New England (-9.5) at NY Jets (10-15-17)

[2006Coltsbestever]

6 minutes ago, Jules said:

 

Falcons are clowns.

They aren't doing anything, they are clowns with big red noses

[oldunclemark]

6 minutes ago, Jules said:

 

Falcons are clowns.

The Legend of Jay Cutler strikes again..

 

one week a hero...next week a zero

[2006Coltsbestever]

BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

[Luck is Good]

Moral of the story: Hold the ball like it's a newborn baby down around the goal line

[oldunclemark]

Pats win..Jets cover

[2006Coltsbestever]

3 minutes ago, Gramz said:

It's a damn shame to have that controversial call.  I just don't understand it. 

That call was terrible, no way they can even justify it. I give it a Boo.

[PotatoHead]

Why does anyone pay to go to these rigged games, its more than obvious how the refs control who wins.  Jets got screwed up the ***!!!

[Gramz]

They keep showing that TD /  non TD  /   controversial call.     Officials made a big BIG mistake.

[2006Coltsbestever]

4 minutes ago, Gramz said:

They keep showing that TD /  non TD  /   controversial call.     Officials made a big BIG mistake.

Terrible call, all the CBS guys are saying it was awful.

[RockThatBlue]

The Jets got royally screwed several calls this game. Yikes.

[life long]

10 minutes ago, RockThatBlue said:

The Jets got royally screwed several calls this game. Yikes.

Agreed but the jets definetly took their foot off the gas. Reminded me of the Colts. Still jets should have won but got screwed by the refs.

[WoolMagnet]

2 hours ago, Luck is Good said:

Brady doing what Brady does. Guy is the best

Wash your mouth out with soap !

[teganslaw]

1 hour ago, Jules said:

 

Falcons are clowns.

Kind of like Krusty the clown? 

[Yehoodi]

Sorry guys, but it was the correct call on the touch back.

 

The ball was dislodged by an opponent, thus loss of possession, free and live ball, which requires wide receiver rules for possession (control plus two feet or knee) by either team, but did not happen until player was out of bounds in end zone

 

Thus ball is dead out of bounds in end zone

 

Result of play, offensive player looses control in the field of play, is dead out of bounds in end zone before either team gains possession,  therefore touch back

 

Football is sequential, if you follow the dots it is easy to see the call is correct

 

Unusual event surely but correct call

 

[jvan1973]

3 minutes ago, Yehoodi said:

Sorry guys, but it was the correct call on the touch back.

 

The ball was dislodged by an opponent, thus loss of possession, free and live ball, which requires wide receiver rules for possession (control plus two feet or knee) by either team, but did not happen until player was out of bounds in end zone

 

Thus ball is dead out of bounds in end zone

 

Result of play, offensive player looses control in the field of play, is dead out of bounds in end zone before either team gains possession,  therefore touch back

 

Football is sequential, if you follow the dots it is easy to see the call is correct

 

Unusual event surely but correct call

 

He already crossed the plane when the ball came out.   It wasn't the correct call.   The league will issue an apology.    Had that been the original call on the field,  maybe.   But they overturned it.   He was beyond the goal line

[Yehoodi]

12 minutes ago, jvan1973 said:

He already crossed the plane when the ball came out.   It wasn't the correct call.   The league will issue an apology.    Had that been the original call on the field,  maybe.   But they overturned it.   He was beyond the goal line

No he didn't, the ball was dislodged around the 1 yard line, best view is from side line shot, behind the down marker where you see Harmon,s number 30, sry am on phone but would find a link to the replay

 

When you look at the replay of the play, wait for that view and you see the tight end hunch forward with chest over 1 yard line and ball dislodged

 

[Yehoodi]

Sry but do know how to post links with my phone , but the replay is on NFL mobile, in the 35 second replay, pause it at the 31 second mark and folks will see what I meant from my prior post the jvan

[Gramz]

Every clip I saw clearly showed a TD.

 

Doesn't matter now. Officials screwed up and as Jvan said, will issue an apology. 

 

So what?  

[King Colt]

Jets so close it hurt.

[King Colt]

38 minutes ago, Gramz said:

Every clip I saw clearly showed a TD.

 

Doesn't matter now. Officials screwed up and as Jvan said, will issue an apology. 

 

So what?  

Wrong it was never a TD. Case closed.

[coltsva]

He lost the ball and got clear possession back before hitting the ground. TD!!!!

[Gramz]

1 minute ago, King Colt said:

Wrong it was never a TD. Case closed.

I understand that is the "Official" Ruling.   I Get It.

 

As I said, it doesn't matter now.  

[-JJ-]

11 hours ago, King Colt said:

Jets win this game.

Can you send me that newspaper ;)

[Yehoodi]

1 hour ago, coltsva said:

He lost the ball and got clear possession back before hitting the ground. TD!!!!

 

He may of gotten control of the ball before hitting the ground, but control is not possession.   Possession is both control and two feet down or a body part above the knee (not including palm) in the field of play. 

 

Alas, for the Jets, his right foot was in the air when he gained control of the ball with his right hand.  The next thing that happen was his left shoulder hitting out of bounds in the end zone in which case he is out of bounds and thus not in possession, no different than a WR only have one foot in bounds and the second foot (or other body part) lands out of bounds it is not possession and thus not a catch, even though he is in full control of the ball.

 

What is sad is the location that this happened on the field and the rule that a ball going out of the end zone is a touch back.

 

Had this exact same event occurred at the 5 yard line and he lands out of bounds at the say 3 yard line, it would still be jets ball with the loss of possession occurring at the 5 yard line, the play dead at the 3, and with no one in possession of the ball when it is dead at the 3, it reverts back to the offense at their last possession point which would be the 5 yard line in this example.   

