Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
edjr

New York Jets

Recommended Posts

Big time fake outrage. Pretty clear cut call. He lost possession before crossing the goal line. Does not regain it until out of bounds.

I called it touchback as soon as it happened. Clear as day easy call. Fake outrage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Big time fake outrage. Pretty clear cut call. He lost possession before crossing the goal line. Does not regain it until out of bounds.

I called it touchback as soon as it happened. Clear as day easy call. Fake outrage.

Sure you did Homer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

meh.

the call didn't matter - TD Jets... no TD Jets... the Jets still lose that game... and so do 80% of all the other teams in the NFL... because they're stupid... how many focking decades will this go on and other teams mismanage tight, end-of-game situations? The clock, not the refs, is always on NE' side because BB manages it that way.

 

The Patriots are terrible right now... playing like absolute dog-crap.. but they'll still win b/c they know how to win - their players are coached on situational football and BB is the GOAT.

 

pretending that some call - good or bad - was going to change what's been happening with NE and NYJ's for fifteen years is part of why other team don't ever get any better. You lost b/c you are rarely as prepared and disciplined as a BB coached team- - he'll beat you with his 11, he'll beat you with your 11... but focus on a call - that'll help ya' figure it out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do not think that the NFL is properly or correctly dealing with what technology now affords us, and it is going to have to adjust if they want to remain strong and credible.

 

The ball did rattle around a bit during the play, but a reasonable fan determines that ASJ managed to touch the post with the ball in his hands - and that's what matters here.

 

We need to better protect the spirit of the law rather than the letter of the law. This was a failure on the part of the review officials, and it violated the spirit of the rule.

 

At minimum, 'indisputable evidence' spirit was abused here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Big time fake outrage. Pretty clear cut call. He lost possession before crossing the goal line. Does not regain it until out of bounds.

I called it touchback as soon as it happened. Clear as day easy call. Fake outrage.

He regained possession in bounds before he hit the pylon....and Im a Pats fan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He regained possession in bounds before he hit the pylon....and Im a Pats fan

 

That seems to be the narrative today.

 

Patriots fans saying the call was wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He regained possession in bounds before he hit the pylon....and Im a Pats fan

https://streamable.com/qrsrb

 

To have "possession" he has to have "complete control of the ball" inbounds. That ball is moving all over until he's well out of bounds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He regained possession in bounds before he hit the pylon....and Im a Pats fan

 

Here is the problem. The way that the rule reads, he has to take the ball all the way to the ground before he can legally "regain possession". It is just like the Calvin Johnson ruling on a catch. If you lose possession, you must maintain control of the ball all the way to the ground, so he could not have touched the pylon with possession.

 

Dumb rule, BTW.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

imo - It all goes back the original call, which was a TD......... Based on the camera replays shown, there is no way anybody in a booth saw conclusive evidence to overrule the TD.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He regained possession in bounds before he hit the pylon....and Im a Pats fan

the video says otherwise, as does the still shot ed posted

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://streamable.com/qrsrb

 

To have "possession" he has to have "complete control of the ball" inbounds. That ball is moving all over until he's well out of bounds.

 

Disagree.

 

Are you a Pats fan? I suspect so, and I suspect that not one non-Pats fan agrees with you.

 

But it's just a suspicion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

imo - It all goes back the original call, which was a TD......... Based on the camera replays shown, there is no way anybody in a booth saw conclusive evidence to overrule the TD.

 

This is the correct answer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Disagree.

Are you a Pats fan? I suspect so, and I suspect that not one non-Pats fan agrees with you.

But it's just a suspicion.

The standard is 'indisputable', and we're disputing, so the standard hasn't been met.

 

The call on the field should have stood, and ASJ and the Jets got robbed by BS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Disagree.

 

Are you a Pats fan? I suspect so, and I suspect that not one non-Pats fan agrees with you.

 

But it's just a suspicion.

