Jerry Jones wonders why Julian Edelman’s muffed punt was overturned

[T-post Tom]

With all of the controversies over the weekend, one lost in the wash was the overturn of Julian Edelman‘s muffed punt. No one is talking about it primarily because the Chiefs got the ball back two snaps later anyway with an interception.

“Ball don’t lie,” CBS analyst Tony Romo joked on the broadcast after Daniel Sorensen‘s interception.

But Cowboys owner Jerry Jones brought up the play when asked about the officiating in Sunday’s games. Jones still doesn’t understand what the NFL’s supervisor of officials, Al Riveron, saw on replay to overturn the fourth-quarter fumble, which the Chiefs recovered at the New England 28.

In other words, even replay sometimes leaves a question.

“The call on the punt, whether he touched it, you can never get it right, because it was called on the field as a touch and then later, you couldn’t see an angle that he definitely touched it,” Jones said, via Drew Davison of the Fort Worth Star-Telegram. “But the rule says you’re supposed to go with the call on the field if you can’t see an angle that he didn’t touch it. I don’t know if you can get everything [right].”

The Cowboys have lost postseason games where questionable calls played a role. In the 2014 playoffs, Dez Bryant‘s fourth-down reception in the fourth quarter was overturned on replay based on the catch rule at the time. And the Cowboys didn’t get an obvious pass interference call on 49ers cornerback Deion Sanders in coverage against Michael Irvin late in the fourth quarter of the 1994 NFC Championship Game.

“At the end of the day, it’s the official’s call and you live with that,” Jones said. “You depend on the integrity of the official, not necessarily his ability to make every call right or wrong. You assume that, and rightfully so, that there are no biases, and he’s just trying to make the right call. That’s part of sport.”

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2019/01/23/jerry-jones-wonders-why-julian-edelmans-muffed-punt-was-overturned/

[BWillie]

This is actually a call that probably didn't matter. We intercepted it on that same drive - then went down and scored.

[carcosa]

This is actually a call that probably didn't matter. We intercepted it on that same drive - then went down and scored.

Especially since a muffed punt can't be advanced, so it wouldn't have even saved much time.

[Jerm]

Especially since a muffed punt can't be advanced, so it wouldn't have even saved much time.

That rule is asinine to me...even more so than a fumble into the endzone being a touchback.

[JakeF]

It didn't matter but it was still wrong. The call should have stood as called but the Patriots have always played under a different set of rules.

[Rain Man]

How does Jerry Jones not know that Edelman is a Patriot?

[Rain Man]

That rule is asinine to me...even more so than a fumble into the endzone being a touchback.

I'm trying to recall if that's always been a rule. I have some very vague memory of it changing when I was a child.

I don't like it either, but I bet there's some reason for it. Perhaps it was just that every fumble became a touchdown for the punting team given the positioning of the players?

[Dr. Yu Weed Tard]

The ball DIDN'T hit his thumb, but the over angle showed that it bounced off Edelman's fingertips.

[Discuss Thrower]

Isn't a fumble into the opponents end zone the Kenny Stabler rule?

But yeah, I don't see how Edelman could have clearly not touched the ball to overturn an initial call on the field.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

Isn't a fumble into the opponents end zone the Kenny Stabler rule?

But yeah, I don't see how Edelman could have clearly not touched the ball to overturn an initial call on the field.

Ken Stabler rule has more to due with advancing a fumble on 4th down due to the Holy Roller play.

[Mahomer]

Still would have saved us time, even if we had 30 more seconds at the end there, we might have had enough time to score a TD to win it.

Plus with them overruling that muffed punt, how can anyone trust them with the Hogan replay.

[ClevelandBronco]

Jerry's drunk again. Big surprise.

[redfan]

The football gods had our backs a coupla plays later, thereby establishing (by rule of righteous play on the field) what bullshit that overturn was.

[Renegade]

I also hate the rule on a kickoff if the receiving team is standing out of bounds, and the ball touches the out of bounds player(or even if the player touches the ball), the ball is out of bounds, therefore ball is placed on the 40.

I believe this happened to us this year.

[Dr. Yu Weed Tard]

I also hate the rule on a kickoff if the receiving team is standing out of bounds, and the ball touches the out of bounds player(or even if the player touches the ball), the ball is out of bounds, therefore ball is placed on the 40.

I believe this happened to us this year.

Correct, and it did.

[Rain Man]

The fumble in the end zone rule is addressing a very real problem that could exist without the rule. If I'm running down field and I know that I'm going to be caught on the 20, I just wind up a softball pitch forward. As long as I can fling the ball outside the end zone, I've got a first down on the one.

I don't like the touchback rule, but you have to do something to stop intentional fumbles forward. It seems extreme to give up the ball, especially when you're in the red zone to start with. Maybe you give the fumbling team the ball at the 50 or at their own 20 or something.

[IowaHawkeyeChief]

There was a lot more evidence to overturn the Hogan reception than the punt muff... However, they let the Hogan play stand. It was a horrible call that was nullified by the pick, but still a horrible, unexplainable reversal.

