ok photo breakdown time View 1 View 2 so you can clearly see form both angles he regained possession prior to being down or even in the end zone, we'll call it at the half yard line. the only thing they could have said is it's possible the ball didn't get across before he was down but nothing shows it to be 100% conclusive so no overturn. now he may have been down at the 1 inch line, but it's hard to tell from any angle, surely not enough to change the ruling on the field which is supposed to be indisputable visual evidence. the fact this is still a debate shows 100% that the evidence is not indisputable.
that's only as a receiver not a runner which ASJ was a runner at the time. nobody is disputing that. perfect example look at a play form this week with a runner at the goal line where he loses the ball after hitting the ground Runners don't need to maintain possession after hitting the ground. only receivers. for a runner the play is dead when they hit the ground. for a receiver they need to complete the catch after hitting the ground.
If that was Gronk instead of ASJ it is easily a touchdown, no questions asked, not even a real review. Everybody knows that deep down, I dont care who you are or who you root for. Bart Scott hitting the nail on the head there
SolidGB, regarding point (1) I have the following response. Jenkins did not have possession of the ball when he crossed the goal line, that is fairly clear. A dislodged ball by rule dispossess a person of the ball. (Rule 3, sec. 2 arts 5 & 7). Indeed possession is defined under the rules as Rule 2, sec 3. Art 7. Item 1 reads: "A player is in possession when he is inbounds and has a firm grip and control of the ball with his hands or arms." When it is dislodged it is a fumble and he is not in control and thus loss of possession. This is most commonly seen when one is looking at down by contact, and if the ball is dislodged a millisecond before the knee goes down, he is not down and reason one is not down is because a millisecond before he lost possession, ball need not hit the ground. You will see that the ball was free from Jenkins grip before he crossed the plane (just like Leon Lett), photos and videos from other angles show this. Just as the down by contact analysis, the ball need not hit the ground to deem a player not in possession, just the mere fact it was dislodged from his firm grip which happened here. The ball then is a free, or loose, ball with no one in possession, requiring the recovery rules to be fulfilled for one to be credited with possession of the ball. If one is going to the ground while trying to recovery a loose ball he must have control, in bounds, and control through the ground. The rule in point is Rule 3, sec. 2, art 7, item 1 and note 1. This can not be completed until Jenkins finishes going to the ground. As to point (2) Yes runner and WR are different but only to the extent they initially receive possession. A hand off is a continuous possession for lack of a better word as a drop is a fumble. The reason they do not record a fumble and fumble recovery is likely do to they do not feel like doing the book keeping. In the end, it is really not word fumble that is important but the loss of possession. In the case of Jenkins and a RB that bobbles the ball, both have lost possession, the RB merely regains possession when he firmly grabs is and makes a football move, as he has two feet on the ground. As for breaking the plane as a RB or WR running, one still needs possession. As for a WR in the back of the end zone that catches a ball then falls out of bounds, we need to wait to see if he controls the ball as he hits the ground. Final possession is not deemed at the point of two feet but when he finishes going to the ground with control, and then he gets the TD. the TD does not occur at the catch and two feet. As to point (3) yes if in the middle of the end zone a defender falls on it and controls it, TD. But if the ball is near the edge of the zone and the defender goes to the ground to get the loose ball slides out of bounds and is bobbling the ball and only stops the bobbling only after he slides out of bounds, it is not a TD. In the end, we must patiently wait till one fulfills the elements of possession before rewarding possession, if at that time he is out of bounds no possession. So a defender falling on the ball bobbling it and stop bobbling in the end zone TD, but if he slide out of bounds no TD. Similar if a WR falls out of bounds and bobbles then secure while lying out of bounds, no TD.
It is what it is, we get screwed all the time. That's why I'm also a Yankees fan. It balances out the screwiness.
SolidGB, in this example the RB had possession as he broke the plane, so TD. Jenkins did not have possession when he crossed the goal line. He had lost possession at the one (ball now a loose ball), and was in the process of gaining possession (of the loose ball) as he hit the pylon, he had to fulfill the third element of possession (of a loose ball) which is going to the ground and maintain control of the ball while going to the ground which he can not do till he stops moving on the ground, then once he does that, he is awarded possession and given the TD. Football is a sequential sport, and one must follow the steps to see what is where and why, etc.
and 1 more for good measure " 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. The replay official isn't supposed to overturn a call on the field unless there's indisputable evidence, which doesn't seem to exist on this play. Blandino explained that he would've ruled a touchdown because that was the call on the field and ASJ did appear to get his left knee down inbounds after regaining possession (Seferian-Jenkins' knee is directly under the "3" on Duron Harmon's jersey). " how do we know? this is the moment his elbow hits the pylon. the other angle 3rd angle so using these shots you can see possession is regained , then the knee goes down, runner still in bounds. play over regardless. MAYBE it wasn't a TD, MAYBE he was down at the 1 inch line. but in no way is it a fumble and now way is there a clear 100% indisputable evidence of a fumble out of bounds in the end zone
There was a touchdown by Gronk, I think it was against Chicago, where he landed out of bounds in the end zone with the ball in front of him and the point hit the ground and the ball move just a bit, not much. The called it a TD, but I remember thinking they could of easily called it not a TD and the ball move some while he was going to the ground.
None of "us" were on the team Sunday. Unless "we" were foolish enough to lay some ridiculous bet the Jets couldn't cover, "we" didn't get anything but heartburn, and "we're" quite used to it.
