Jets get screwed on TD call. Overturned to a touchback.
 

League trying to set up that Chiefs-Pats matchup in the postseason, amirite BlackBob?

Ruled a TD on play

https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chor...seferian.0.gif

"Indisputable evidence" that it was a touchback.

https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chor...sscrewed.0.gif

That was disgusting.

Give the Pats all the help they can, they absolutely need it this year. Trash team.

Every couple of years or so you get another team that rises up as a half-ass challenger in that JV league they call the AFCE and that just isn't acceptable. Gotta stamp that shit out so Tom Terrific has a nice, easy path.

Looks like he lost possession as he crossed the plane, and then re-gained possession?

How much did that call impact the betting lines

It was bobbled, but he had it under control before hitting the pylon

I posted this in the other games thread:

So is the NFL going to redefine what is or is not a catch? For the 11,000th time?

I know one thing-- however they have the rule drawn up, there is inconsistency in administering it in games. "Control through the process of the catch" is the biggest sticky wicket. They should just ****ing get rid of that term. Go back to "football move" language if you have to. As undefined as that language is, at least it's interpretable. "Control through the process" is not, as has been shown multiple times per season since that language was put in to define a catch.

Just funny how Patriots fans earnestly believe that the league is biased against them. I wonder what it's like to be that delusional. I'd say they need a few decades without a playoff appearance to set them straight, but 99.99999% of their "fans" would simply move to the next bandwagon at that point.

Was the right call, wr fumbled the ball, and he did not regain possession until he was already out of bounds... ball went out of the end zone.

If it's the right call, the rule needs to be changed.

What rule? Where the ball is fumbled into the end zone?

I don't understand how it was a touchback. Whether he temporarily lost control or not, he regained control. How is it a touchback? He didn't fumble.

Remind me when Ware scored and lost the ball and it was a TD.

So it's a crap rule. If an offensive player fumbles INTO or THROUGH the end zone, then the ball is awarded to the DEFENSE (even though they didn't recover it) and it's a touchback at the 20. I think the call here was correct, but agree it's a crap rule. If the defense doesn't recover it in the end zone, then I think the offense shoudl get the ball at the one.


To avoid all doubt -- the ruling here is that the player lost control of the ball before he entered the end zone (which he clearly did) and did not regain control of the ball until AFTER the ball had crossed the plane, and therefore ball goes to the defense on a touchback.

Again, it helped the Pats today, but it's a crap rule.

Of course you do. ROFL

:shrug: He obviously lost control of the ball before he got into the end zone.

http://image.masslive.com/home/mass-...e9fbf3dd11.jpg


https://img.washingtonpost.com/wp-ap...0940.jpg&w=480

lol, care to screen shot the end of the play when he had possession and touched the pylon?

The call itself makes no ****ing sense at all. If that happens mid field it's not a fumble. The ball never hit the ground. ****ing stupid

looked to me like he regained control before he hit the ground

The play is over when he touches the pylon. I don't think he had control at that point.


I think they got the call correct.

I've disliked the rule about a fumble through the end zone being a touchback.

Here's how the decision flowchart should flow:

+) Does the offensive player have clear possession of the ball at the point in which the ball breaks the plane of the goal line?

If he had clear possession: touchdown. If not, review to see if there was a definitive moment where the offensive player neither had clear possession nor broke the plane.

+) Does the offensive player receive the ball via a pass thrown through the plane of the end zone and does he clearly have control of the ball through the point he has established himself in the end zone with the touch of both feet to the ground?

If yes: touchdown; if no: review to see if the ball was clearly not under the receiver' control at the point when both of his feet make contact with the ground of the end zone.

It really depends on when you bet because the line was Pats -9.5 and closed at 9 and the Over/Under opened at 47 and closed at 48.5

Basically if you had the spread and the O/U at 47 you were happy as hell to see that call made in "hopes" that the pats would go and score.As it worked out that didn't happen but it at least made for entertaining tv.

I think the bigger issue here is does this get called for anybody else but the Cheatriots?

When was the last time another team was a beneficiary of the tuck rule?

:shake:

Correct, there is zero evidence of anything else to overturn it.

I hate that rule too hard to think of alternative.

They did away the tuck rule a few years ago

I hope the Patriots beat the Chiefs in the AFCCG on a play just like this, so I can watch the reactions here.

Guys, it was the correct call. By the time he has possession again, the player was out of bounds. Had he had control prior to going out of bounds it would have been ruled a td.

You can’t fumble the ball forward. If you do, you get the ball back where you fumble, that is the case anywhere on the field except the end zone.

This call happens from time to time inside the end zone. Its a turnover. I don’t mind the rule... and if you gave me a choice between changing this or what’s considered a catch in the end zone (megatron’s catch or even Harris’ catch last night) i would want them to change that first

When he hits the pylon he has control of the ball as far as I can tell unless someone has a better angle? If it was ruled a touchdown on the field that should not have been overruled if that is all they had to see.

The problem here is that there is no 100% clear evidence that he didn't regain control before going out of bounds.

There is not 100% evidence of that part.

Holy shit, there is no way they found indisputable evidence to overturn.

And that is the key : Indisputable

They drove that term into our brains over and over when replay began, and now they don't even follow their own rules.

The Tom Brady effect.

May Mahomes one day get the same hot lovin'....

Did you see all the evidence? Did the replay official upstairs share with you all the angles he had?

The obvious:
1. It was a catch.
2. It was a fumble before he broke the line.

The disputed based on nfl replays:

To me, it looks like the receiver regains possession of the ball with their right arm after he hits the ground, which is too late. He does not regain possession in the air..

I don’t know how you can call this a disgusting call ? Or even terrible call? It was 50/50 based on what we could see. I don’t know what the video people were working with

That right there is why they should not have called what they called.

