The Game Ball Thread: Week 6 at the Jets

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
37,059
Hingham, MA
The college replay system was based on the NFL (and in some cases like the SEC with the NFL itself). I believe replay not talking to the calling official is actually a feature, not a bug.
Right I am pretty sure the NFL replay booth in NYC does not talk to the calling official, but I am guessing that when they talk to the head ref he explains what the call on the field is and the head ref would have already had a brief discussion with the official to confirm what the call was. That's my assumption, NOT that the replay booth talks to the official who made the call. Agreed it is a feature and not a bug.
 

Stitch01

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
18,155
Boston
https://operations.nfl.com/updates/the-officials/replay-process-updated-for-2017-nfl-season/

NY now makes the final call but referees can talk with the replay officials in New York

Two replay field technicians — stationed at each 20-yard line on the sideline — will walk onto the field with hard-wired Instant Replay Tablets.

The nearest technician will give the Referee a headset, so the Referee can communicate with designated senior officiating staff in AMGC. The technician will hold the Instant Replay Tablet, allowing the Referee to review replay videos.

If you meant the actual member of the crew that made the call doesnt talk with NY, that's true, but the referee can communicate what was called on the field and why.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
37,059
Hingham, MA
Also - if the official had called a fumble, with a recovery - wouldn't he have thrown that little plastic blue thingy that signals a fumble? The fact that he didn't means he never called a fumble, right?
 

Van Everyman

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2009
26,993
Newton
The replay clearly showed that Jenkins lost possession of the ball though. The standard for replay was met. Just saying "Well he mighta regained possession!!! You don't know!!!" isn't an argument. He lost possession as he was sailing through the end zone and the ball is still moving after. All indications are that he didn't regain possession until he was out of bounds. Period.
Yes, my point is that Corrente clearly stated that once the ball is a fumble that overrules the call on the field of it being a touchdown. That also makes a certain amount of logical sense -- you can't call something a touchdown when you know for a fact that ball came out before he crossed the plane and you never saw him get it back (and in fact, saw him still juggling it when he was rolling around on the sideline).

This is also what the head of officiating just said:

Riveron said the ball was loose when Seferian-Jenkins went airborne and was contacted by a defender, making it a fumble. By rule, a player has to re-establish possession before he hits anything out of bounds, and the Jets tight end didn't do so as he crashed through one corner of the end zone.

Riveron said "clear and obvious" is the standard that is used to overturn any call and "this definitely met that criteria."
Worth noting that Seferian-Jenkins has been pretty stand up about this -- he doesn't agree with the call but said he did fumble it and needed to do a better job of ball security.
 

Bergs

funky and cold
SoSH Member
Jul 22, 2005
21,613
I think it was the "correct" call, but there's no way that shouldn't be a touchdown. I'd be all kinds of pissed off if that happened to us.
 

In Vino Vinatieri

New Member
Nov 20, 2009
139
A backwards pass that hits the ground is NOT a fumble. If it somehow goes out of bounds, you snap the ball from the spot regardless of where it goes out. If it goes out ten yards downfield, you gain ten yards. A fumble that goes out of bounds downfield is brought back. 8-7-2 and 8-7-3 would be your rules reference
So your argument is essentially that, had this been a lateral, it should have been ruled a touchdown? But because he had possession before, it makes sense that it's a touchback?

I'm not even sure what edge case this rule is supposed to be guarding against. A runner with a ball punched out from behind at the 20 yard line with the ball being recovered inside the endzone for a touchdown? Perhaps to prevent overly aggressive changes in ballhandling near the endzone because of a diminished threat of turnover? If he's on the 2 when this happens, juggles the ball a little falling over the 1, nobody thinks twice about the play regardless of whether they give him the yard or not. What's the downside to getting rid of the rule and treating it the same way as that?

In what world is a maybe-fumble with no recovery the difference between 6 points or loss of possession and 20 yards instead of the boring out-of-bounds play that it should be?

I'm actually really looking forward to the time where this happens and people are discussing the angle of the throw which led to it and ensuing argument over whether it should be a touchback or a touchdown instead of the inconsequential no-gain down that it should have been. It was the best butter, you know.
 

