One bad call is one thing, but if some posters are right that there were 3 bad calls, then imo it is totally unreasonable to expect a team to overcome that. Sure, sometimes they do, but they shouldn't have to. The officiating needs to be changed to eliminate bad calls, and the stupid rules need to get thrown out. There are too many livelihoods and too much money at stake to have games lost because of bad or biased calls by referees.
Too little too late. Setting the team that was unjustly awarded the ball back a few yards is not the same thing as taking a TD and momentum away from the other team. If those refs had any integrity, they should have walked off the field, as the Jets should have done, if indeed there were two other equally bad calls in the game. This BS has to stop or I'm done with the NFL. They should change their name to the No Integrity League. If Woody/Chris Johnson weren't on the phone chewing out Goodell's ass today and demanding that Riveron be fired, the stupid rule dropped, and a halt be brought to some suit in NY being able to overrule the referees actually working the game, then I hope that they go bankrupt and are forced to sell the team.
I agree that I hope that no one does any serious harm to him, but I wouldn't mind it at all if someone gut punched him or cold-cocked him. It might give him pause before making such an egregious BS call ever again. It shouldn't have to come to even that, but you know the NFL isn't gonna fire the asshat.
Well as to the "all the calls going for the Pats", and the rules not consistently applied, this happens WITH I.R., and in fact seems to have gotten worse since its advent. I think instant replay simply gives the ILLUSION of fairness and thoroughness, but in reality bias and mistakes still occur - you're still relying on human interpreting what they seem and we know how fallible that can be. If you want to use technology to improve the game, as I said, employ infrared along the goal and sidelines. And you could also use chips in the footballs, as you suggested. These approaches don't depend on human interpretation and so would be much more reliable. But as for I.R., I think it's a panacea.
The whole definition of a "fumble" has been perverted beyond understanding. It used to be that if a player who had the ball was tackled and either by that contact, or when they hit the ground, if they lost possession of the ball before the whistle blew the play dead it was a fumble. Then somewhere along the line the NFL decided that - CONTRARY TO THE LAWS OF PHYSICS! - "The ground can't cause a fumble". Really! And now the NFL has further "refined" the definition so that apparently it can be a fumble if you bobble the ball, but don't actually lose possession! This is cut from the same cloth that decided that "spiking" the ball was okay. Before that ridiculous decision, if a QB took the snap and intentionally threw it to the ground behind his OL it was one of two things: A) Intentional grounding, or B) A fumble And then allowing QBs to have headsets so that coaches can engage in even more micro-managing than they could do by sending plays in with subs. All of this is a progression towards making football into a video game that uses humans instead of CG. I know I'm a dinosaur, but I really wish they would launch a rival league that went back to two-way football, with bare minimum protective gear, like a helmet with not face mask, a protective cup, and thin shoulder pads and cleats. And of course no instant replay! Injuries would be significantly reduced, and the game would move faster. I know it'll never happen, but I can dream.
I think the 31 other owners would stand by the decision. The pats have such a large fan base that them winning is good for the league. Jets fan base is considerably smaller and unfortunately the league profits off of our misery. People LOVE the butt fumble, love the failed picks and blown playoff hopes. Jets made runs with Rex because his loud mouth made them profitable. It is all a business. And the league will do what's best for business every time especially in a year where ratings are down. If we start paying up than we will start winning I.E. the Seahawks newly found prominence when people bought all the new uniforms
Ok well if you don't enforce the rules because it's close and would suck, how do you justify that to the other party. *helmet catch* ehhhhh it's really close and would suck for the pats so no catch
Worst call and rule interpretation I have ever seen. It's like the dumbass forgot ASJ was running with the ball rather than catching it. Obvious Pats favoritism on the play. More stupid NFL profitability here.