[Rain Man]

I also hate the rule on a kickoff if the receiving team is standing out of bounds, and the ball touches the out of bounds player(or even if the player touches the ball), the ball is out of bounds, therefore ball is placed on the 40.

I believe this happened to us this year.

Yeah, I don't like that one, either. It seems like it should only count if the ball is untouched and goes out. If the ball is touched, it's placed where the ball went out of bounds. What's the downside of that? How could someone cheat it?

[carcosa]

That rule is asinine to me...even more so than a fumble into the endzone being a touchback.

It's a bad rule!

[IowaHawkeyeChief]

The fumble in the end zone rule is addressing a very real problem that could exist without the rule. If I'm running down field and I know that I'm going to be caught on the 20, I just wind up a softball pitch forward. As long as I can fling the ball outside the end zone, I've got a first down on the one.

I don't like the touchback rule, but you have to do something to stop intentional fumbles forward. It seems extreme to give up the ball, especially when you're in the red zone to start with. Maybe you give the fumbling team the ball at the 50 or at their own 20 or something.

It's a turnover in the endzone, just like an interception. An offensive player should be penalized for fumbling or throwing a pick into the endzone. It's one of the biggest mistakes an offensive player can make and the result should be punative.

[BlackOp]

Does anyone truly believe if that same exact play happened only it was the Chiefs...the refs overt-turn it?

Or the Hogan catch stands?

Or a neutral zone infraction with :50 seconds left?

[Warrick]

Because Chiefs!

[Reerun_KC]

Does anyone truly believe if that same exact play happened only it was the Chiefs...the refs overt-turn it?

Or the Hogan catch stands?

Or a neutral zone infraction with :50 seconds left?

No chance in hell

[Sorry]

Every single angle showed it didn’t touch him jfc wrong hill to die on.

Hogan was a catch. Literally more of a catch than the controversial fez Bryant catch.

Refs for the most part was what anyone would want in a playoff game. Refs let chiefs mug patriots .. let’s move on

[Red Dawg]

Correct, and it did.

Dan Fouts is so dumb he thought the Raiders goofed and caught a break by luck
Clearly it was done on purpose.

[Mama Hip Rockets]

That rule is asinine to me...even more so than a fumble into the endzone being a touchback.

I agree. What an absolutely nonsensical rule.

[Warrick]

Also refs involved in prior scandals regardless who is
at fault, shouldn't be allowed to participate in any game that pertains those two teams. (I.E inflategate)

[Bob Dole]

Does anyone truly believe if that same exact play happened only it was the Chiefs...the refs overt-turn it?

Or the Hogan catch stands?

Or a neutral zone infraction with :50 seconds left?

Or someone patted Mahomes on the shoulder after a pass?

[ricko1112]

Because, with so many angles, it was conclusive that JE never touched the ball. There was far more evidence that EE is a woman beating dirtbag...

[dj56dt58]

Every single angle showed it didn’t touch him jfc wrong hill to die on.

Hogan was a catch. Literally more of a catch than the controversial fez Bryant catch.

Refs for the most part was what anyone would want in a playoff game. Refs let chiefs mug patriots .. let’s move on

I dont think so. One angle it looks like hit touched his thumb, even the announcers thought it did. On the other angles it looks like it didnt. Which angle to you go by? Also did it hit his arm? Sure looks like it might have. A lot of uncertainty which means call should stand

[CrookedTrump]

This is why nothing will ever be perfect when it comes to getting calls right. I've seen the Edelman play and slow motion replays now several times and every time I see it it is completely obvious to me (and obviously to the replay officials) he never touched it. There isn't one single replay that proves it but each replay eliminates a possibility. Problem is, like we are seeing in this thread, some people just can't figure it out even when it's pretty obvious. The bigger problem is that sometimes those people who can't figure it out are the replay officials themselves. Hogan had two catches replayed, one called a catch and one reversed, both were literally the exact same catch. If 1st one was a catch then the second one should have been, who can figure it out???? Roughing the passer non hit in Brady was brutal, but no less brutal than the non pick call that helped Chiefs get to the 2 yard line, but we don't want to talk about that because that went the Chiefs way, just saying.....refereeing was pretty bad to both sides and not reason for Cheifs losing, that's on Dee Ford!

[Randallflagg]

With all of the controversies over the weekend, one lost in the wash was the overturn of Julian Edelman‘s muffed punt. No one is talking about it primarily because the Chiefs got the ball back two snaps later anyway with an interception.

“Ball don’t lie,” CBS analyst Tony Romo joked on the broadcast after Daniel Sorensen‘s interception.

But Cowboys owner Jerry Jones brought up the play when asked about the officiating in Sunday’s games. Jones still doesn’t understand what the NFL’s supervisor of officials, Al Riveron, saw on replay to overturn the fourth-quarter fumble, which the Chiefs recovered at the New England 28.

In other words, even replay sometimes leaves a question.

“The call on the punt, whether he touched it, you can never get it right, because it was called on the field as a touch and then later, you couldn’t see an angle that he definitely touched it,” Jones said, via Drew Davison of the Fort Worth Star-Telegram. “But the rule says you’re supposed to go with the call on the field if you can’t see an angle that he didn’t touch it. I don’t know if you can get everything [right].”