Harry Hooper

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 4, 2002
34,368
Yes, my point is that Corrente clearly stated that once the ball is a fumble that overrules the call on the field of it being a touchdown. That also makes a certain amount of logical sense -- you can't call something a touchdown when you know for a fact that ball came out before he crossed the plane and you never saw him get it back (and in fact, saw him still juggling it when he was rolling around on the sideline).
The replay clip posted on ESPN ends right when he's about to roll around.
 

Stitch01

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
18,155
Boston
Per Bedard/BSJ/PFF, Pats actually brought extra rushers more yesterday than in any game this year, were pretty successful at it, and brought pressure from the secondary perhaps more than any game in recent memory.

So while it felt like the Pats were sitting back and rushing three a lot (at least to me), they were charted as actually bringing extra pressure. Seemed like much of it was delayed rushes while watching it live.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
37,059
Hingham, MA
Per Bedard/BSJ/PFF, Pats actually brought extra rushers more yesterday than in any game this year, were pretty successful at it, and brought pressure from the secondary perhaps more than any game in recent memory.

So while it felt like the Pats were sitting back and rushing three a lot (at least to me), they were charted as actually bringing extra pressure. Seemed like much of it was delayed rushes while watching it live.
The first two times they brought Butler, it caused the Jets problems and the Pats won both plays (one was the 4th down DMC pick - Butler missed McCown but it screwed up the play). But then they brought him on 4th and 12 on the final drive and the Jets converted easily on the 30 yard play to Robbie Anderson.
 

PedroKsBambino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2003
31,191
The replay clearly showed that Jenkins lost possession of the ball though. The standard for replay was met. Just saying "Well he mighta regained possession!!! You don't know!!!" isn't an argument. He lost possession as he was sailing through the end zone and the ball is still moving after. All indications are that he didn't regain possession until he was out of bounds. Period.
You are misunderstanding how replay works and what standard applies. The call on the field encompasses everything that happened---the knee, the bobble, the second bobble, the pylon, where he landed. And (right or wrong) the call on the field was a touchdown.

So, to change that call via the currenet replay rule one has to conclude the call was definitely wrong. That means that any chance it was correct means it is upheld. Blandino's point was that there is some uncertainty about the knee landing in bounds, and that's enough. He actually thinks the knee likely did land in-bounds, but he doesn't need that to be true---he only needs it to be something replay cannot conclusively rule out.

The attempts in this thread to say 'the call on the field don't say this or that' or 'the call on the field wasn't about the fumble' are simply misconceptions about the rule. That's now how replay works, whether ot not I like the current standard (and, to be clear, I don't! Nor am I at all sad if the Jets got hosed by the reversal).
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
37,059
Hingham, MA
I dunno about that. The call on the field said no fumble. Once it was clearly a fumble, the call on the field kind of goes to hell and opens a Pandora’s box.
 

PedroKsBambino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2003
31,191
The logic that "I know what the rule says, but I get to make up my own way to think about it anyway" would make Roger Goodell proud, but makes anyone who cares about standards weep.
 

hitatater

Well-Known Member
Silver Supporter
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
306
Comments on the touchback from ASJ and from Blandino on a time last season when the same play was called.

[snip]
Anywhere else on the field, a ball fumbled out of bounds is returned to the team that last possessed it at the spot it was last possessed. Blandino acknowledged the harshness of the result, saying, That may seem like an egregious penalty but again, think about it, they put the ball into their opponent’s end zone. If it’s not fourth down or inside two minutes, if they recover it, it’s a score. So that’s potentially a big play, so the penalty for not recovering it . . . has to be big as well. That’s why it’s a touchback. That’s consistent with other loose balls that go into an opponent’s end zone. Kicks, punts, fumbles, backward passes.
[more snip]
http://www.nbcsports.com/boston/patriots/jets-can-hate-rule-not-call-overturned-touchdown
Wait, what? As I bolded above, the rule changes if there is less than 2 minutes???

Offense fumbles into the end zone; if they recover it, it's a TD except if there's less than 2 minutes? Then it's all-of-a-sudden NOT a score?