Bottom line guys this play came down to whether or not one feels the ball moved on Jenkins as he rolled over in the end zone. If you feel that it did not move on him, then it is a TD (second possession obtained in the end zone and control of ball maintained through rolling out of bounds). If you feel that it did move, even ever so slightly, then it is a touch back. (second possession was not finalize til the ball stop moving which was when he was on his back out of bounds in the end zone, player did not control the movement of the ball and does not get credit till he stops the movement). After seeing the play a handful of times, the ball does bounce away from his stomach a bit as rolls over. If one is of the opinion that this movement of the ball was not of his control (which Corrente did) then it is a touch back. If one feels that the movement was still under the control of the player then it is a touchdown (that is the player is the one that caused the movement). What happened before this point is really not an issue as these points should not be in dispute, he caught the ball, ball was dislodged before goal line, dislodged ball is a free ball, any player can recover, player must follows rules of possession to deem to recover and be credited with possession, one needs possession with the ball cross the end zone plane to be a touch down. This ruling is a reel harsh combination of rules. We have seen all of these rules applied individually and just the combination of them made it a harsh result. And yes I agree the PI call on Gronk was harsh too and should not have been called.
You may be right here, and if so, my days of watching NFL games and discussing the Jets are about over. As far as I'm concerned, the league has zero integrity. It is a big business, but it is also a game, and therefore rules of fair play and sportsmanship should take precedence. But again if you're right, then those other 31 owners are fools, because with the Pats being favored by the league and getting the calls, it prevents many of the other 31 teams from having a realistic shot at getting to and winning a SB. If their team won a SB, their profits would skyrocket, and surely would be worth more to them than whatever they get from the Pats continuing to win.
The reason why the Pats get the ball was because it was a touch back. Now you may have a dispute with the touch back, or the rule should be modified in this particular version (many years ago a touch back was also deemed to occur with an incomplete pass that landed out of bounds in the end zone but that particular version has since been removed). As mentioned in my prior post, the NFL ruled that he did not obtain a second possession of the ball and as his body part was out of bounds in the end zone while he was touching the ball, it is by rule dead and out of bounds in the end zone. This play is really no different if the ball had been dislodged, roll to the back of the end zone and Jenkins landed on the ball rolls over while bobbling the ball then slides out of bounds. Many times we have seen scrambles for balls in the end zone and it goes out of bounds before someone can get possession. Now you may wish to change the rule to say something like it is not a touch back if the ball does not hit the ground and lands out of bounds within 3 yards of the goal line or something. Otherwise, till changed, it does not matter where in the end zone the ball goes out of bounds. Surely it is harsh application of the rule. Had Jenkins not had the ball dislodge we this would not be having this conversation. And as Leon Lett knows, if the ball gets knocked out inches from the end zone and it goes out of bounds the opponent gets the ball at the 20.
Exactly my feelings. It just doesn't seem right for the defense to get possession without even touching the ball, let alone securing possession of it themselves. This looks like a rule that needs to be changed, like the old 'force out' rule, which was canned about a decade ago. This rule is even more unfair in terms of natural justice and common sense. Anyone watching the game who wasn't familiar with the rules would just think, why the hell has that team given up the ball when it never touched the ground? No touchdown I could live with, if it had been called on the field, but turning it over? Technicalities like this can ruin a sport, and when instant replay just adds a layer of extra human interpretation to highly technical rules, it's a nightmare.
Couldn't agree more with many of the comments here about how bad these rules are and how unjust a result that was. There's no way that was, or ever should be, a turnover. Ludicrous. But associating this with the Pats is way off. For every call you see that benefits us, there's been at least one going the other way. What about the FG a couple of years ago that ended the game with the Jets beating NE, where they awarded the Jets a second FG attempt because of an imaginary violation over the long snapper? Talk about a bs call, and that was the final play of the game, no chance to recover from it. Very few Pats fans are happy with the call we saw Sunday. Worsens the game of football. Similar feel as that Dez Bryant "incompletion" at Green Bay in the playoffs.
In the Pitt/KC game, the ball was hiked over the head of the QB Smith and it went out of back of KC's end zone. It was a safety and Pitt received two points and KC had to punt the ball to Pitt from its own 20 yard line. No Pitt defender touched the ball and the QB just got a finger tip on it. What is fair to KC that Pitt gets two points and the ball kicked to them? The instant rule is the same thing, but just that the rule applies to balls going out of the opponents end zone which is a touch back, no points to defense, but they get the ball at the 20. If one looses the ball in your own end zone its a safety and free kick, if one looses the ball in the opponents end zone is a touch back. The latter happens a good number of times, most famous one is Leon Lett in the SB. Bottom line, if you loose control of the ball and it goes out of either end zone, there are rules which the opponent benefits.