 

Disagree with clear video evidence all you want. Yes, I'm a Pats fan, and we're used to being disagreed with, so no sweat there. Doesn't change what's on video. It's pretty clear the ball is still moving when he hits the ground, and he's out of bounds the instant he touches the pylon. It's no different than if it had been a pass. That never would have been ruled a catch and the standard is no different. He doesn't have "possession" by the letter of the rule. :dunno:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Disagree with clear video evidence all you want. Yes, I'm a Pats fan, and we're used to being disagreed with, so no sweat there. Doesn't change what's on video. It's pretty clear the ball is still moving when he hits the ground, and he's out of bounds the instant he touches the pylon. It's no different than if it had been a pass. That never would have been ruled a catch and the standard is no different. He doesn't have "possession" by the letter of the rule. :dunno:

He does. The letter of the law here would be badly abused by fans like you, and only when expedient. There was bobbling of the ball, but it was early - before the goal line - andit was called a TD and there wasn't definitive evidence that the ball wasn't resecured at the point where the play was made, and all the way through the roll on the ground. The ball was in one arm, FFS, from the point of pylon contact through the roll on the ground.

 

 

The ball can move. You have to establish a lack of control, and there was no such evidence.

 

This was a touchdown.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the video says otherwise, as does the still shot ed posted

 

The shot Ed posted shows the original fumble. Everyone has seen that shot, and it's not in dispute

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jack doyle had a play like that late last year. Lost it Ashe was reaching for the pylon and it went OB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He does. The letter of the law here would be badly abused by fans like you, and only when expedient. There was bobbling of the ball, but it was early - before the goal line - andit was called a TD and there wasn't definitive evidence that the ball wasn't resecured at the point where the play was made, and all the way through the roll on the ground. The ball was in one arm, FFS, from the point of pylon contact through the roll on the ground.

 

 

The ball can move. You have to establish a lack of control, and there was no such evidence.

 

This was a touchdown.

there is evidence he loses control before crossing the goal line or touching the pylon, once that happens he has to end up with control of the ball on the ground IN BOUNDS, once he ends up out of bounds it's over, he has no chance to regain control for a touchdown because touch back has already happened. He needs to get to the ground with control IN BOUNDS. WHY IS THIS SO HARD TO GRASP ?

Correct call all the way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The standard is 'indisputable', and we're disputing, so the standard hasn't been met.

 

 

Got a link?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

there is evidence he loses control before crossing the goal line or touching the pylon, once that happens he has to end up with control of the ball on the ground IN BOUNDS, once he ends up out of bounds it's over, he has no chance to regain control for a touchdown because touch back has already happened. He needs to get to the ground with control IN BOUNDS. WHY IS THIS SO HARD TO GRASP ?

Correct call all the way.

Not quite. The call was 'TD'.

 

That means that the standard is different than you're claiming here. The new standard is indisputable evidence has to be provided that he DIDN'T gain control of the ball again by the time he hit the pylon, and through to the ground.

 

I posted the video. The video does not demonstrate indisputable evidence that ball is out of control at any point from the touching of the pylon to the ground.

 

Touchdown.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not quite. The call was 'TD'.

 

That means that the standard is different than you're claiming here. The new standards is indisputable evidence has to be provided that he DIDN'T gain control of the ball again by the time he hit the pylon, and through to the ground.

 

I posted the video. The video does not demonstrate indisputable evidence that ball is out of control at any point from the touching of the pylon to the ground.

 

Touchdown.

wrong, once he loses control, which is evident he did, he must maintain control through the rest of the play, him going out of bounds negates this possibility.

It was the only call that could be made.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You need a link to an established replay rule? :doh:

 

Yes, when you are misquoting it. The standard is "clear and obvious" not "indisputable".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

wrong, once he loses control, which is evident he did, he must maintain control through the rest of the play, him going out of bounds negates this possibility.

No, it doesn't. The overarching call is the initial call, and - once made - indisputable evidence to the contrary has to be demonstrated.

 

The reason? No one was aware of this initial 'loss of control' while in the air prior to crossing the plane. The pylon represents the 'wrap-around' goal line; once crossed, control is established through to the ground.

 

It was the only call that could be made.

Clearly, two calls were made. The first call was the opposite of the second, and the second required indisputability, which clearly isn't the case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, when you are misquoting it. The standard is "clear and obvious" not "indisputable".

 

Since announcers - the TV viewing fan's only pipeline to the officials - use the word 'indisputable', I find that the two terms are interchangeable.

