that does seem most likely they somehow combined overturning part of their original call but not the whole call the problem was it was conclusively not a fumble. and they originally ruled fumble. nothing else was conclusive
Even if the replay showed that it probably was not a fumble, there was room to say that it was. Moreover, it's not like the league has made blatantly wrong calls and allowed them to stand. The Jets are the unfortunate recipient of lots of those. The real problem is that the Eagles are one of the "preferred" teams by the league, and they weren't going to do anything that would help the Jets.
I mean from the replay I seen, the ball was clearly over the line before he fumbled so it definitely was not a fumble. then the question becomes was he down before he extended and cross the plane or not. and I couldn't see anything definite from what we were shown
Well as I said, even if the fumble call made on the field was actually wrong, they could've - should've - let it stand. As it was, the NFL video reviewers inserted themselves into the game and tilted the playing field at that moment when they didn't really have conclusive evidence of how the entire play unfolded. Maybe there was no fumble, although I'm not so sure about that. But maybe he was already down before extending his arm thus negating that aspect. That's a critical piece of information to the decision, and yet the league office had no clear camera angle to determine that. So on balance, they league office should've rules it "inconclusive".
Idk what replays they showed on the TV but at the stadium they showed an obvious TD. I went from “BOOOOO! To Yeah, that’s a TD”
only replay we seen was the ball crossing the line before being fumbled. we never got to see any angle to see if his knee was down prior to the stretch. they cut to commercial after they called it a turnover on downs and when it came back from commercial it was 6-0 and they were kickign an XP and we got barely any explanation other then call overturned and the commentators showing the same 1 angle and saying "the NFL has more angles then we do (which is a lie BTW) and that they synch them up (that part is true) to see if a knee was down before the ball crossed
its a really weird situation though. I think if he's called down before he extends, the play stands. but since they called fumble and the replay showed clearly there was no fumble, they couldn't just let it stand. and since they never ruled down by contact that part got to stand because it couldn't be confirmed or overturned.
The good news is if we manage to be something like 7-5 and Rodgers looks like he's coming back, the NFL will do everything in their power to help us make the playoffs. They'd make more money off us than pretty much any other team.
If memory serves correct, the outstretched hand was the money shot. The other angle there’s too many bodies to see his knee but realistically, he wasn’t low enough to the ground for his knees to touch plus there were ALOT of bodies under him (idk if he could touched the turf if he wanted to). It was def the right call. You’re right, It would probably stand but I wouldn’t be surprised if it was over-ruled. IMO the zebras had a good view and didn’t rule him down bc he wasn’t.
There definitely was no fumble, you should be sure about that. There is 100% certainty there was no fumble.
there was discussion by the refs. 1 ref ruled him down just short, the one with the best angle, the other ref ruled fumble at the 1. they had a discussion and called it a fumble on the field. in that case most likely the fumble ruling ref called the ball out much earlier then it was. I just watched the replay right now, i found one on youtube and there was no bodies for him to be on top of. it also looked like the hip was down before the stretch.
It's crazy because calls like that are supposed to be definitive to overturn. This one did not seem like it. They tried to claim there may have been "other angles" that they have which we don't, but that sounds like invented BS to give them a TD.
So it sucks because I can't find good replays of it for some reason which is odd. but the 1 video I found you can clearly see from this angle when he is down. I circled his hip on the ground. and they have better quality. you can also clearly see the ball if quality is better. this looks prior to the stretch out. he stretched after the hip was down. there wasn't any players under him clearly this shows the side judge marking him just short at the half yard line who had the best view and the other judge pointing to him. he got overridden by the judge who ruled fumble at the 1. based on this angle and the other angle, there is no reason we couldn't see a clear synced replay but he looks short to me. I really think the NFL should let us see and hear the whole discussion/video that the ref sees. no reason they cna't broadcast it and it's better TV then watching a guy under a hood.
well definitively it wasn't a fumble. the question then is what do they call it if they can't confirm or deny the TD clearly?
There is a vid from the back field POV where it showed his hip down before the stretch, but they only showed it once and then it disappeared into internet netherland.
for a TD that was that close on 4th and got reviewed and overturned, during the game with the most viewers, the lack of videos of the TD are amazing.
They have to go with the call on the field, if it's not definitive, not just award them a touchdown. Fumble or not, he was still short and nothing showed otherwise.
the only replay we were showed that I remember is the other side showing him stretch and showing it was clearly not a fumble. they didn't show one of whether he was down or not
