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

[2006Coltsbestever]

Just now, Flying Elvis said:

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

That was a huge win, not many gave you guys a shot. Marino was awesome.

[PrincetonTiger]

2 hours 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. 

 

 

It was probably the Chad Johnson rule that they put into effect

[Flying Elvis]

2 minutes ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

That was a huge win, not many gave you guys a shot. Marino was awesome.

He was. He only made it to 1 super bowl. It goes to show that even the great QBs can't do it on their own. They need a defense. Not that I need to tell you that.

[PrincetonTiger]

2 minutes ago, Flying Elvis said:

He was. He only made it to 1 super bowl. It goes to show that even the great QBs can't do it on their own. They need a defense. Not that I need to tell you that.

As .I said yesterday if it hadn't been for a great supporting cast and BB Brady might be in the club with Marino

 

[Flying Elvis]

I went to bed last night wondering "how can you fumble a football when you don't lose possession of it?"

 

Strange call. I understand it now, though. There are wierd rules around the end zone.

[PrincetonTiger]

Just now, Flying Elvis said:

I went to bed last night wondering "how can you fumble a football when you don't lose possession of it?"

 

Strange call. I understand it now, though. There are wierd rules around the end zone.

There are several strange rules in the NFL like the Johnson rule and Tuck Rule

[Superman]

 

If you look closely, you can see what I didn't see until just now -- the ball clearly comes loose before the player crosses the goal line. He didn't reestablish control of the ball while he was still in bounds; I don't think he reestablished control until he landed out of bounds, in the end zone.

 

Tough scenario, but based on that angle, they made the right call. 

[Flying Elvis]

2 minutes ago, PrincetonTiger said:

There are several strange rules in the NFL like the Johnson rule and Tuck Rule

The Tuck Rule was finally changed in 2013, lol.

[PrincetonTiger]

3 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

If you look closely, you can see what I didn't see until just now -- the ball clearly comes loose before the player crosses the goal line. He didn't reestablish control of the ball while he was still in bounds; I don't think he reestablished control until he landed out of bounds, in the end zone.

 

Tough scenario, but based on that angle, they made the right call. 

Without more evidence you still can't tell

[PrincetonTiger]

The problem is that the interpretation of the rules depends on the crew and/or Replay Officials 

[Superman]

15 minutes ago, PrincetonTiger said:

Without more evidence you still can't tell

 

It's pretty clear to me. Click the image to open up a bigger version. You can see the ball spin around, he clearly lost control of it.

[PrincetonTiger]

Just now, Superman said:

 

It's pretty clear to me. Click the image to open up a bigger version. You can see the ball spin around, he clearly lost control of it.

Yes but he turns his back and when he comes down he has the ball so by that Replay by itself I would have to stay with the call on the field

[Superman]

5 minutes ago, PrincetonTiger said:

Yes but he turns his back and when he comes down he has the ball so by that Replay by itself I would have to stay with the call on the field

 

He's in the air when he loses the ball, both feet are off the ground, and he lands out of bounds. If you piece it together with other angles, you'll see that he's completely in the air.

 

I didn't think it was definitive that he lost control of the ball until I saw this angle earlier today. Seeing that, and watching the other angles that show he's off the ground, makes it definitive to me.

 

I think they should change the rule so that if you have established control but fumble through the end zone, you get the ball back where you lost control, rather than a touchback for the other team. But that wouldn't change this from being a fumble.

[PrincetonTiger]

1 minute ago, Superman said:

 

He's in the air when he loses the ball, both feet are off the ground, and he lands out of bounds. If you piece it together with other angles, you'll see that he's completely in the air.

 

I didn't think it was definitive that he lost control of the ball until I saw this angle earlier today. Seeing that, and watching the other angles that show he's off the ground, makes it definitive to me.

 

I think they should change the rule so that if you have established control but fumble through the end zone, you get the ball back where you lost control, rather than a touchback for the other team. But that wouldn't change this from being a fumble.

The only thing you gave me was that Replay and I said by that Replay alone I would defer to the crew on the field

[Superman]

2 minutes ago, PrincetonTiger said:

The only thing you gave me was that Replay and I said by that Replay alone I would defer to the crew on the field

 

That's fine. I had seen all the other angles, assumed you had as well. This was the definitive image for me.

[life long]

2 hours ago, Gramz said:

Well Patriots fans would

I think most would not have noticed if it had not been reviewed. It wasn't as obvious live as lets say jack doyle's fumble touchback at the pylon.

[life long]

1 hour ago, Superman said:

 

If you look closely, you can see what I didn't see until just now -- the ball clearly comes loose before the player crosses the goal line. He didn't reestablish control of the ball while he was still in bounds; I don't think he reestablished control until he landed out of bounds, in the end zone.

 

Tough scenario, but based on that angle, they made the right call. 

To me it looks as if his left knee hits inbounds with the ball in hand before the rest of him rolls out.