 

[coltsva]

I understand touch back is the correct call based on what they ruled with the fumble. Not disputing that at all. I, like others, just thought the possession or lack of possession as was decided, was incorrect.  

[2006Coltsbestever]

37 minutes ago, Yehoodi said:

 

He may of gotten control of the ball before hitting the ground, but control is not possession.   Possession is both control and two feet down or a body part above the knee (not including palm) in the field of play. 

 

Alas, for the Jets, his right foot was in the air when he gained control of the ball with his right hand.  The next thing that happen was his left shoulder hitting out of bounds in the end zone in which case he is out of bounds and thus not in possession, no different than a WR only have one foot in bounds and the second foot (or other body part) lands out of bounds it is not possession and thus not a catch, even though he is in full control of the ball.

 

What is sad is the location that this happened on the field and the rule that a ball going out of the end zone is a touch back.

 

Had this exact same event occurred at the 5 yard line and he lands out of bounds at the say 3 yard line, it would still be jets ball with the loss of possession occurring at the 5 yard line, the play dead at the 3, and with no one in possession of the ball when it is dead at the 3, it reverts back to the offense at their last possession point which would be the 5 yard line in this example.   

 

He never fumbled, I thought the call was awful and so does everyone else on the ESPN and the NFL Channel. The ball moved but he still had it when he went down.

[Yehoodi]

7 minutes ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

He never fumbled, I thought the call was awful and so does everyone else on the ESPN and the NFL Channel. The ball moved but he still had it when he went down.

 

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. 

 

 

[King Colt]

12 hours ago, -JJ- said:

Can you send me that newspaper ;)

Only one copy was made and I have it along with "DEWEY WINS!!

[life long]

15 hours ago, King Colt said:

Wrong it was never a TD. Case closed.

Wrong. It initially was ruled a TD.

[2006Coltsbestever]

14 hours ago, Yehoodi said:

 

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. 

 

 

The ball was jarred loose for like half a second but then he still held it and had it when he landed. Mike Golic thought the call was horrible, everyone does. It was ruled a TD in the first place as well which makes this worse.

[Coffeedrinker]

I bet the replay official in New York got a nice little bonus in an off shore account for that call.  

[2006Coltsbestever]

4 minutes ago, Coffeedrinker said:

I bet the replay official in New York got a nice little bonus in an off shore account for that call.  

I know that may be the worse call I have ever seen in my 40 years of watching and there has been a lot of bad ones. Top 10 is safe here though  

[Coffeedrinker]

3 minutes ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

I know that may be the worse call I have ever seen in my 40 years of watching and there has been a lot of bad ones. Top 10 is safe here though  

Tuck rule call was worse.  Same team. hmmmmmmmmm, interesting.

 

I guess when the owner of an NFL franchise is also one of the NFL's biggest sponsors, certain adjustments need to be made by the officials.

[2006Coltsbestever]

1 minute ago, Coffeedrinker said:

Tuck rule call was worse.  Same team. hmmmmmmmmm, interesting.

Yeah that was bad too, there have been several but this was bad.

[King Colt]

2 hours ago, life long said:

Wrong. It initially was ruled a TD.

Initially. I was one second old but that changed.

[Gramz]

41 minutes ago, King Colt said:

Initially. I was one second old but that changed.

You are too much.

 

[dgambill]

22 hours ago, oldunclemark said:

I have never seen that and I'll never see it again....because its so obviously wrong.

The ball can move in your arms..and you still possess it.....

..when you switch hands on a run...you still possess the ball even though its loose for a split second.

The tight end didn't have to re-establish possession...he HAD possession and he never lost possession

 

I'm sure some pencil pushing geek back in the NFL office mixed the pass reception rules with the run possession rules.

That person's name better never come out..at least not in New York....

The worst part of the thing is that you have to have Indisputable Evidence to overturn the call on the field of TD. Meaning you had to have evidence he did not have control of the ball when he hit the pylon....not the other way around that it was called a touchback and he had to have evidence that he had the ball. Sure the ball shuffled around but he clearly had it when he touched the pylon. Even if they couldn't see he had it when he touched the pylon they had to have evidence he DID NOT HAVE IT when he touched the pylon....not that he lost it but couldn't confirm he regained it before touching the pylon. They really outsmarted themselves there on that call....or shown how dumb they are....or worse if they had a bias in the NFL offices. I'm sure NE probably still wins the game because they are a better team than NY but man that changed the outcome completely after that. Just to shed some more light to the term Indisputable...here are the synonyms for the word:

 

(

incontrovertible, incontestable, undeniable, irrefutable, beyond dispute, unassailable, unquestionable, beyond question, indubitable, not in doubt, beyond doubt, beyond a shadow of a doubt, unarguable, airtight, watertight)   Does anyone...anyone think that applies to this call that they had enough evidence to overturn it??? Yeah that was just awful call. The fact it favored NE....well I'm sure others have a conspiracy theory on that one....I'm just upset they really screwed it up no matter what team it affected. Someone in NY should be suspended over that call...they clearly need to go back to training on what they are looking for.

[life long]

2 hours ago, King Colt said:

Initially. I was one second old but that changed.

You said "never", I had to point out your poor choice of words. Case closed.

[Gramz]

The problem with Riveron's explanation though is that it goes against the spirit of the NFL's replay rule, according to two people who used to hold Riveron's position. Dean Blandino and Mike Pereira, who both served as the NFL's head of officials at one point, both believe that Riveron blew it when he decided to overturn the ball. 

[Dingus McGirt]

Did that ball look slightly underinflated, or was it just my eyes playing tricks?  <ducks>