Yehoodi

Senior Member
  • Content count

    2,648
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1,038 Pro Bowler

1 Follower

About Yehoodi

Uncategorized

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  1. New England (-9.5) at NY Jets (10-15-17)

    My only two cents was the fact that ASJ back was to this particular ref who was actually looking more at the goal line. Either way, his view of ASJ rolling over was blocked somewhat. As for the overturn, i hear you, it comes down to a judgement call on the movement and was it enough to show loss of control over the movement of the ball. I am fine with not overturning the call.
  2. New England (-9.5) at NY Jets (10-15-17)

    Yes you are correct, I try to be as fair as possible when i review plays but there are times I can be bias too.
  3. New England (-9.5) at NY Jets (10-15-17)

    I think the key thing is that most folks in the media do not show the only real relevant angle which was from the other side line. NFL Primetime did on Monday with the MC and Hasselback thinking no movement and Saturday felt there was movement without control. The things that were essentially undisputed were that he lost possession, he regained control of the ball, went to the ground and got a knee in bounds. One needs three elements to be given credit for possession of loose ball while he is going to the ground, 1) control, 2) knee down, 3) and maintain control of ball through the ground. As the first two exists only the 3rd one is to be reviewed. Here is a video of the play and the angle one wants is at 0:22-0:24 of the video. As a side note this is also what Riveron talked about in his official review but i could not find the video, it bury in the NFL videos. Anyways, movement is okay if made/controlled by the player, but if ball moves in a way the player can not control it is movement which demonstrates that he does not have control of the ball and thus does not fulfill part 3 and no possession. When one looks at that portion of the view with AJS rolling over, you see the ball does move and come away from his chest, if that movement you feel he did, then control - possession, but if one feels that movement was caused by him being jarred by hitting the ground, then you have the evidence needed to show lack of control of the ball. If you can not decide between the two, the call on the field must stand. It comes down to a judgement call.
  4. Colts @ Titans Monday Night Football Game Thread

    Goal line wraps around the world, sidelines do not
  5. Colts @ Titans Monday Night Football Game Thread

    The ball is marked were it crosses the out of bounds plane
  6. Colts @ Titans Monday Night Football Game Thread

    Still got time outs and 2 min warning
  7. New England (-9.5) at NY Jets (10-15-17)

    me too, should be a fun game tonight
  8. New England (-9.5) at NY Jets (10-15-17)

    This is what I had originally thought watching the game yesterday. Basically, lost possession, next body part touches out of bounds in end zone, hand on ball, ball thus dead in the end zone, touch back. But after reading Corrente's explanation and his mentioning the knee and looking at a few more angles, it looks like his knee (= two feet) hits first in bounds in the field of play, the angle from the other sideline shows it better, but i would not bet my life on it that his knee hit first.
  9. New England (-9.5) at NY Jets (10-15-17)

    I do not disagree with you and that it was a harsh application of the rules. Alas, the "irrefutable evidence" was a person's opinion if a ball move (you may wish to read my long post if you have the time), and surely fans would like to see a great deal of movement just to be safe and i do not disagree with this point. I am only presenting evidence to support why it was call and for what reasons, so that folks can see more than one liners folks see by the media. As I mentioned about the Gronk PI, sometimes harsh calls came be made and we end up coming down to disagreeing with the refs opinion on what they saw. Once Corrente was of the opinion he saw movement that was not made by the TE, his hands were tied and had to reverse. Again, i am not against requiring a great deal of movement. Perhaps the NFL can tweak the rule with regards to how much movement is movement to be safe. And one caveat folks, it can go the other way. A ball can be deemed to have moved and thus called incomplete, then it is call complete on review as that particular ref did not see movement.
  10. New England (-9.5) at NY Jets (10-15-17)

    I do not disagree with your point. Given the close proximity to the dislodge then recontrol, they could of let it go. Many folks would of let it go. Give it to the guy he was 90% there. It was a very harsh application of the rules. Kind of like the Gronk PI i mentioned in my prior post. One could make an argument that it was PI, but for me, as the ball was under thrown, i would of let it go, even though one could make a "text book" argument it was PI, a harsh application of the for my tastes.
  11. New England (-9.5) at NY Jets (10-15-17)

    No. Again, this play comes down to an opinion of a person if the ball moved as the TE rolled on the ground. It was close and certainly most folks, including myself, would not have been upset if the ref came to conclusion and the movement seen was under the control of the player and thus he stills has control, call should be affirmed. Alas, the clear evidence, is one of an opinion. We will argue all the time. For instance, in looking at the PI on Gronk, I thought it was not PI, even though the LB made contact to Gronk without looking back. But at the same time the ball was thrown behind the defender and Gronk had to go through him to get to the ball. They should of let that go.
  12. New England (-9.5) at NY Jets (10-15-17)

    I decided to make a long post on the matter. You may wish to read it if you wish. Essentially, I hear what you are saying, but like a WR falling out of bounds, this call at its base comes down to if the ref thought the ball moved as the TE rolled on the ground, if so, then he has to reverse it. If he does not think it move, then he has to affirmed the TD call. What happen prior to the rolling over, is important, but only gets us to the decisive point of if the ball moved. It is this point that is the rub.
  13. New England (-9.5) at NY Jets (10-15-17)

