. Free touchdown? How does your proposed new rule handle that?