Who makes this shit up? And I can't wait to see both occurrences in a game...
 

InstaFace

The Ultimate One
SoSH Member
Sep 27, 2016
21,764
Pittsburgh, PA
No, he's referring to the rule where normally a fumble forward recovered by the fumbling team is awarded possession where the (recovering) runner was brought down, but on 4th down or inside two minutes (to the half or game), because of the Holy Roller play, such plays are awarded possession at the spot of the fumble rather than the spot of recovery / being-down. To prevent teams not-so-unintentionally fumbling forward.

A fumble into the offense's attacking endzone is either a TD (if recovered by the offense) or a touchback (if recovered by the defense OR if it goes out of bounds without being recovered). That does not change with game situation. It's the latter situation we're discussing here.
 

The Needler

New Member
Dec 7, 2016
1,803
Wait, what? As I bolded above, the rule changes if there is less than 2 minutes???

Offense fumbles into the end zone; if they recover it, it's a TD except if there's less than 2 minutes? Then it's all-of-a-sudden NOT a score?

Who makes this shit up? And I can't wait to see both occurrences in a game...
The rule is on ANY fumble on fourth down or inside the two-minute warning. Only the fumbler can advance the ball.
 

DennyDoyle'sBoil

Found no thrill on Blueberry Hill
SoSH Member
Sep 9, 2008
42,281
AZ
I don't know obviously what communication is between the replay booth but you definitely should want the replay booth to understand what the refs on the field think they called. And I think as a practical matter that does happen. I think I remember seeing a sound fx or something where, back when the ref was the reviewer, he would ask for detail from his guys what they thought they saw.

And that's good. You shouldn't apply some blind deference based on what you think a guy might have thought he saw. Take a catch, and the question is whether the guy got both feet in bounds. The guy takes three steps. The third step is out of bounds, just barely. So, the question is whether the ball was caught while the first step was still on the ground. The guy on the field calls it a catch.

You go to the replay booth, and it sees immediately that the third step was out of bounds. You would really like to know, in this case, what the ref thought he saw. If his call was based on a view that the ball was not caught yet on step 1, but that step 3 was in bounds, you want to know that. If the replay official sees that the third step was out of bounds, now you have a question of what deference to pay to the on field official. You shouldn't be inventing what you think he might have seen and apply discretion to something he didn't even call. If you said to him, "hey, we see on video the third step was out of bounds," and he would say, "oh really, I thought it was in bounds and that's why I made my call, but after that I'm not sure so call whatever you see on step 1," that's valuable information. And there is no way we should ever be giving deference -- particularly not near conclusive deference -- to things that were not seen or called by the on field ref. The first question from the replay booth should always be, "what do you have," and then deference should follow from that.
 

The Needler

New Member
Dec 7, 2016
1,803
I don't know obviously what communication is between the replay booth but you definitely should want the replay booth to understand what the refs on the field think they called. And I think as a practical matter that does happen. I think I remember seeing a sound fx or something where, back when the ref was the reviewer, he would ask for detail from his guys what they thought they saw.

And that's good. You shouldn't apply some blind deference based on what you think a guy might have thought he saw. Take a catch, and the question is whether the guy got both feet in bounds. The guy takes three steps. The third step is out of bounds, just barely. So, the question is whether the ball was caught while the first step was still on the ground. The guy on the field calls it a catch.

