Exactly. What we are saying is just show us this obvious, "boom, boom, boom" evidence that they say there was, because I haven't seen it and I don't think anyone else has either. If it's as obvious as they imply surely someone else would have picked it up.
They're supposed to be limited to replay views used via the broadcast feeds.Not one angle has been unearthed that fits the clear & obvious distinction they've maintained
thats a bullshit example because Lett never crossed the goal line with the ball and he also lost the ball. The 2 plays aren't at all similar. Seferian-Jenkins crossed the goal-line with the football and never lost the ball. That is a touchdown. It was a phantom fumble and a bullshit call. Made even worse by the fact that it was correctly ruled on the field and stolen away by replay.
you are confusing a catch with a fumble. Seferian-Jenkins already caught the ball and was a runner. That makes most of your post wrong as he obviously had possession of the ball since he ran it in for 5 yards
your missing the fact he is a runner at this point not a receiver. with a runner at the goaline all you have to do is get the tip of the ball to touch the beginning of the white end zone line and thats it, plays over it's a TD. we seen playerss lsoe the ball almost at the line regain it reach over have it knocked away after reaching and it's still a TD. we all know the pylon is in bounds. he doens't need to maintain the ball to the ground either. all he needs to have control for a split second with the ball in the end zone in bounds. look at the play here Diving ball reaches in and gets knocked out as he hits the ground
I will try to find one, but what I am talking about is the other end of end zone shot showing him rolling over and you see the ball come away some from his stomach. If it is deemed to be a movement which he controlled then TD, if not, then the practice that I have seen is that it is not possession. Surely there can be some movement, but by practice the refs have always talked about does the player make the movement or is it movement that the could not control.
Lol..you know it. My last night in the hospital was last year's super bowl.In a sea of disinterested sports illeterate nurses/MDs the next morning there was one loud mouth patriot fan nurse gloating for anyone within ear's range.Can you guess who my nurse was that morning? 2002 was a long time ago & many beers ago.Im so salty they're building me a crypt
I think you're right that $ wins the day & that the NFL thinks the $ is w Brady & the pats. But I question if that even is the clearest path to capital at this stage. There is no indifference w the Patriots..even for non football fans.You either love them or you despise them.31 fan bases hate them.I can't remember the last time "love" or "hate" wasn't the word preceding any mention of the Patriots from anyone.Now of course in the short term this is ratings/profit city..bc everyone is tuned in one way or another... But people are tired of it to the point of just no longer taking an interest & questioning if the whole thing is a fix which when you consider calls like the one on Sunday & their game oriented sanctions maybe isn't beyond connecting the dots. The pats have jumped the shark even worse than Fonzi in primetime
Touching the pylon here is a moot point. He did not have possession of the ball when he touched the pylon. And yes, he did "fumble" the ball as it was dislodged by Butler, per the NFL rules. Rule 2, Section 3, Article 5 of the NFL rule book reads in pertinent part: ARTICLE 5. FUMBLE. A Fumble is any act, other than passing, handing, or legally kicking the ball, which results in a loss of player possession. The use of the term Fumble always means that the ball was in possession of a player when the act occurred (8-7). Here, there is no requirement that the ball hit the ground just that it is dislodged. One loses possession once it is dislodged. We have seen this many times when folks try to determine if a player is down by contact before the ball comes out. If the ball is out by a half inch before his knees touches he is not down as he has lost possession, there is no need to wait for it to hit the ground to have a loss of possession and a fumble. For clarification on possession Art 7, Item 1 of the same section reads: ARTICLE 7. PLAYER POSSESSION. Item 1. Player in Possession. A player is in possession when he is inbounds and has a firm grip and control of the ball with his hands or arms.
No he did not, the ball was dislodged at the one yard line and thus he did not have possession of the ball when he cross the goal line. True he grabbed it in the end zone, but he did not have it when he and critically, the ball, cross the plane. The two plays are similar regarding how the ball entered the end zone, specifically being a free ball and not in possession of either team. For possession and fumble points i kindly direct your attention to my last post, post #131.
I figured you'd like the pun. Glad you're doing well. I probably need every major organ replaced being a fan of this team, not like I'm trying to one up ya or anything . . .
the call sucked and i don't agree with it at all However, Bowles, ASJ and the eam are handling it the right way. Move on, take it out on Miami and continue to feed the hungry kiddo's. Hopefully we can put in a young QB at some point and by the time we go up to Foxboro, the QB will be in some sort of groove and we can exact revenge on the Pats. Being as optimistic as possible, maybe this gives a little confidence to the young guys that the Pats are not as almighty as everyone thought they were before the season. Use it as a building block
True once the end zone plane is broken the play is dead and it is a touchdown, what happens after to the ball, player, etc. is not relevant. However, what is critical is that the plane must be broken by the ball with a player in possession of the ball, not the mere fact that the ball breaks the plane. What is critically missing is that the ball being dislodged at the 1 yard line dispossess him of the ball and thus a free ball fell into the end zone. So at that point no touch down. This of course does not prevent a player from gaining possession of the ball in the end zone to create a touchdown.
So in other words, the ref who called it a TD should be fired. Without benefits. The league now has 24 full-time refs and it's still terrible. Why isn't anyone dumping on the ref that made the TD call in the first place? The play was right in his face.
We were visiting friends in Maine this weekend, and I was watching the game with a buddy. When The Play happened, we saw the replay and figured, okay, MAYBE the refs spot the ball at the 1. But we're both expecting it to be confirmed. The replay didn't seem conclusive either way. So we start talking about other stuff... look up... and the Pats have the ball at the 20. WTH?!?! We were both in immediate agreement... on two fronts... that we'll take it... but that you guys got screwed big time. Shame that a hard fought game like this had to hinge on such a bizarre ruling.
All the legalistic mumbo jumbo STILL does not provide the requisite "clear and unambiguous proof" to overturn the call made on the field. When you can produce that film, let us know, Until I see that, I remain convinced that the NFL jobbed the Jets to make sure Brady and the Pats prevailed because they need the Patriots to win and be in the SB to prop up their ever-dwindling ratings.
Assuming that's true, then the ball should be given back to the team who was last in possession, the Jets, NOT the Patriots.