    I gonna start a new post as opposed to responding to folks. Rules are rules and must be applied consistently even if the application of one, or a combination of many, seem really harsh as to what we think is "fair". Short Answer: I have looked at the play again today and read the ref's reasoning. In the end of day he determined that the ball moved on the player after he hit in the end zone and rolled out of bounds. The clear evidence is that he is of the opinion that factually speaking the ball moved, and if so, that movement of the ball creates the clear evidence necessary to say it was not a catch and overturn the call. This play is as simple as this and really has less to do with any "bad" rule. The bottom line is do you think the ball move or not when the TE rolled out of bounds. Long answer: I find it easy to step from a situation that seems confusing and look at things i can related too. A. I have already mentioned the down by contact point, and thus, we should all be comfortable with the point that possession is lost once the ball is a millimeter from where it was held, when knocked loose by a defender. B. We all have seen fumbles on punts, or by the offense, and the defenders scramble for the ball but do not get possession till they go out of bounds, and they do not get the turnover. Thus, we should all be comfortable with the principle that one does not get possession of a ball if he does not do so before going out of bounds C. We have all seen balls get dislodged and roll out of the end zone and are touch backs (google Leon Lett), if it happens in your end zone it is a safety, which happen in the KC/Pitt game yesterday. Thus we should all be comfortable with the point if you loose possession of the the ball and no one get possession till it goes out of bounds in the end zone, the rule is clear for either side and either end zone. D. We have all seen WR going to the ground out of bounds after getting two feet in and catch and control the ball, but we must wait till we see if he bobbles the ball as he lands out of bounds. They have to maintain control as he goes to the ground. If the ball does not move, or the player controls the movement of the ball, it is a catch. However, if the ball moves on the player it is not a catch. We have seen this many times and at times the call is reversed and it comes down to the opinion of the ref if the ball did or did not move. Actually, is the case here. With above said, might make this play easier to digest. Here have have the followings facts: 1) The TE caught the ball in the field of play and had possession 2) Ball was dislodged by Bulter, so TE lost possession of the ball and it is a free ball (Part A above). 3) As (2) occurred before the ball cross the plane it is not a touchdown (one needs possession of the ball to make breaking the plane a TD which did not happen). 4) As the ball was dislodged it was a free ball with neither team in possession. In order to gain possession a player from either team needs control, two feet or body part above the knee. If this player is going to the ground he has an additional element of maintaining control through the ground. If he goes out of bounds before completing these he does not have possession (Part B above) 5) TE was falling to the ground 6) TE then gain control of the ball while the ball was in the end zone 7) It appears that his knee hit in bounds in the field of play before his shoulder hit out of bounds in the end zone 8) Because of (7) and (8), he has completed the first two parts in item (4), but must maintain control prior to going out of bounds as he is going to the ground, in order to be credited with possession. 9) Now the rub: Does the ball move or not move as he rolls out of bounds? If one answer yes to 9 then he has not maintained control of the ball while going to the ground and he does not ahve possession, without possession and him out of bounds, the ball is dead at that spot with is out of bounds in the end zone, thus a touch back. Ruling should be overturned If one answer no to 9 (or that he controlled the movement of the ball whilst rolling) then he has completed the three items needed for possession (control, knee in bounds, and control going to ground), he then has possession prior to going out of bounds, ball in end zone, touch down, call affirmed. So in the end is it not a bad rule, or anything that is complicated, it is really no different that a WR catching a ball as he is falling out of bounds and did he maintain control as he went to the ground. Corrente was of the opinion that the ball move, and in which case, he has to overturn the TD call.
  14. New England (-9.5) at NY Jets (10-15-17)

    It matter not for how long the ball is jarred, just that it is jarred loose by the opponent. As I mentioned about the down by contact point, one has to have possession to be down, if he does not have possession, he is not down. When a ball is being stripped as a player is going down, the inquiry is was the "ball out" before the knee hits. All the ball has to be out "out" by a half inch and he has lost possession and thus not down. We have since this 100s of times. The possession rule does not change, it is the rule. Do you or do you not have possession. And we know you do not the moment the ball is a millimeter away from your hand/arm that was holding the ball. Clearly we had this in the instant case and happening around the 1 yard line, so no TD. What happens next I will place in another post.
  15. New England (-9.5) at NY Jets (10-15-17)

    It does not matter if he "fumbled" or not, if fumbled is to mean the ball has to land on the ground. The only thing that matters was whether or not he lost possession of the ball, and he clearly did. It is no different than what we have seen hundreds of times, and once in the Jax game today, and that is when a ball is jarred from a runner before his knee goes down. The analysis there is whether or not the ball is free from the guys control before his knee hits, if not, he is down, but if it is, even by the thickness of a credit card is out of his control, he has lost possession and thus his knee hitting does not make it down, it does not matter that it has to hit the ground before his knee hits just that is free from his hand at the hands of a opponent before the knee hits. I am sure you have heard many times, "did the ball come out before his knee hit?" It is the exact same rule The key thing here was whether or not his regained possession before hitting out of bounds in the end zone. If he did it is a touchdown, if he did not then its a touch back.