You go to the replay booth, and it sees immediately that the third step was out of bounds. You would really like to know, in this case, what the ref thought he saw. If his call was based on a view that the ball was not caught yet on step 1, but that step 3 was in bounds, you want to know that. If the replay official sees that the third step was out of bounds, now you have a question of what deference to pay to the on field official. You shouldn't be inventing what you think he might have seen and apply discretion to something he didn't even call. If you said to him, "hey, we see on video the third step was out of bounds," and he would say, "oh really, I thought it was in bounds and that's why I made my call, but after that I'm not sure so call whatever you see on step 1," that's valuable information. And there is no way we should ever be giving deference -- particularly not near conclusive deference -- to things that were not seen or called by the on field ref. The first question from the replay booth should always be, "what do you have," and then deference should follow from that.
I don't think that's how replay works, though. When that challenge flag is thrown, everything that is reviewable gets reviewed. And the presumption is that everything that could be called or not called, was. So for example, if there's a pass play for a first down, the ruling on the filed is that the ball was a) caught; b) the runner had two feet in-bounds; c) the ball was past the first down line when he went down. When the official makes the first down signal, all of those things are assumed to be true. When the opposing coach throws the flag, they review all of the above and need clear evidence that any one of those things was wrong. There's no more (and IMO shouldn't be) deference paid to the feet than the spot, whether or not the official(s) was more sure of one than the other. He/they made both calls, and they are presumed correct with the same weight.

EDIT: So in this case, it should be that the ruling on the field was a TD. That could be because (a) there was never any fumble; or (b) there was a fumble recovered and maintained before going out of bounds. I don't think the field officials should be explaining which of this was the case; just that it was a touchdown, not a touchback. And NY should have to have irrefutable evidence that it was not a TD, for whatever reason. So once they see there was a fumble, they should assume (b), and need clear evidence that it was NOT recovered and maintained to overturn.
 
Last edited:

Ed Hillel

Wants to be startin somethin
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2007
43,559
Here
So, to change that call via the currenet replay rule one has to conclude the call was definitely wrong. That means that any chance it was correct means it is upheld. Blandino's point was that there is some uncertainty about the knee landing in bounds, and that's enough. He actually thinks the knee likely did land in-bounds, but he doesn't need that to be true---he only needs it to be something replay cannot conclusively rule out.
The problem with Blandino’s assessment isn’t the replay standard, it’s that he seems not to know the rule. The knee being down is insufficient to establish possession. Even assuming the knee was down, there was clear evidence he did not control it going to the ground. Therefore, he never possessed the ball a second time.

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.
We might be talking past each other, as you were responding to replay interpretation, but I just want to make sure.
 

The Needler

New Member
Dec 7, 2016
1,803
The problem with Blandino’s assessment isn’t the replay standard, it’s that he seems not to know the rule. The knee being down is insufficient to establish possession. Even assuming the knee was down, there was clear evidence he did not control it going to the ground. Therefore, he never possessed the ball a second time.



We might be talking past each other, as you were responding to replay interpretation, but I just want to make sure.
The video I saw of him today, he was saying there was no evidence to disprove that Jenkins regained and maintained control.
 

Spelunker

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 17, 2005
11,862
I keep getting sad when I see this thread bumped because I keep thinking it will be with commentary on the Pats players and who should get kudos and who should be criticized. Time to break out the rules sidebar?
 

Harry Hooper

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 4, 2002
34,368
Wait, what? As I bolded above, the rule changes if there is less than 2 minutes???

Offense fumbles into the end zone; if they recover it, it's a TD except if there's less than 2 minutes? Then it's all-of-a-sudden NOT a score?

Who makes this shit up? And I can't wait to see both occurrences in a game...
I believe that rule was put in place after the Raiders intentionally fumbled a ball into the end zone to get a game-winning TD. The infamous Holy Roller play:






In that Blandino-Pereira clip, I am pretty sure I heard Pereira saying that a player touching the pylon is NOT considered out of bounds Is he wrong? I thought the ball touching the pylon is in bounds, but a player touching the pylon is considered out of bounds.


Oh, game balls:
Malcolm & Malcolm
Dion Lewis
 
Last edited:

reggiecleveland

sublime
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Mar 5, 2004
27,957
Saskatoon Canada
I will give a ball to Gronk. I tend to watch where he lines up and he does everything. Better football minds correct me if I am mistaken. He was effectively left tackle at time sblocking an edge rusher, he was very good in run blocking, and when not drawing a crowd scoring TDs. Seems he picked up a bit of Jules 4-7 yard catches too.

The rocket surgeon also threw in some DB blitzes that changed thing sup a key times.
 