 

There is nothing clear and obvious about any loss of control there, since it was 'clear and obvious' that ASJ needed only one arm to retain possession of that ball through the ground.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Disagree with clear video evidence all you want. Yes, I'm a Pats fan, and we're used to being disagreed with, so no sweat there. Doesn't change what's on video. It's pretty clear the ball is still moving when he hits the ground, and he's out of bounds the instant he touches the pylon. It's no different than if it had been a pass. That never would have been ruled a catch and the standard is no different. He doesn't have "possession" by the letter of the rule. :dunno:

 

I thought you were wrong on the bolded, but I looked it up, and it's right, at least per the source I read. That's stupid. You shouldn't be OOB until a part of your body touches the ground OOB, like anywhere else on the field. The pylon is merely a visual aid signifying airspace.

 

Anyway, I took a look at the video you posted - I hadn't seen that side view that close up. Yeah, it looks like it's moving, moreso after it crossed the plane. Close call. Looks like when the ball crossed the plane, he had it secured for a split second. I can't line up the ball crossing the plane to where he hit the pylon, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought you were wrong on the bolded, but I looked it up, and it's right, at least per the source I read. That's stupid. You shouldn't be OOB until a part of your body touches the ground OOB, like anywhere else on the field. The pylon is merely a visual aid signifying airspace.

 

Anyway, I took a look at the video you posted - I hadn't seen that side view that close up. Yeah, it looks like it's moving, moreso after it crossed the plane. Close call. Looks like when the ball crossed the plane, he had it secured for a split second. I can't line up the ball crossing the plane to where he hit the pylon, though.

Wait.

 

The inside edge of the pylon is part of the inbounds goal line, and knocking the pylon outward constitutes breaking the plane. An in-depth discussion of this is found here:

 

https://www.reddit.com/r/nfl/comments/2rfoan/why_is_the_pylon_set_out_of_bounds/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought you were wrong on the bolded, but I looked it up, and it's right, at least per the source I read. That's stupid. You shouldn't be OOB until a part of your body touches the ground OOB, like anywhere else on the field. The pylon is merely a visual aid signifying airspace.

 

Anyway, I took a look at the video you posted - I hadn't seen that side view that close up. Yeah, it looks like it's moving, moreso after it crossed the plane. Close call. Looks like when the ball crossed the plane, he had it secured for a split second. I can't line up the ball crossing the plane to where he hit the pylon, though.

Moving isn't the standard. Control is the standard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This whole thing would probably be mute if they just got rid of the asinine touchback rule. The defense should never get the ball in a situation where they didn't actually possess the ball. Especially these days where the NFL is obsessed with "possession" rules. In my world, the offense would get possession at the spot of the fumble. In this case, Jets punch it in on the next play, and no one's pissed off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why didn't Butler get a flag for putting his hands on the official? :dunno:

 

more Patriots bias

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since announcers - the TV viewing fan's only pipeline to the officials - use the word 'indisputable', I find that the two terms are interchangeable.

 

There is nothing clear and obvious about any loss of control there, since it was 'clear and obvious' that ASJ needed only one arm to retain possession of that ball through the ground.

 

The loss of control in the air is "clear and obvious", which from there mandated him having to attain "complete control" "inbounds" to reestablish possession. He didn't. Corrente called it "pretty obvious".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The loss of control in the air is "clear and obvious", which from there mandated him having to attain "complete control" "inbounds" to reestablish possession. He didn't. Corrente called it "pretty obvious".

 

You're glossing over the higher standard that is required once the first call is made. It wasn't obvious that he didn't have 'complete control' when crossing the plane, and continuing out of bounds, and his retention of the ball through the ground indicates control. It was obvious from the video that the ball was floating - untouched - with him, for a brief moment, and it was additionally obvious that he was in the process of regaining that control before the pylon was touched.

 

That constitutes justification for the original call, and there is no evidence that he DIDN'T have control at the pylon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

clear TD

 

i wont get into the other number of bad or phantom calls and im not into conspiracy theories.

 

the Patriots should win that game. The fact it was so close is very telling.

 

As a Jets fan, I am simply excited to see our young talent playing well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

clear TD

 

 

As a Jets fan,

 

I couldn't remember why we always argued. :)

 

I had forgotten you were a jets fan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×