Anyone watching the NYJ-NE game?
October 15th, 2017 at 3:53 PM ^
October 15th, 2017 at 4:04 PM ^
OSU refs: Hold my beer.
October 15th, 2017 at 3:54 PM ^
October 15th, 2017 at 4:15 PM ^
October 15th, 2017 at 3:55 PM ^
they overturned it...but it did look like he lost control. He had the ball in his left arm, you see it get hit out, then he ends up with it in his right arm. Again, I am stunned they felt it was clear enough to overturn a touchdown call on the field, but it did appear to jar loose.
October 15th, 2017 at 3:59 PM ^
October 15th, 2017 at 4:02 PM ^
it seems like the ruling was that he did not fully gather it in his right arm before hitting the ground out of bounds.
October 15th, 2017 at 4:14 PM ^
October 15th, 2017 at 5:39 PM ^
I mentioned this below, but doesn't some part of him have to land in-bounds for him to reestablish possession? If he loses control of the ball and then lands out of bounds, it doesn't matter if he regained control. It's a fumble that went out of bounds (which, in this case, was also through the endzone). Control =/= possession, right?
October 15th, 2017 at 5:43 PM ^
but the announcers (Fouts and whoever, maybe Ian Eagle) were incredulous, and thought he regained control and hit the pylon before hitting the ground.
October 15th, 2017 at 6:28 PM ^
Is hitting the pylon enough to establish possession of the ball, though? I remember a controversy from a few years ago when the refs incorrectly gave Michigan a touchdown against Michigan State when Brandon Minor, after catching the ball, hit the pylon with his foot before landing OOB. Unless the NFL is different from college football on this rule, which it easily could be, then he would actually have to hit the ground in bounds first.
Here's a link: http://www.maizenbluenation.com/2008/10/pylon-gate.html
October 15th, 2017 at 3:55 PM ^
October 15th, 2017 at 4:31 PM ^
Even the broadcast guys said there was no visible evidence to overrule the original call of TD. And it was replayed several times from several angles for us completely unbiased TV watchers. I'm bi-loyal: a Brady fan living in NYC. But even though Brady usually wins my sympathies, I agreed with the TV guys that it was an egregious and incomprehensible overturn. Hate a game to be determined that way.
October 15th, 2017 at 3:55 PM ^
Sounds like something the Jets would do.
October 15th, 2017 at 3:56 PM ^
I'll raise you the penalties for a few soft footballs in a game in which the Patriots ran for 4 touchdowns and won by 30 points.
This is fine. Go Pats.
October 15th, 2017 at 3:56 PM ^
October 15th, 2017 at 4:01 PM ^
October 15th, 2017 at 4:15 PM ^
October 15th, 2017 at 4:17 PM ^
October 15th, 2017 at 4:37 PM ^
See my comment above. He clearly regained control, and full play views not conclusive to overturn the original TD call. Since that was the officially unbiased TV guys agreed, I'll go with their analysis confirming my amateur observations from the safety of my living room. (They added that for the same reason-- no conclusive evidence-- a call the other way probably couldn't have been overturned either.)
October 15th, 2017 at 4:00 PM ^
This is the problem with replay. Things that were common sense before have become a Rorschach test for what we think we're seeing and if we're actually seeing what we're seeing which wasn't even the original intent of replay. We've let the pursuit of fairness and justness permeate athletics which has just proven that we can and will never get it right.
October 15th, 2017 at 4:04 PM ^
I was listening to Mike and Mike on Friday and they were talking about the Cubs-Nats game 5, where the replay on that Nats runner showed his foot bounce off the bag for a split second while Rizzo still had a tag on. Golic was saying how plays like that are not what replay was really created for or intended for.
October 15th, 2017 at 4:17 PM ^
I posted this after the Lions /Falcons game, and I like the idea more and more. Here, if my idea were in place, judge had his face right there, he called it a touchdown, kick the EP and be done with it.
I hate hate hate instant replay. Let the humans do their best. All these frame by frames, super zooms, 20 page definitions of what a catch is. Its terrible. Most stuff is inherintly too close to call, at looking at a frame 1/60th of a second is the opposite of fun. No one feels good about how this game ended. Review did not save the day.
Also, indisputable has 2 problems. 1) It evidentally means different things to different people. 2) If a ref didn't see the play and guessed, we are now (sometimes) treating a complete guess as if it has meaning.
I would like to see this change: refs get to (and should) veto all reviews where they saw the play. The refs are professionals, this is their job. If they saw it, then go with that. No replay allowed or necessary. If they didn't see it, then challenges are allowed, but no longer should the review require indisputable evidence. Now the call belongs to the replay judge.