PedroKsBambino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2003
31,191
The video I saw of him today, he was saying there was no evidence to disprove that Jenkins regained and maintained control.
He was. Did Riveron today affirm Corrente's statement that the ball had to be controlled all the way to the ground, as opposed to just being in bounds? He did not in the ESPN article I saw, and neither Pereira or Blandino saw the rule the way Corrente described it.

Riveron said the ball was loose when Seferian-Jenkins went airborne and was contacted by a defender, making it a fumble. By rule, a player has to re-establish possession before he hits anything out of bounds, and the Jets tight end didn't do so as he crashed through one corner of the end zone.
http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/21042849/officiating-czar-stands-call-nullify-new-york-jets-touchdown

I have not taken the time (at any point!) to truly understand the 'Calvin Johnson' rule and such. But it is interesting to note that the consensus in the thread about how that applies here, while supported by Corrente's statement, is not what any of the supervisors have focused on at all.
 

Ed Hillel

Wants to be startin somethin
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2007
43,559
Here

Stitch01

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
18,155
Boston
I didn’t see an explicit affirmation.

Given that Corrente was in contact with the senior officiating department members who made the call, that no that one in the NFL office has offered a contradicting explanation, and that the visual evidence on the replay supports an overturn using Corrente’s interpretation but probably doesnt given the alternative interpretations, I think that Riveron most likely agrees with Corrente’s interpretation. Not definite, but seems to best fit the facts.

Corrente’s interpretation seems to reflect the rule posted earlier in this thread.
 

BigJimEd

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 4, 2002
4,432
I don't think there is really any debate about what the rule is. You must maintain possession through the ground. We've seen that plenty of times.
Just because Blandino doesn't specifically state it doesn't change the rule. He likely didn't see the bobble at the end. Without a bobble then the knee coming down matters. A bobble after that makes the knee immaterial. You can't see a bobble in many of the replays and some might argue about the bobble in general.
 

bakahump

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 8, 2001
7,520
Maine
Seems like this is pretty Simple if taken step by step.
If he was fumbling before the TD Call then That call is no longer Valid.
So
1. Did he fumble before crossing the plane?
A. He did then so he needs to reestablish possession in bounds and in Clear View to conclusively call a TD.
B. He did not Fumble.
If you agree with Position A then anything subsequent (TD call) is invalid and a "New Call" needs to be established.

2. Did he conclusively reestablish possession in the endzone after crossing the plane? This needs to be "beyond a shadow of a doubt"
A. He did
B. He Did Not.
I think there is significant evidence he did not.

So finally where do we spot the ball.
3. If you agree that we are indeed dealing with a Fumble.
3a. And Possession was never established in bounds in the end zone and was only established OUT of Bounds.
A.Then the ball went out of bounds From the endzone
B. The ball went out of bounds previous to entering the end zone.

I think its pretty obvious that it first entered the Endzone (under no ones control, at least not CONCLUSIVELY under someones control).
It then went out of bounds triggering the Touch back.
 

The Needler

New Member
Dec 7, 2016
1,803
Seems like this is pretty Simple if taken step by step.
If he was fumbling before the TD Call then That call is no longer Valid.
So
1. Did he fumble before crossing the plane?
A. He did then so he needs to reestablish possession in bounds and in Clear View to conclusively call a TD.
B. He did not Fumble.
If you agree with Position A then anything subsequent (TD call) is invalid and a "New Call" needs to be established.
Who says? Where in the rulebook does it say the burden flips after A.? Why isn't it assumed that he reestablished possession in bounds, and replay needs to conclusively show otherwise?
 

caesarbear

New Member
Jan 28, 2007
271
If the ruling on the field was "no fumble." Can't confirm the ruling if it only happens to match the result. The ruling on the field of a touchdown most likely did not acknowledge a fumble, thus it had to be overruled with a new determination.
 

The Needler

New Member
Dec 7, 2016
1,803
If the ruling on the field was "no fumble." Can't confirm the ruling if it only happens to match the result. The ruling on the field of a touchdown most likely did not acknowledge a fumble, thus it had to be overruled with a new determination.
Again, who said? The ruling on the field was Touchdown. You need clear evidence to overturn Touchdown. You don't suddenly start assuming the worst. Unless there is clear evidence he DIDN'T resastablish inbounds, the call should stand.
 

caesarbear

New Member
Jan 28, 2007
271
Am I not? The ruling on the field is more than just "touchdown" in a vacuum. What we are not privy to was most likely a ruling of - 'the reciever completed the act of a catch, became a runner and advanced the ball across the goaline resulting in a touchdown.'
 

