Here is a clip from the NFLN on Youtube and i assume it will come through. The camera angle that I am talking about is the one from seconds 18-24. You will see him go to the ground. You see the ball bounce at seconds 22-23. If this is deemed to be movement not in his control, then it has always been ruled no possession. But if viewed as movement within his control, possession, TD. As a side note folks, I stand corrected, he did touch the ball prior to hitting the pylon and could be argued to have some level of control of the ball. However, this does not change the fact that the ball was still a free ball and was, most critically, not in Jenkin's possession. He only has fulfilled two of three elements of possession (knee down + control), we must wait to see if he maintains control whilst he goes to the ground as he was going to the ground at the time. If so we can then, and only then, award him with possession. And then given him the TD. But at the time he hit the pylon no TD.
It's Tuesday and still no clear proof to overturn the call. What did the officials see? When will it be made public? The longer this goes on with no proof to overturn the call the more it stinks. And it stinks pretty bad already.
So this doesn't constitute firm grip and control of the ball? When it comes to fumbles, what if a receiver catches a ball, takes 2 steps, the ball slips out, he recatches after a half of a second, can he proceed running with the ball?
It certainly wasn't conclusive enough evidence to overturn the call on the field of a touchdown. We was robbed! More importantly my fantasy football tight end was robbed!
This is true if the ball goes out of bounds in the field of play. If no one has established possession of a free ball, it goes back to the offense at the point of the fumble. So if he fumbles at the 5 and falls out of bounds at the 3 in the same manner as we have here, the ball would be Jets ball at the 5. Alas, as the ball was out bounds in the end zone by virtue of Jenkins body touching end zone out of bounds while touching the ball, it fall in the end zone out of bounds rule, so a touch back. Yes, a cruel combination of rules.
When the ball crosses the goal-line like it did with Seferian-Jenkins it is a touchdown. After he crosses the goal-line with the football, like he did, the ball can become "dislodged," he can drop it, spike it or punt it into the 16th row, it doesn't matter it is a dammed touchdown!!!
Yes it does. And when his knee goes down in field of play he has 2/3 of the elements for possession (control and knee). But, as he is going to the ground here there is an additional element required to award possession and that is the player must maintain control through his movement on the ground, which is what it in dispute here. Rivers, the dislodging of the ball by Butler dispossess Jenkins of the ball and he has to reestablish possession of the ball, which requires those three elements. Regarding your point of the WR bobbling the ball. Yes he can get possession again if he is standing up, controls the ball and takes two steps, but he does not get possession if he does not do these things. To make your point closer to the instant case. If a WR, or runner, is running down the sideline, the ball gets dislodged and he recontrols it takes one step in bounds then the next one out of bounds, he has not reestablish possession and the play is dead. And in this particular case the ball stays with the offense at the point of the bobble at is all occurred in the field of play.
However I don't believe the ball did free fall into the end zone. ASJ regained control prior to breaking the plane, there are photos that show this. That's why I want to see an image that shows the ball out of control as he is about to cross the plane, not what happened a yard and a half out. The ruling on the field was a TD, therefore there has to be clear evidence that he did not have control as he crossed the line. That he momentarily lost control over a yard from the line doesn't mean he didn't have control on the line and that the ball moved when he hit the ground isn't relevant either as it occurs after he breaks the plane. However the replay officials seem to have construed these two things as concrete evidence, whereas in reality they have overturned the on field call on an assumption.
Well, the fact that there is a dispute means that there's no clear evidence which means the call on the field should've stood. Even Blandino said so.
Browning, I am sorry it was not a TD as he did not have possession of the ball at moment he crossed the plane with the ball. One needs possession of the ball for it to be a touchdown, he lost possession when it was dislodged at the 1 yard line, thus creating a free ball, he can not be awarded a subsequent possession any earlier then him finishing going to the ground with control. So at that point no TD. The TD would happen at the point of him finishing his roll out of bounds if Corrente thought there was no movement. As many folks feel there was no movement of the ball, the TD happens at this point not any earlier. True he had control of the ball but control is only one of three elements of possession when going to the ground while trying to get possession of a free ball.