[PrincetonTiger]

1 minute ago, life long said:

To me it looks as if his left knee hits inbounds with the ball in hand before the rest of him rolls out.

It is very close

[Superman]

9 minutes ago, life long said:

To me it looks as if his left knee hits inbounds with the ball in hand before the rest of him rolls out.

 

I think his knee was out of bounds, but that's a closer call than whether he lost control of the ball.

[Gramz]

Well I suppose we could do this all night, but I'm going to go watch our game and join that thread.

 

Go COLTS

[Yehoodi]

1 hour ago, Superman said:

 

If you look closely, you can see what I didn't see until just now -- the ball clearly comes loose before the player crosses the goal line. He didn't reestablish control of the ball while he was still in bounds; I don't think he reestablished control until he landed out of bounds, in the end zone.

 

Tough scenario, but based on that angle, they made the right call. 

 

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.  

[Yehoodi]

2 minutes ago, Gramz said:

Well I suppose we could do this all night, but I'm going to go watch our game and join that thread.

 

Go COLTS

 

me too, should be a fun game tonight

[2006Coltsbestever]

1 hour ago, Superman said:

 

If you look closely, you can see what I didn't see until just now -- the ball clearly comes loose before the player crosses the goal line. He didn't reestablish control of the ball while he was still in bounds; I don't think he reestablished control until he landed out of bounds, in the end zone.

 

Tough scenario, but based on that angle, they made the right call. 

I disagree because they ruled a TD to begin with, that doesn't show me enough to overturn it, his back is to the camera's and he never lost the ball. Funny how 99% of people on ESPN and NFL Channel  think this is a rotten call but you and Yehoodi think it was a good overturn, smh. Terrible call!Boooooooooo

[King Colt]

3 hours 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.

Please read your post. You say TD. The NFL says you wrong again. Crooked officiating???? Really???? HA-HA-HA

So desperate to make a point, so very desperate.

[GoPats]

On 10/16/2017 at 6:42 PM, Superman said:

 

If you look closely, you can see what I didn't see until just now -- the ball clearly comes loose before the player crosses the goal line. He didn't reestablish control of the ball while he was still in bounds; I don't think he reestablished control until he landed out of bounds, in the end zone.

 

Tough scenario, but based on that angle, they made the right call. 

 

Definitely a better angle than what I had previously seen and you're spot on, what a tough scenario. 

[dgambill]

Lost it.

 

Recovered it.

Knee down.

 

Now...do you have irrefutable evidence to over turn the td??? Remember the definition....I gave you before. You have to prove he did not have control of the ball when he landed out of bounds without a doubt.  Please tell me. Look we all know this went against the spirit of the rule...but beyond that you have to have overwhelming evidence to over turn the call on the field of a TD. I don't see it. Show me where he did not have control of the ball when he landed out of bounds. I'm not trying to pick a fight but I don't see enough to overturn it...but that's just me.

[Yehoodi]

16 hours ago, dgambill said:

Lost it.

 

Recovered it.

Knee down.

 

Now...do you have irrefutable evidence to over turn the td??? Remember the definition....I gave you before. You have to prove he did not have control of the ball when he landed out of bounds without a doubt.  Please tell me. Look we all know this went against the spirit of the rule...but beyond that you have to have overwhelming evidence to over turn the call on the field of a TD. I don't see it. Show me where he did not have control of the ball when he landed out of bounds. I'm not trying to pick a fight but I don't see enough to overturn it...but that's just me.

 

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. 

 

 

 

 

[aaron11]

21 minutes ago, Yehoodi said:

It comes down to a judgement call. 

 

as fans, judgement calls usually go to whoever we are rooting for lol

[Yehoodi]

33 minutes ago, aaron11 said:

as fans, judgement calls usually go to whoever we are rooting for lol

 

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. 

[Gramz]

46 minutes ago, aaron11 said:

as fans, judgement calls usually go to whoever we are rooting for lol

THIS.  Every time. 

[dgambill]

1 hour ago, Yehoodi said:

 

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. 

 

 

 

 

I just don't see enough to overturn the call. To over turn what the official on the field ruled who was a foot away from the action who did seem to see the ball break the plane in full control. I heard what they said...he didn't survive the recovery...I'm sorry I don't see it and it isn't just a NE thing because I just know how I would feel if that was my team. If it becomes a "judgement call" then that should mean you return to the judgement of the official on the field. I just think its wrong that someone then in the both decided their judgement was better than the official on the field a foot away if there was any refutable or questionable. That is what I keep coming back to. The definition....indisputable, undeniable, unquestionable, incontrovertible, incontestable, beyond question, beyond doubt, conclusive, definite, definitive, decisive, certain, positive, sure. How can the guy in the booth then take that definition and say without a doubt he did not have control of the ball or maintain control to over turn it. Maybe its just me not seeing what everyone else sees...but I can't find enough evidence to over turn the call. Just me. I respect everyone's opinions on the matter but I think over turning a call on the field regardless of where it is and the time and score should require more evidence.