The Needler

New Member
Dec 7, 2016
1,803
Am I not? The ruling on the field is more than just "touchdown" in a vacuum. What we are not privy to was most likely a ruling of - 'the reciever completed the act of a catch, became a runner and advanced the ball across the goaline resulting in a touchdown.'
There are two theories being advanced here by those who think the correct call was made:

1) The call was reversed because there was was clear evidence that the runner did not re-establish possession inbounds;

2) The call was reversed because there was not clear evidence that he re-established evidence inbounds.

In post 191, you (clumsily) supported theory 2. I am quite certain that the call was made (correctly or not) under theory 1.
 

caesarbear

New Member
Jan 28, 2007
271
But both already establish a need for a new call. The touchdown was already reversed because of the clear fumble, not anything to do with recovery.
 

Stitch01

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
18,155
Boston
Although it was difficult to tell on replays that Seferian-Jenkins hadn’t re-established possession when he went down in the end zone, Riveron said he had no doubt that he did not have possession before going out of bounds.

“Once [Seferian-Jenkins] is going to the ground, we see the ball is loose,” said Riveron, who makes all replay determinations from the league’s Manhattan office. “Now, we know we have a fumble. By rule, he has to re-establish possession, must regain control of the football again. We see in two other instances where the ball is loose, he has not regained control of the football before he lands out of bounds. By rule, we have a touchback. We might not agree with the rule, but that is the rule. So the rule was enforced correctly.”

We dont have to guess. Corrente and the NFL officiating department have both said they view it as clear and obvious that ASJ did not regain possession before going out of bounds.

This is the rule regarding replay. Its seems reasonably clear that if they cant tell whether ASJ regained control the call on the field stands even though the replay shows conclusively he lost possession before scoring.

If a runner is ruled down but replay shows a fumble with no clear recovery, then the call on the field stands. This seems analogous. There's an instant replay casebook that goes through specific examples that might provide further clarity, but Im not sure its available online.

If an on-field ruling of a dead ball (down by contact, out of bounds, or incomplete forward pass) is changed, the ball belongs to the recovering player at the spot of the recovery, and any advance is nullified. The recovery must occur in the continuing action following the loss of possession. If the ball goes out of bounds in an end zone, the result of the play will be either a touchback or a safety. If the Referee does not have clear and obvious visual evidence as to which player recovered the loose ball, or that the ball went out of bounds, the ruling on the field will stand.

 
Last edited:

The Needler

New Member
Dec 7, 2016
1,803
Although it was difficult to tell on replays that Seferian-Jenkins hadn’t re-established possession when he went down in the end zone, Riveron said he had no doubt that he did not have possession before going out of bounds.

“Once [Seferian-Jenkins] is going to the ground, we see the ball is loose,” said Riveron, who makes all replay determinations from the league’s Manhattan office. “Now, we know we have a fumble. By rule, he has to re-establish possession, must regain control of the football again. We see in two other instances where the ball is loose, he has not regained control of the football before he lands out of bounds. By rule, we have a touchback. We might not agree with the rule, but that is the rule. So the rule was enforced correctly.”

We dont have to guess. Corrente and the NFL officiating department have both said they view it as clear and obvious that ASJ did not regain possession before going out of bounds.
Yes, that's why I said I was quite certain that it was made under theory 1. But still, people in this thread continue to press the claim that the burden shifts once video reveals that he fumbled. And I understand it's because it doesn't feel that great to be a recipient of a call that you think was incorrect. so it's easier to justify it based on procedural technicalities. But in this case, you really have to live with the fact that NY called it clear evidence that he did not maintain possession inbounds.
 