It was not at the 1 yard line. He crossed the goal line with the football. Touchdown by any and every rule
I hear yah 100%. And I do not think there was PI on Gronk even though there was contact without the defender looking behind him. Alas, jetophile, sometimes these calls come down to the opinion of the refs as to what factually happened. Yes under the letter of the law, one could make the argument that it was PI as there was contact, but i do not think so. And as you with this call, someone could say there was movement and other folks, likely many more and yourself, do not see enough movement to overturn it, or that any movement was under the control of the player. I only chimed into this conversation to let folks know my opinion which really is this play comes down to that point and what is before it is not as critical. Given the dynamic of the change, TD to touch back, I can see a point that one would like to see more movement such that less folks would disagree on. Again, I would of been totally okay if the call was not reversed.
there are a few parts 1) to overturn a call you need conclusive visual evidence. not 1 view we seen clearly showed the ball not in his possession as he crossed the line. had it been called a fumble originally and kept that way do to an "inconclusive visual evidence" i'm ok with that. It's the fact that this was overturned by "some camera angle that apparently nobody else had" which is against the reply rules and nobody has seen this angle still today is unsettling. not 1 thing I seen on the video shows any evidence to overturn whatever the call was and his body was blocking a view of the ball as it crossed the line in every video we seen. 2) possession of a runner is different then possession of a receiver. everyone agrees he was a runner. as a reciever you need to complete the catch and maintain possession when hitting the ground. also as a receiver it's your feet not the ball that needs to be in bounds. you can catch a ball out of bounds as long as both feet are in and it's a TD. as a runner it's the ball. if you run to the corner of the endzone with the ball out and behind you and step in but the ball went out at the 1, it's down at the 1. review official claims the ball was loosened when he hit the ground, but that doens't matter. perfect example say the QB and RB botch the handoff. the RB bobbles it but doens't drop it, he has possession the full time, it's not counted as a fumble and fumble recovered. lots of times at the end zone you'll see a RB with the ball at his chest get knocked down and he grabs it against around his waist. it's not considered a loss of possession. a RB doens't fumble or lose possession on a bobble the way a receiver does. lots of times you see a RB take a hard hit and the ball pop out after he hits the ground but the play is dead and it's not a fumble. for the end zone once the ball crosses the line it's a TD and play is dead 3) the End zone possession - as we've seen a lot on defensive plays when there is a fumble a defensive player jumps on the ball and it's a TD. jumping on the ball in the end zone is considered possession of a fumble. so lets say they call ti a fumble here he is, completely in bounds, down, and on top of the ball. this is the end of the play, period. even if the ball isn't in the end zone, ti's down at the 1 inch line. you can clearly see shoulder down, the elbow down (and a shoulder or elbow is as good as a knee) and he's in bounds and on top of the ball with a NE player touching him. this right here is the end of the play no discussion. the only argument that can be made is that the ball isn't across the line possibly and should be down before the end zone but in no way is this not possession while down
As the review decision was announced, I was ready to unleash a storm of curse words. Then I stopped myself just as I was about to unleash it, I remembered I'm a Jets fan and dealing with bullshit is in my job description so no use getting too excited.
Sorry Browning, the rules say otherwise. This play comes down to whether there was ball movement when he rolled over, most say no, if the ref agreed, then we have TD, called affirmed. Most agreed there was not enough movement and Corrente was wrong, so it was a TD at the point he rolled over. But before that the NFL rules say no touchdown. The ball was dislodged at the one thus loss of possession and free ball (NFL Rule 3, Sec. 2, Arts. 5 (fumble) & 7 (what constitute possession)), a player needs possession for a TD (rule 3, sec. 39), a player can regain possession of a loose ball but if going to the ground must have control, be in bounds and not loose control of ball going to the ground (Rule 3, Art. 7 Item 2 & note 1). I do not mean to be anal Browning, am just trying to point to where folks should be upset at Corrente which was his opinion on the movement the other parts are an uphill battle to fight.
That was a bs call that changed a W to a L in 1 whistle, never should have been called, and now that I'm remembering it the Jets did the exact same thing earlier in the game and didn't get called for it. The majority of losses NE's had the past few years can be traced to some questionable to horrendous calls, but in the end you get some and get screwed by others. Between the rulebook and the officials, I don't know which is worse, but if you think this was about referee favoritism to NE, you're wrong. And not many people here enjoyed that call, that scenario needs to be fixed. I don't think you would have won anyway tbh, still a 3-point game, but the Jets are a hell of a lot better team than expected this year.
This is just crap already. Probably one of the most horrendous calls WITHOUT instant replay was Mike Renfro's catch vs. the Steelers. We had instant replay on Sunday, the play was looked at on a tablet (instead of that Wizard of Oz Curtain where no-one can see what they're doing), but what view were they looking at? What? Oh, they were watching 'The View', with Whoopi Goldberg and Joy Behar. That explains it. Have yet to see what they saw. Speaking of splainin', why is Tom Cheat always allowed to be in the ref mix when things are being decided? Why is that allowed? Players hover while a decision is being made, which isn't unusual, but ain't that some bullshit.
Bart Scott going IN right now on the Kay show. Said how if that was Gronk and not ASJ it would have been determined that it was inconclusive to be able to overturn, thus a TD. Flat out said some players, coaches, etc have more 'power' than the next.