The Cowboys have lost postseason games where questionable calls played a role. In the 2014 playoffs, Dez Bryant‘s fourth-down reception in the fourth quarter was overturned on replay based on the catch rule at the time. And the Cowboys didn’t get an obvious pass interference call on 49ers cornerback Deion Sanders in coverage against Michael Irvin late in the fourth quarter of the 1994 NFC Championship Game.

“At the end of the day, it’s the official’s call and you live with that,” Jones said. “You depend on the integrity of the official, not necessarily his ability to make every call right or wrong. You assume that, and rightfully so, that there are no biases, and he’s just trying to make the right call. That’s part of sport.”

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2019/01/23/jerry-jones-wonders-why-julian-edelmans-muffed-punt-was-overturned/



These old assed eyes couldn't see a shred of evidence that would overrule the call on the field. At least to me, there was little to indicate that the ball "did" or "didn't" get touched - at least to me.

Obviously, at this point, it doesn't matter - but I agree with Jerry Jones - and thousands of others as well.

[Sorry]

I dont think so. One angle it looks like hit touched his thumb, even the announcers thought it did. On the other angles it looks like it didnt. Which angle to you go by? Also did it hit his arm? Sure looks like it might have. A lot of uncertainty which means call should stand

Bro, yes one angle makes it appear it does but the very next angle shows it does not. Each angel shows that it either doesn’t touch the thumb or his bicep and it’s lretty clear when you take it all into consideration. It’s simply a logic equation at that point if you will. Each angle eliminated one scenario f him touching the ball. The odds of that happening again must be astronomical because any other time the ball would have graced him.

[Angry fan]

Still would have saved us time, even if we had 30 more seconds at the end there, we might have had enough time to score a TD to win it.

Plus with them overruling that muffed punt, how can anyone trust them with the Hogan replay.

No it wouldn't have made a difference. Listen to this podcast, skip to 25:55
http://podbay.fm/show/1109282822/e/1548197497?autostart=1

Warning: It features a Belichick Homer, Michael Lombardi. But he's right about this in my opinion.

Basically the Patriots would have ran the clock out even more on their final drive to leave little time left for Mahomes as opposed to Andy Reid who's not caring about the clock at all.

[007]

I just want them to bring back the time limit for instant replay. Spending 5 minutes on it is ridiculously stupid.

[AssEaterChief]

Too many subjective rules are ruining this sport, amongst other things.

Back in the day the only two subjective calls were "What is a hold? and what is defensive pass interference?"

Now we don't know what a catch is, we don't know what a fumble is.

What is roughing the passer? What is unnecessary roughness? What is forward progress?

The list goes on.

[HemiEd]

There was a lot more evidence to overturn the Hogan reception than the punt muff... However, they let the Hogan play stand. It was a horrible call that was nullified by the pick, but still a horrible, unexplainable reversal.

There are some of us that feel like we have a fairly clear explanation and it came about later.

[GloucesterChief]

Jerry is not a fan of Goodell, this is probably him needling the commish.

[RufusRJones]

This is why nothing will ever be perfect when it comes to getting calls right. I've seen the Edelman play and slow motion replays now several times and every time I see it it is completely obvious to me (and obviously to the replay officials) he never touched it. There isn't one single replay that proves it but each replay eliminates a possibility. Problem is, like we are seeing in this thread, some people just can't figure it out even when it's pretty obvious. The bigger problem is that sometimes those people who can't figure it out are the replay officials themselves. Hogan had two catches replayed, one called a catch and one reversed, both were literally the exact same catch. If 1st one was a catch then the second one should have been, who can figure it out???? Roughing the passer non hit in Brady was brutal, but no less brutal than the non pick call that helped Chiefs get to the 2 yard line, but we don't want to talk about that because that went the Chiefs way, just saying.....refereeing was pretty bad to both sides and not reason for Cheifs losing, that's on Dee Ford!


Edelman was in the wrong place, doing the wrong thing at the wrong time. Not too different that Dee Ford. It was stupid play on his part - he was very lucky to get bailed out. Should have never been in that position. Being that close and trying to make a play like that is the definition of being undisciplined.

You have a little cognitive dissonance - you're trying to make this situation fit your minds narrative on how the game was won fairly. Don't worry, we all do it.

The replays were far from obvious. It really doesn't matter - the game is over and the outcome is decided. Why do you care?

[Angry fan]

I wonder if the refs have access to the NFL Films camera?

If you skip to 5:00, the following look shows it never touches Edelman's arm which is what you couldn't see in the broadcast. The broadcast did show it never touched his fingers.

https://youtu.be/bOERfQq_GLA

Edit: And if you watch inside the NFL on showtime. There's an even better view(endzone camera) showing the ball doesn't even touch Edelman's arm if you can run it frame by frame. Question still is, do the refs have access to these NFL Films camera's?

[Titty Meat]

I could see Jerry being high to the gills on coke he just did on a blonde escorts ass pondering this