This would mean less reviews, and get rid of the absurd 'indisputable' standard. It wouldn't be perfect because people would be pissed that their challenge got vetoed, or that replay in HD at 1/60th of a second suggests maybe the call that wasn't reviewed was wrong, but I just want to watch a game without 50 reviews that don't make me think the game is being called any more fairly.
October 15th, 2017 at 4:24 PM ^
"I would like to see this change: refs get to (and should) veto all reviews where they saw the play."
I see officials make the wrong call while staring something in the face with frequency. This would start a shitstorm the likes of which we've never seen before.
October 15th, 2017 at 5:07 PM ^
It comes down to preferance. But to me, the constant replays mess up the rhythm of the game, often to the extent that they have a bigger impact than any missed calls.
How many times during the tourney does a team get a desperately needed free time out while the refs figure out if there is 26 or 27 seconds left on the clock. Its such nonsense.
October 16th, 2017 at 1:17 AM ^
In the Astros Yankees game, the 3rd base ump was right on top of Gardner's attempted triple. Gardner was OBVIOUSLY out. I was watching with my damn Glasses off and I could see it in real time. I would have bet every penny I had plus every dollar I could have gotten loaned to me on that replay that Gardner was out, that was how 100% sure I was that he was out. It wasn't even close. Yes the umpire, standing about 2 feet away from the play, being paid several hundred thousands of dollars specifically to make that call correctly, completely blew the call.
So no, you can't just say that if the umpires/refs see the call we don't need replay. Umpires/officials in general are not all that good at their (very difficult) jobs. I'm not saying their jobs are easy, or that I would be any better at their jobs than they are. But they are wrong a significant portion of the time, and it only takes one screw-up to ruin an entire season.
The answer is to somehow fix replay. The way replay is being used is (sometimes) stupid, especially in the NFL and college football.
October 15th, 2017 at 4:17 PM ^
October 15th, 2017 at 4:40 PM ^
I seem to recall OSU fumbling in the natty game around 2000 and everyone in America seeing it but the ref. Something like that. Reviews were supposed to be for the egregious. "Indisputable" stuff. Now its checking whether you can see a single pixle at 1/60th of a second.
If it takes more than 10 seconds to look at and decide its not indisputable.
October 15th, 2017 at 4:06 PM ^
I love this original poster -- because the ball was SLIGHTLY loose. C'mon guys, it was only slightly loose! It's a touchdown! He was only SLIGHTLY short of the endzone. Like a foot at most. It's a touchdown!
I love the TV announcers only a little bit less, with their befuddlement. He had the ball when he was out of the end zone, in the field of play. And then he didn't have the ball. Maybe only SLIGHTLY. And then he went out of bounds, without possession. Unfortunately, he touched the pylon when he didn't have the ball, which means he was in the end zone, out of bounds But without the ball. So, it's like the ball was fumbled, and then it went out of bounds in the end zone. That's a touchback.
October 15th, 2017 at 4:12 PM ^
October 15th, 2017 at 4:21 PM ^
The "camera lost sight" point is a good one. If that's the case, you can't overturn it, because he might have regained possession during that point, and the camera couldn't have seen it. So, not conclusive or indisputable or whatever the word is.
October 15th, 2017 at 4:06 PM ^
October 15th, 2017 at 4:40 PM ^
October 16th, 2017 at 1:18 AM ^
I would have to agree, that was probably proper application of an incredibly stupid rule that should have never existed.
October 15th, 2017 at 4:10 PM ^
October 15th, 2017 at 4:17 PM ^
no repeat
October 15th, 2017 at 4:56 PM ^
Just watched it and have to agree with the OP - can't see how they possibly saw enough to overturn then call. If anything it looks like he may have regained control in time for it to actually have been a TD.
October 15th, 2017 at 5:34 PM ^
The Jets player clearly lost control of the ball while he was in the air and landed out of bounds after regaining control. It doesn't matter if he goes through the endzone with the ball in his hands if he doesn't have possession of it. It's still a loose ball. The call was right.
October 15th, 2017 at 5:39 PM ^
October 15th, 2017 at 5:46 PM ^
October 15th, 2017 at 6:48 PM ^
October 15th, 2017 at 8:50 PM ^
October 15th, 2017 at 9:41 PM ^
FWIW finally got to watch the play. I don't believe the camera loses sight of the ball and he has already gone out of bounds by the time he regained control. Control isn't gained by his left hand, and by the time it's in his right hand with control, already out of bounds.
October 15th, 2017 at 11:06 PM ^