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

[jvan1973]

20 hours ago, King Colt said:

Wrong it was never a TD. Case closed.

Pretty sure I saw the officials give the td signal after the play,   and 6 points put on the board.   Also,   the play wouldn't have been reviewed if it wss never a td.   

[GoPats]

18 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. 

 

 

This all would be fine and normal IF the replay showed enough "irrefutable evidence" to overturn the call. Even as a Pats fan, I have to admit, I don't know what they saw on replay that made it so definitive. The fact that it was called a catch, and a TD, on the field, makes it hard to overturn that. I don't know. 

 

Not complaining mind you... and I don't think the Patriots would have lost this game if the TD had stood. But, if I'm being objective, the issue isn't the call, the issue is that they seemed to overturn it on shaky visual evidence. 

 

 

[Gramz]

1 minute ago, GoPats said:

This all would be fine and normal IF the replay showed enough "irrefutable evidence" to overturn the call. Even as a Pats fan, I have to admit, I don't know what they saw on replay that made it so definitive. The fact that it was called a catch, and a TD, on the field, makes it hard to overturn that. I don't know. 

 

Not complaining mind you... and I don't think the Patriots would have lost this game if the TD had stood. But, if I'm being objective, the issue isn't the call, the issue is that they seemed to overturn it on shaky visual evidence. 

 

 

Thank you.  I, for one,  do appreciate your comment  on this.

 

That is the issue at hand really.  There was no irrefutable evidence.  Period.

[Gramz]

9 minutes ago, jvan1973 said:

Pretty sure I saw the officials give the td signal after the play,   and 6 points put on the board.   Also,   the play wouldn't have been reviewed if it wss never a td.   

He knows that.   

[Yehoodi]

4 hours ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

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.

 

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.   

[life long]

19 minutes ago, Yehoodi said:

 

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.   

So if it had not been overturned would people  call it a bad call? I doubt it.

[Gramz]

5 minutes ago, life long said:

So if it had not been overturned would people  call it a bad call? I doubt it.

Well Patriots fans would

[2006Coltsbestever]

41 minutes ago, Yehoodi said:

 

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.   

I respect a lot of your Posts but like even GoPats Posted once they ruled a TD, they didn't have enough to overturn it, that is my main issue. Had they initially ruled the guy lost possession than I would feel differently.

[2006Coltsbestever]

1 hour ago, GoPats said:

This all would be fine and normal IF the replay showed enough "irrefutable evidence" to overturn the call. Even as a Pats fan, I have to admit, I don't know what they saw on replay that made it so definitive. The fact that it was called a catch, and a TD, on the field, makes it hard to overturn that. I don't know. 

 

Not complaining mind you... and I don't think the Patriots would have lost this game if the TD had stood. But, if I'm being objective, the issue isn't the call, the issue is that they seemed to overturn it on shaky visual evidence. 

 

 

I still think you would've won anyway as well but to me that was a bad call.

[Yehoodi]

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.  

 

  

 

 

[Yehoodi]

8 minutes ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

I respect a lot of your Posts but like even GoPats Posted once they ruled a TD, they didn't have enough to overturn it, that is my main issue. Had they initially ruled the guy lost possession than I would feel differently.

 

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. 

 

[2006Coltsbestever]

2 minutes ago, Yehoodi said:

 

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. 

 

I still think the Pats would've won anyway but I think the call stunk JMO

[Yehoodi]

30 minutes ago, life long said:

So if it had not been overturned would people  call it a bad call? I doubt it.

 

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. 

 

 

[2006Coltsbestever]

7 minutes ago, Yehoodi said:

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.  

 

  

 

 

Love the Post but once they ruled a TD they have to stick with it.

[PrincetonTiger]

2 minutes ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

I still think the Pats would've won anyway but I think the call stunk JMO

JMO but the Pats are headed back to the days of Scott Eason

[PrincetonTiger]

Just now, 2006Coltsbestever said:

Love the Post but once they ruled a TD they have to stick with it.

That is the problem with the Replay rule and the talking heads 

[2006Coltsbestever]

1 minute ago, PrincetonTiger said:

JMO but the Pats are headed back to the days of Scott Eason

Steve Grogan  but hey they made the SB in 1985

[Yehoodi]

2 minutes ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

I still think the Pats would've won anyway but I think the call stunk JMO

 

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.

 

[PrincetonTiger]

Just now, 2006Coltsbestever said:

Steve Grogan  but hey they made the SB in 1985

Only to be destroyed by the Juggernaut The called the Bears

[2006Coltsbestever]

4 minutes ago, PrincetonTiger said:

Only to be destroyed by the Juggernaut The called the Bears

Nobody was beating that team except maybe Peyton led by his 2006 team.  I do wonder if Peyton could've figured out their D, we did have Marvin and Reggie + Clark and Rhodes was a tough runner.