[dgambill]

1 hour ago, aaron11 said:

as fans, judgement calls usually go to whoever we are rooting for lol

Oh for sure. No doubt. I just want the officials to be consistent with how they use the replay system and define indisputable...there was plenty to dispute there if they changed the call from what the line judge called...so I have a problem...regardless of team..which is why I want it as consistant as possible...no conspiracy etc...but when my team is involved in the play I want to know they use the same litmus for changing calls.

[Yehoodi]

17 minutes ago, dgambill said:

I just don't see enough to overturn the call. To over turn what the official on the field ruled who was a foot away from the action who did seem to see the ball break the plane in full control. I heard what they said...he didn't survive the recovery...I'm sorry I don't see it and it isn't just a NE thing because I just know how I would feel if that was my team. If it becomes a "judgement call" then that should mean you return to the judgement of the official on the field. I just think its wrong that someone then in the both decided their judgement was better than the official on the field a foot away if there was any refutable or questionable. That is what I keep coming back to. The definition....indisputable, undeniable, unquestionable, incontrovertible, incontestable, beyond question, beyond doubt, conclusive, definite, definitive, decisive, certain, positive, sure. How can the guy in the booth then take that definition and say without a doubt he did not have control of the ball or maintain control to over turn it. Maybe its just me not seeing what everyone else sees...but I can't find enough evidence to over turn the call. Just me. I respect everyone's opinions on the matter but I think over turning a call on the field regardless of where it is and the time and score should require more evidence.

 

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.  

[Superman]

On 10/19/2017 at 1:40 PM, dgambill said:

Lost it.

 

Recovered it.

Knee down.

 

Now...do you have irrefutable evidence to over turn the td??? Remember the definition....I gave you before. You have to prove he did not have control of the ball when he landed out of bounds without a doubt.  Please tell me. Look we all know this went against the spirit of the rule...but beyond that you have to have overwhelming evidence to over turn the call on the field of a TD. I don't see it. Show me where he did not have control of the ball when he landed out of bounds. I'm not trying to pick a fight but I don't see enough to overturn it...but that's just me.

 

Two things: 1) The rule doesn't require irrefutable evidence. It requires clear and obvious visual evidence. I'm being pedantic, but they're different. 

 

2) I think it's hard to say there was clear and obvious visual evidence to overturn this call. They easily could have let it stand, IMO. 

 

But, it is clear and obvious that he lost control of the ball. It's also clear and obvious that he recovered control. The question is whether he landed in bounds. That's what's not clear. I think his elbow and knee landed nearly simultaneously, and it's not clear that his knee hit the ground in bounds; I think it's possible his knee landed on another player first. 

 

To me, one part is clear and obvious, the other part is not so clear, but I lean toward him landing out of bounds. Someone else might be even more convinced that he was out of bounds. 

 

No one would argue that this is irrefutable either way, but that's not the standard. 

[dgambill]

On 10/20/2017 at 9:45 PM, Superman said:

 

Two things: 1) The rule doesn't require irrefutable evidence. It requires clear and obvious visual evidence. I'm being pedantic, but they're different. 

 

2) I think it's hard to say there was clear and obvious visual evidence to overturn this call. They easily could have let it stand, IMO. 

 

But, it is clear and obvious that he lost control of the ball. It's also clear and obvious that he recovered control. The question is whether he landed in bounds. That's what's not clear. I think his elbow and knee landed nearly simultaneously, and it's not clear that his knee hit the ground in bounds; I think it's possible his knee landed on another player first. 

 

To me, one part is clear and obvious, the other part is not so clear, but I lean toward him landing out of bounds. Someone else might be even more convinced that he was out of bounds. 

 

No one would argue that this is irrefutable either way, but that's not the standard. 

Rule 15 Section 9 Article 3
Article 3 Reviews by Referee. All Replay Reviews will be conducted by the Referee on a field-level monitor after consultation with the covering official(s), prior to review. A decision will be reversed only when the Referee has indisputable visual evidence available to him that warrants the change.

 

Irrefutable/indisputable all the words I was using were synonyms. IMO The burden of proof isn’t to then find a recovery in bounds etc...it’s to have indisputably he DIDNT come down in bounds with control with the ball. I think they mixed up. The call was TD. They have to have the undeniable proof it WASNT a TD to overturn. There was no call on the field of a fumble so they have to have indisputable evidence he DIDNT land in bounds with control. Just like when bodies cover where the ball is and it’s covered by bodies. Even if they don’t see it cross the plane they don’t have evidence it didn’t and thus won’t overturn a td or non td call. Granted they made their decision but it was FAR from “unquestionable” which is the definition necessary to overturn a call. Maybe I’m not understanding the rule and how it is to be implemented but with my understanding it wasn’t applied correctly.