The fumble reversal wasn't legit. Branch was getting up to run and the ball was lose before Pace touched him, but Pace did rip it on out. The call on Revis was bullshit. I don't even think their legs go tangled, I think he just fell or took a dive. Refs didn't cost us the game, the 3 and outs did, but they certainly did us no favors. They called bullshit in VERY critical times.
A few years back, there was a similar play called a fumble against the Jets. The Jets offensive player (I think it was Cotchery) fumbled the ball and recovered it while on the ground. The defensive player jumped on Cotchery, causing the ball to become loose again. Cotch was clearly contacted while on the ground and the ball became loose, and the defense recovered. The officials reviewed that play and ruled the ball came on on impact. Similar situation but inconsistent ruling
The fumble reversal completely changed the game. You need absolute conclusive proof to overturn a call on the field . I didn't see that. For every year that we've had replay, the concept of possession seems to become more and more tenuous. I guess in 10 years time, unless the ball carrier rams the football down his mouth and completely ingests it, he won't be deemed to be completely in possession! This was a bad call and badly hurt the Jets so...IT SUCKED!
It wasn't a Fumble as much as I wanted it to be. Branch caught the ball and was getting up on one knee when he was contacted. Right there the play is dead because he is down by contact. A split second later the ball comes out.
Look man, I'm not disagreeing that his knee was down. Both were. But, he was trying to get up, and he was bobbling the ball BEFORE Pace touched him. Pace just ripped it on out. It was a close play, but he was bobbling it before Pace downed him. Also, like I said, that wasn't the reason we lost. But it was a huge momentum killer. Instead of our ball, it essentially gave the Pats another TD. But, the three and outs and total lack of offensive output lost the game. Playing the Patriots, no matter how good your D is(and I think the D played as well as possible), but you have to score against them.
He wasn't "down by contact" because he was making a football move to get up and moving the football from one hand to another when he was simultaneously hit causing the ball to jar loose. If he was down on the ground and touched down that is one thing. He was in the act of standing up to advance the ball after going to his knees. It was a BS call along with the phantom PI on Revis and on the long 3rd down play. Like it or not, but inconsistent officiating has hurt the Jets this year in addition to all their self-inflicted wounds. It is hard enough playing the Patriots in Foxboro, the Jets shouldn't have to beat the Refs as well. The refs also missed a horrible call on NE when a NE defender dove at Sanchez's knees.
At the very least it was incomplete pass but there is no way that was down by contact. You would have a better claim to the fact that he never had possession to begin. You need to account for the fact the player was in the act of getting up and switching the ball from one hand to another. It is either a football move or an incomplete pass. This isn't flag football out there.
At the very moment Branch was touched, he was holding the ball and his knee was on the ground. What happens in the split second after that is irrelevant, the receiver was down and the play over as soon as that contact was made.
his knees were on the ground and he had possession of the ball when a defensive player touched him. that by rule is down by contact. it doesn't matter that the ball came out afterwards, those three elements -- possession, knees down and contact immediately make him down. the only awful call was the Revis call.
The only bad call i saw all day was the Revis illegal contact. The others seemed to be spot on. Im sure there were some that were missed but thats expected and COME ON people, did you really expect to get many calls against NE @ NE?
you clearly don't understand the rules that dictate a catch, down by contact or a fumble. he caught the ball and maintained possession through a football move. it was a catch. then a defensive player made contact with him while his knee was down. he was down by contact. then he lost the ball, but the play was already over. if you don't understand these things maybe you should be watching flag football.
On an untouched play, the receiver needs to maintain possesion of the ball as he goes to the ground in order for it to be a catch. In this scenario, Branch's knee is on the ground as he is attempting to stand. At the moment he is hit, he is switching the ball from one hand to another while attempting to stand - it is very clear on the replay that in fact at the moment he was hit the ball wasn't even being touched by his hands/body. It is either an incomplete pass or a fumble but there is no way in hell that is down by contact. At the worst he didn't maintain possesion - hell you can make an argument that there wasn't enough replay evidence to overturn. But down by contact? No way that dog hunts.
Burress was out,his foot hit the line..........done I walked to go to the bathroom at the bar when the overturned fumble happened. On first glance it looked like a legit fumble to me. The interference penalty on Wilson was crap as was Revis's call. That said the ref's didn't cost the Jets the game. The crappy offense against the worst defense in the league did.