[PrincetonTiger]

6 minutes ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

Steve Grogan  but hey they made the SB in 1985

My bad it was Tony Eason

[Yehoodi]

1 hour ago, GoPats said:

This all would be fine and normal IF the replay showed enough "irrefutable evidence" to overturn the call. Even as a Pats fan, I have to admit, I don't know what they saw on replay that made it so definitive. The fact that it was called a catch, and a TD, on the field, makes it hard to overturn that. I don't know. 

 

Not complaining mind you... and I don't think the Patriots would have lost this game if the TD had stood. But, if I'm being objective, the issue isn't the call, the issue is that they seemed to overturn it on shaky visual evidence. 

 

 

 

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.  

[jvan1973]

9 minutes ago, PrincetonTiger said:

JMO but the Pats are headed back to the days of Scott Eason

Tony eason.   He had a few good years behind a terrible o line 

[2006Coltsbestever]

Just now, PrincetonTiger said:

My bad it was Tony Eason

I knew what you meant, no biggy

[PrincetonTiger]

7 minutes ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

Steve Grogan  but hey they made the SB in 1985

Lead by a former Colt

[crazycolt1]

10 minutes ago, PrincetonTiger said:

JMO but the Pats are headed back to the days of Scott Eason

Do you mean Tony Eason?

[PrincetonTiger]

Just now, 2006Coltsbestever said:

I knew what you meant, no biggy

I didn't want to be mean and say Mike Holovak

[Flying Elvis]

7 minutes ago, PrincetonTiger said:

JMO but the Pats are headed back to the days of Scott Eason

Lol, Do you mean Scott Zolak or Tony Eason?

 

Anyhow, that will happen when the Dolphins get their next Dan Marino, the Bills get their next Jim Kelly and the Jets get their next umm... Joe Namath?

[PrincetonTiger]

Just now, crazycolt1 said:

Do you mean Tony Eason?

Yes 

 had TE and Scott Zolak merged

[2006Coltsbestever]

Just now, Flying Elvis said:

Lol, Do you mean Scott Zolak or Tony Eason?

 

Anyhow, that will happen when the Dolphins get their next Dan Marino, the Bills get their next Jim Kelly and the Jets get their next umm... Joe Namath?

He meant Tony Eason but the Pats actually were good in the 80's. 85

[PrincetonTiger]

Just now, Flying Elvis said:

Lol, Do you mean Scott Zolak or Tony Eason?

 

Anyhow, that will happen when the Dolphins get their next Dan Marino, the Bills get their next Jim Kelly and the Jets get their next umm... Joe Namath?

Kinda of both 

 

  That could be the worse thing since they will always have a 1st Place schedule 

[PrincetonTiger]

1 minute ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

He meant Tony Eason but the Pats actually were good in the 80's. 85

Led by a future then former Colt

[PrincetonTiger]

4 minutes ago, Flying Elvis said:

Lol, Do you mean Scott Zolak or Tony Eason?

 

Anyhow, that will happen when the Dolphins get their next Dan Marino, the Bills get their next Jim Kelly and the Jets get their next umm... Joe Namath?

Forgive me I was a 1st Grader focused on Princeton Sports

[2006Coltsbestever]

I miss the days of this, REGGIE WAYNE ON THE RECEPTION FOR 10, REGGIE WAYYYNE! or Dominic Rhodes on the carry for 5, DOMINIC RHODES!

[Flying Elvis]

Just now, 2006Coltsbestever said:

He meant Tony Eason but the Pats actually were good in the 80's. 85

I know. I watched every game, lol.

 

They made the playoffs again in '86 but lost and that was it until 1994 when they lost to Belichick and the Browns.

[PrincetonTiger]

85 Super Bowl was a matchup of 2 HoF NFL receivers/TE as coaches

[crazycolt1]

22 hours ago, King Colt said:

Wrong it was never a TD. Case closed.

Please get your eyes examined and some new glasses.

It took super slow motion and a crooked ref to overturn that call. Case closed.

[2006Coltsbestever]

1 minute ago, crazycolt1 said:

Please get your eyes examined and some new glasses.

It took super slow motion and a crooked ref to overturn that call. Case closed.

I love King Colt but he needs new glasses, no problem

[2006Coltsbestever]

6 minutes ago, Flying Elvis said:

I know. I watched every game, lol.

 

They made the playoffs again in '86 but lost and that was it until 1994 when they lost to Belichick and the Browns.

Pats knocked off Marino in 85

[Flying Elvis]

Just now, 2006Coltsbestever said:

Pats knocked off Marino in 85

That was an exciting season. The Pats won in Miami for the first time ever.