Yeah Carlos, you just killed your own argument.

That’s ok, I was after the truth and found it - it was the corrrct call regardless. My argument was flawed. I can own up to that.

This. Exactly this.

ROFL Just stop.

The fact that the runner has to “survive the ground” to regain possessions after losing it makes this irrefutable evidence -

It’s no longer 50/50 based on what I thought.

He has to have 2 feet in bounds or a knee or something to establish possession after he regains the ball... he hits the pylon first and is already considered out of bounds.

And for everyone that thinks it’s on the defense to have to control a ball in the end zone, what happens during a safety when the offense fumbles and it goes out of bounds? Defense gets 2 points and the ball back. Defense getting the ball after a fumble on the other side seems fair to me. Offense has to have responsibility here. Had he crossed the line without fumbling - it was a td.

This.

It just goes to show how inept the officiating system the NFL has. They get a ****ing do-over. They get a mulligan. And they still **** it up.

Come on man, simplify the rules. Train these ****nuts.

Unfortunately for the Jets, its the correct call. That rule though, should be changed to be ball to the offense at the spot of the fumble regardless of spot on field, but it never will be.

You know who I think actually got screwed? Harris.

http://www.kansascity.com/sports/spt...179037141.html

This is control by the offensive player with 2 feet down in the endzone. That's a TD. There is no "going to the ground," so that's not even a factor here.

Even Steelers fans saying it should have been a Chiefs TD if you read the Twitter comments.

EDIT: Even if Harris "didn't" catch that ball, which he did, how is that not pass interference on 28? The Chiefs got ****ed in a lot of ways by the officiating in this game aside from their own complete horseshit play.

What a bullshit call. He got control back on the goal line. Pats getting another break becauee the nfl needs Brady one more season.

:clap:

****ing screwjob of a call.

My issue with the call is that it's completely counter to the spirit of the game even if it's technically the right call (which I still am not convinced of). He never "lost control of the ball" - it was always in his possession even if his arms weren't technically wrapped solidly around it the whole time.

It's yet another example of how instant replay has done more harm to the game than good. Nothing makes sense anymore.

Does it ever bother you just a tiny bit how often these kinds of things always end up going the Pats way? Or does it just seem normal after all of these years?

It's pretty bad when you can't even get that call at home. You know, all the NFL owes you is an "entertainment experience." Nothing in the ticket fine print says the contest won't be rigged.

This. Exactly this.

100% certain that's what is printed on the back of every pro wrestling ticket...just sayin'.....

This is sort of like asking Johnny if he minds sweeping the leg.

This same thing happened to the Chiefs last year.

http://www.espn.com/blog/nflnation/p...r-of-jets-game

Suddenly I don't feel as bad for the Jets.

It was absolutely a TD. Pats are a ****ing joke.

It bothers me quite a bit. And yes, it does seem normal that it always goes the Pats way. Same thing happened with P. Manning's teams.

I don't care about either team, but that is clearly a touchdown.

The Patriots were involved, you expected something different?

This is exactly the type of call instant replay is supposed to ensure never happens.

Go **** yourself, Steelers fan.

I'm not here to get into a pissing match with anyone, just here to talk football.

Well that sucks.

That was a good game yesterday and fortunately for me, the Steelers won. The way the Chiefs played in the fourth quarter, I figured for sure Pitt was going to blow it. Hopefully these teams will have a rematch in the playoffs, although I don't think my heart could take any more of that kind of excitement. Like they say, any given Sunday. It's only a game, no point in getting bent out of shape over it.

Without replay, you don't have the fine arguments about what is/isn't a catch/TD. When a ref makes a call that you think is incorrect when you get to see the slow motion replay, you don't know if the ref just didn't see it right or if the ref did see it right but has a different interpolation of the rules.

So replay means that the replay officials have to draw very fine lines between all these different scenarios and fans can now argue over them. They have to both make fine distinction between what is and isn't a catch. Additionally, they have to draw fine lines between what is sufficient evidence to overturn a call on the field.

If you are going to have replay, you are going to have these problems regardless of where the line is drawn. I think replay has improved the game. It's not perfect, but perfection is unobtainable.

The other option is to get rid of replay.

My $0.02 worth.

I think they got the call correct, but it is really close. I think that replay officials in general are too conservative in overturning calls. But the more important issue, is to be consistent. Given the deference that is usually given to the call on the field, I can see why fans thought it should be allowed to stand.

And I would change the rule so that the offense got the ball back at the location of the fumble instead of it being a touchback.

That's Pest's way of saying "Hi. How are you today? I'm Fine. Are you fine too?"

You mean like when the Patriots lost a touchdown because a ref blew an "inadvertent whistle"?

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/cw2MQHfBV9o" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>


How about when the refs wouldn't let Brady hike the ball for some inexplicable reason?


<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/CSfJPUbl__k" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>



How about, on the final play of the game, when Kuechly -- back to the ball -- just drove Gronk backwards out of the end zone? A play where Kuechly recently "I probably got away with one there"

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/51UhTM2Wiyw" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>



How about when the Patriots were called for pushing from behind during a field goal (IIRC the first time that penalty was ever called) to help the Jets win a game in OT, when the Jets had done the EXACT same thing at the end of regulation earlier in that very same game?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b7xO4A1OFDM&t=234

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gh94vgwbPEo


Or when the Patriots won the toss for OT but somehow the ref decided the Patriots wnated to kick?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2qo4vRNj774


But hey, enjoy your confirmation bias!!

That works.

That game had all the excitement of a subtitled holocaust documentary.

I find myself opening more and more threads to see what KCUnited has posted.


He does not disappoint.