I appreciate the in-depth explanation, but I think the biggest reason that people are having such a problem with this is that if it was called a TD on the field just show everyone what Corrente/Rivaron saw that was so concretely conclusive to overturn the call. Still waiting. That would be the easiest route to clean this up. Just show us the money. Instead, all I keep hearing is them verbally defend themselves and explain why it was rightfully overturned in flowery horseshit terms without showing us the visual proof they claim made it clear as day to them that it was the right decision. The operative word is conclusive, and everything that I've seen isn't conclusive. At all. That just tells me they know they were wrong . . . or helping a team not named the Patriots. Take your pick.
Rules are rules. Here is likely the most famous example of the rule in question. If the NFL determined that the TE regained possession it was a TD. As i mentioned in my first post, it simply comes down to if the ball moved when he role over out of bounds in the end zone. If no movement touchdown, if movement touch back aka Leon Lett. Yes it is a harsh application of the rules, but these are the rules. I would of been happy if they left it a TD, but also see what the NFL was doing with calling it a touch back.
jetophile, first off, agreed it was a harsh call and in the "let them play mode" nearly all of the folks would agree to look the other way and let things stay as there are and I fully agree, let it stay a TD. However, the rub here, which most folks do not talk about, is the process of the review and understand how it works. There are elements to a play and a rule. The only element that is in dispute here is movement of ball while going to the ground not made by the player. And the video replay only concerns itself with clear evidence that one of the elements was missing. In order to understand this we need to see the elements of the play. Here the elements of possession while going to the ground are the following: 1) Control of ball 2) two feet (or body part above the knee not including the palm) 3) And ZERO movement of the ball not caused by the player while he goes to the ground. The first two were met and the only question is "was there zero movement of the ball" and we need clear and convincing evidence to overturn this call. The rub is that ANY movement of the ball is clear evidence of zero movement. In another words if the ball moves we know that it not zero movement. We have seen this many times WR going out of bounds and we see on replay "did the ball move" and the refs look at it confirm no movement and uphold the catch. Sometimes we have the opposite a call incomplete and the replay shows no movement and the call is reversed to a catch. Again, it comes down to if one thinks the ball moved, then its clear there is not zero movement, and thus one must overturn the play. It just come down to whether one thinks that Corrente opinion of the movement is right, not that he applied the rule incorrectly.
He had control of the ball when he touched the pylon, that's a TD. The ruling hinges on them saying he didn't have control when he touched the pylon and while flying through the end zone and that he regained possession out of bounds. It's a moot point to even talk about what happened when he landed out of bounds. As for the so called fumble, the ball didn't touch the ground, it wasn't touched by another player. If you dropped your cellphone from your hand but caught it half a second afterwards, does it mean it was someone else's cellphone during that half a second?
With all due respect, I'm not talking about looking the other way. I'll try again and say it more succinctly. I'm talking about letting the rest of the world see what was so conclusive about the review to overturn it. Do you have a clip no-one else does? Please feel free to post it.
Nobody wants to hear this crap.We play in the same division & are from the same region of the country.Many on here follow the Patriots almost as closely as the Jets..what bad call on the Patriots has transpired that actually cost them a game that was deemed controversial on a national level?? There have been countless games against the jets alone where the pats have benefitted from questionable IR,PI calls & the like..not counting the tuck rule & all the other ridiculous blatant calls they get week to week.The bias really couldn't be more obvious..if the call is close..sometimes not even the Pats are getting the nod.At this point im not even sure it can be debated The OT leveraging call against the Jets in OT was a legit call!The jets warned the refs the patriots had been doing it the whole game before the very play in question & sure enough they did it again which was clear as day on tape. Patriot fans didn't like the rule but leveraging is dangerous & again they had done so repeatedly during that whole game. This is not a legit argument. But no worries..the league exists for your team & your enjoyment...don't let the rest of us lowly fans get you down