False, look at my pics i posted. not only did he regain possession prior to the endzone, it also appears he was down with possession before even reaching the goal line possibly. I have clear still shots of him with possession with a knee down and a shoulder down while still in bounds you said "Rule 2, sec 3. Art 7. Item 1 reads: "A player is in possession when he is inbounds and has a firm grip and control of the ball with his hands or arms." i have a clear picture of him with 2 hands on the ball pinned against his body before going into the endzone. that is 100% possession. the ball isn't moving he has full control of it and pinned on his body with 2 hands
please look at the pics i posted before making another reply claiming no possession also take note that the 2 previous head of officiating both said the overturn was incorrect.
Some day the lid is gonna blow off. There's a whistle-blower out there, may take 20 years, but someone is going to spill the beans on the Cheats and say frig the repercussions. Books make money. I hate cheesy true crime novels, but yeah, I'd buy it. In hardcover. Probably twenty copies. Especially if the Forward is written by Ernie Adams' tapes.
I hope this comes through, here is the Gronk catch I was talking about, less movement from what i remember, but was the catch i mentioned. it is at the 4:40 mark of the video. Sry it was blocked but one can google it.
okay will do, need to make some coffee . My recollection of their comments went more to the bobble on the roll over than anything before this point. Dean B. was on Cowherd there is a good point from him, which parallel some of mine.
Here's another POV that asserts it WAS a TD and should not have been overturned: There has been no video showing CONCLUSIVELY that he did not have possession when he crossed the goal line. Do not bring up any other examples to "prove your point", simply provide the video replay footage that shows CONCLUSIVELY that he did not have possession. If you can't do that, then quit trying to convince us that the sun rises in the west and sets in the east.
for clarity this is what the NFL head of officiating “The last time we had control was by an offensive player, somewhere around the 1 1/2 or the 2 [yard line], never regains control of the football while contacting inbounds. So in that sense, by rule, we have a touchback,” Riveron said. “We might not agree with the rule, we might have situations where we disagree with the rule, but that is the rule. So the rule was enforced correctly.” So he claims that there was 100% indisputable evidence he never regained possession, yet my pictures show he did in fact regain possession while in bounds with a knee down and a second later a shoulder down all in bounds. so not only is there not enough evidence that can't be disputed, the evidence is much more indisputable that he had possession and was down. it's clear as day. the only argument could be whether he crossed the goal line or not, it appears he does, but not 100% conclusive either way to overturn whatever the ref called on the field. the ref said " “The final shot that we saw was from the end zone that showed the New York Jets’ runner, we’ll call him a runner at that point, with the football starting to go toward the ground. He lost the ball,” Corrente said. “It came out of his control as he was almost to the ground. Now he re-grasps the ball and by rule, now he has to complete the process of a recovery which means he has to survive the ground again. So in recovering it, he recovered, hit the knee, started to roll and the ball came out a second time. So the ball started to move in his hands this way… he’s now out of bounds in the end zone, which now created a touchback. So he didn’t survive the recovery and didn’t survive the ground during the recovery is what happened here.” “Had the ball not come loose and he had crossed the goal line and he had possession and started to roll on his back, that would have been the touchdown,” Corrente said. “But because he lost the ball on his way to the ground the first time and had to re-grasp, that means now it’s a loose ball. He has to have control and survive the ground in the process of the recovery or, as we say, the process of the catch. So that’s what that was about.” " So this doesn't jive with the head of officiating, the head said he didn't regain possession, the ref said he did but now has to complete it to the ground. now here is what doens't make sense. say a RB drops the ball, picks it up runs up field 5 yards with possession, gets tackled and loses it when he hits the ground. that's not a fumble right? because possession was reestablished. so he claims he lost it while going to the ground, well not really. he lost it while still fighting for yards. he wasn't going to the ground yet, he regained possession and was pushing toward the end zone still while 2 patriots were trying to tackle him. lets look at it another way. say a ball is knocked from a RBs hand (which happens often near the goaline in pile ups). so he has the ball tucked in his elbow, it gets knocked down to his waist, he grabs it with his hand and then extends the arm with ball in hand over the goal line as he's going down, where it's then knocked out as he's falling to the ground. it's still a TD since he reestablished possession then broke the plain.
Maybe I'm as stupid as the 24 full time refs that are supposed to know what they're doing. I readily admit when I'm wrong, but on top of Detroit being robbed a few weeks ago, they're still terrible. We'll never get past human error, and that's OK, but this is just flamingly bad. Only the Cheats. Or I should say, only the Jets.
human error is ok and normal. that's why we have instant reply to fix it. refs will never be perfect. the game is fast, things happen quickly and can be hard to see. it's much easier to bitch about a call watching it 10 times in slow motion. I'm not gonna complain about a bad call here and there. it happens. but when you have time to watch a bunch of replays it's no longer human error. it's BS. There isn't a single thing on any angle that 100% proves that it should have been overturned
SolidGB, I will point back to my points. He may have control of the ball but not possession. I do not disagree with your shots and notes, but that all he has is control and not yet repossession. Here is the video i mentioned between Cowherd and Blandino. At 1:10 to 1:40 Blandino essentially states what I have been mentioning in this thread and parallels the rules regarding getting possession of a loose ball, and most critically at 1:36 he mentioned that he needs to maintain control as he goes out of bounds indicating that the possession is not complete till he finishes control out of bounds. As he is going to the ground for a loose ball one can think of him as a WR for elements as the rules for a player getting a loose ball while going to the ground are the same a WR catching a ball going the ground. I hope this comes through: The issue for Blandino and Pereria was that they did not think the ball moved enough to flip the call. Corrente did not dispute the control and knee down, his only problem was the ball move as he was rolling out or bounds. Blandino does not get into the plane of the end zone as it is not relevant to the award of the TD, but the fact of whether or not he controls the ball as he hits the ground