GoDa

New Member
Sep 25, 2017
962
The Jet loses the ball in mid-air and I thought maybe his left knee did not come down inbounds before he had possession, but after about 100 replays - I think it does just barely scrape the grass before he contacts the pylon with his shoulder. At that point, it looks to me like he has secured the ball... so he'd need to control it through contact to the ground. From that point, the only thing I see is that slight movement of the ball when he's on his back and tightens his grip by using his left arm. It might be slight, but it's very clear. There are perfect views of this part of the process - if that's a bobble, then the call is right... but the more I watch it, I can't see that as the reason... the rule allows for a slight movement of the ball.

So - the only thing I can come up with is that the official is saying he did not have possession when he contacted the pylon, I can't see evidence of that.

I think I'm reversing my opinion. Should've been TD, Jets.
 

caesarbear

New Member
Jan 28, 2007
271
Are you saying that a touchdown ruling should remain established even though there is already cause to change it, until a new ruling is found complete in all aspects with clear evidence at every point? Or assume the best?
 

Stitch01

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
18,155
Boston
Yes, sort of, in the sense that your wording is unclear. The ruling on the field is touchdown. In order to change the call, you need clear evidence of a recovery or the ball going out of bounds. Otherwise there is no clear and obvious evidence that a touchdown was not scored. Losing possession before the goal line is not cause to change the ruling because its not clear and obvious evidence that a touchdown was not scored. That requires evidence that the ball went out of bounds or that the opposing player recovered.
 

The Needler

New Member
Dec 7, 2016
1,803
Are you saying that a touchdown ruling should remain established even though there is already cause to change it, until a new ruling is found complete in all aspects with clear evidence at every point? Or assume the best?
"All reviewable aspects of the play may be examined and are subject to reversal, even if not identified in a coach’s challenge or if not the specific reason for a Replay Official’s request for review.

If the ball goes out of bounds in an end zone, the result of the play will be either a touchback or a safety. If the Referee does not have clear and obvious visual evidence as to which player recovered the loose ball, or that the ball went out of bounds, the ruling on the field will stand."
 

Tony C

Moderator
Moderator
SoSH Member
Apr 13, 2000
13,694
I think it was the "correct" call, but there's no way that shouldn't be a touchdown. I'd be all kinds of pissed off if that happened to us.
I agree fully. This rule has driven me nuts for years. The question is -- and presumably the reason the rule has stayed in place despite it apparently having come up to the rules committee repeatedly -- is the Raiders' deliberate fumble. It seems to me making a fumble through and out of the end zone a 10-yard penalty would handle that sufficiently, no?
 

bakahump

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 8, 2001
7,520
Maine
So Needler am I correct in understanding your stance is basically

"If the replay is engaged to answer whether it was a TD or NOT a TD they cant make a judgment on a Fumble?"

I am asking in all seriousness.

Cause it seems like thats the only way that argument holds water. Hell it might be even be true but it would be a surprise to me that they would use replay but limit themselves so extremely.
 

The Needler

New Member
Dec 7, 2016
1,803
So Needler am I correct in understanding your stance is basically

"If the replay is engaged to answer whether it was a TD or NOT a TD they cant make a judgment on a Fumble?"

I am asking in all seriousness.

Cause it seems like thats the only way that argument holds water. Hell it might be even be true but it would be a surprise to me that they would use replay but limit themselves so extremely.
It's neither a stance nor an argument. It's the way replay works. When the ruling on the field is a touchdown, there needs to be conclusive evidence there was not a touchdown.
 

The Needler

New Member
Dec 7, 2016
1,803
So Needler am I correct in understanding your stance is basically

"If the replay is engaged to answer whether it was a TD or NOT a TD they cant make a judgment on a Fumble?"

I am asking in all seriousness.

Cause it seems like thats the only way that argument holds water. Hell it might be even be true but it would be a surprise to me that they would use replay but limit themselves so extremely.
They are not limiting themselves. The ruling was that there was clear evidence that there was a fumble that was not recovered until he was out of bounds. So they reversed.

But it would not have been enough just to have clear evidence that there was a fumble without clear evidence that it was not recovered until he was out of bounds. They needed both of those elements to be clear to reverse.