Blandino and Pereria weigh in

[Warfish]

36 minutes ago, LionelRichie said:

 

While the ASJ "review" was egregious, the call that really changed the momentum of the game was the retracted personal foul penalty when Anderson was hit in the head.   The refs threw the flag, Anderson was clearly hit in the head, and the refs then picked up the flag.   Rather than a punt that would have put the Jets in scoring position up 14-0.   Kind of big deal that no one is really talking about b/c the ASJ play.    

+1

That call stands (and it should have, it was a penalty) the Jets go in and score again (making it 21-0) IMO.  

And folks, it's a whole different game if that's the case.

Brady gets all time winningest record vs. us, but he shouldn't be proud today.  He didn't earn sh*t today.

[JohnnyLV]

11 minutes ago, Warfish said:

+1

That call stands (and it should have, it was a penalty) the Jets go in and score again (making it 21-0) IMO.  

And folks, it's a whole different game if that's the case.

Brady gets all time winningest record vs. us, but he shouldn't be proud today.  He didn't earn sh*t today.

While that is true, the harsh reality is that a lot of this loss is on McClown choking. The one thing he cannot do with 30 seconds left is throw an interception, especially knowing that NE gets the ball at start of second half. Plus he NEVER looked to the middle of the field which was likely open and we had a timeout. Even a run in that situation probably gets us close to FG position. You just dont throw a contested out in that situation unless it is backshoulder throw with the CB trailing. Then he burns two TOs when there was not really any time pressure.

I think McClown sucks. He makes bad decisions, he is a choker, his game management is poor, he throws a LOT of poor short passes and he is consistently short on any deep ball. But this game actual gave me a bit of appreciation for Morton. He is doing a good job of maximizing the little McClown has. Now he would do that with Petty, too. Even with that said, we need to be perfect to score because we will face 3 or 4 medium to long 3rd downs in every drive. McClown is not dynamic on any level.

 

[stoicsentry]

Can anyone explain why, on these types of plays, the play isn't just ruled dead at the point where the carrier lost the ball? I mean, it doesn't become a turnover if you lose control of the ball while running out of bounds at the 40 but then regain it afterwards.

Even still, forgetting about this game and just looking at the play without bias... it's really counter-inuitive to me that a play like this should result in the offense losing possession. It just doesn't make sense to give the ball to the defense when the defense never recovered it in any way and didn't stop a 4th down conversion.

[stoicsentry]

2 hours ago, LionelRichie said:

 

While the ASJ "review" was egregious, the call that really changed the momentum of the game was the retracted personal foul penalty when Anderson was hit in the head.   The refs threw the flag, Anderson was clearly hit in the head, and the refs then picked up the flag.   Rather than a punt that would have put the Jets in scoring position up 14-0.   Kind of big deal that no one is really talking about b/c the ASJ play.    

I might have missed it because I was screaming - did we hear any explanation as to why that flag would have been picked up?

[JPPT1974]

Sure football may be fixed but then again have watched the sport for thirty one years and counting!

[LionelRichie]

7 minutes ago, stoicsentry said:

I might have missed it because I was screaming - did we hear any explanation as to why that flag would have been picked up?

they said that anderson wasn't hit in the head.   the odd part is that one official clearly saw it and threw the flag and was overruled by someone else further away from the play.   Replay showed that anderson was clearly hit in the facemask - no idea why they would retract a flag like that.  

[sciond]

The refs must have had a date with Brady after the game. Odds are he put out...

The Jets got royally f****d by the officiating

[j4jets]

4 hours ago, RevisIsland610 said:

I would really like to know the name of the idiot or idiots who overturned the TD. 

He's called the National Football League. 

[NoBowles]

5 hours ago, Maxman said:

I have mentioned it twice. You emailed me 50 times last time you were banned.

Looks like you are the harp player here.

You guys banned me 219 times l. I am the Harpee 

[whodeawhodat]

9 hours ago, johnnysd said:

While that is true, the harsh reality is that a lot of this loss is on McClown choking. The one thing he cannot do with 30 seconds left is throw an interception, especially knowing that NE gets the ball at start of second half. Plus he NEVER looked to the middle of the field which was likely open and we had a timeout. Even a run in that situation probably gets us close to FG position. You just dont throw a contested out in that situation unless it is backshoulder throw with the CB trailing. Then he burns two TOs when there was not really any time pressure.

I think McClown sucks. He makes bad decisions, he is a choker, his game management is poor, he throws a LOT of poor short passes and he is consistently short on any deep ball. But this game actual gave me a bit of appreciation for Morton. He is doing a good job of maximizing the little McClown has. Now he would do that with Petty, too. Even with that said, we need to be perfect to score because we will face 3 or 4 medium to long 3rd downs in every drive. McClown is not dynamic on any level.

 

If this was the 4th down play then i disagree.  A 6 yard int is better than an incompletion since it moves the ball 6 yards down the field.  better to throw it up for grabs in hopes of a completion or PI penalty than to throw it away removing the chance of either.

[jamesr]

38 minutes ago, whodeawhodat said:

If this was the 4th down play then i disagree.  A 6 yard int is better than an incompletion since it moves the ball 6 yards down the field.  better to throw it up for grabs in hopes of a completion or PI penalty than to throw it away removing the chance of either.

I think this was the out to Anderson that got picked off, before NE drove and tied it up. not a great throw, but the DB made a good play.

[joewilly12]

Butt Fumble, meet the What Fumble: Jets find a stunning new way to lose vs. Patriots

[Sperm Edwards]

13 hours ago, Maxman said:

#TuckRulePartDeux

NFL inventing new ways for the Patriots to win. Sad.

The big controversy with the Tuck Rule was that it had never been called in a game before, more than 99.999% of diehard NFL fans had never heard of the rule before, and for the refs to pull it out in that situation was insanity.

It's hard to swallow - especially vs the Pats - but this was nothing like that situation. We benefitted from this identical ruling just last year vs the Chiefs. Ware fumbled when trying to stretch over the goal line, they ruled he lost possession before that, and the ball bounced out of bounds when in the EZ. And just like yesterday, that was also called a TD on the field, that was reversed on replay. 

That said, how about Sefarian-Jenkins should just hold onto the ****ing football?

9 hours ago, stoicsentry said:

Can anyone explain why, on these types of plays, the play isn't just ruled dead at the point where the carrier lost the ball? I mean, it doesn't become a turnover if you lose control of the ball while running out of bounds at the 40 but then regain it afterwards.

Even still, forgetting about this game and just looking at the play without bias... it's really counter-inuitive to me that a play like this should result in the offense losing possession. It just doesn't make sense to give the ball to the defense when the defense never recovered it in any way and didn't stop a 4th down conversion.

It's a stupid rule that should have been thrown out the second it was first proposed. It was idiotic when called in the past, and it was idiotic yesterday.

The rule should be quite simple:

If it's fumbled on or inside the 1, place the ball on the 1. If fumbled behind that, then it should be the spot of the fumble.

(Only reason for the latter part is to prevent a player from trying to advance a fumble on purpose in a desperation scenario; and if it is clear & obvious it was a purposeful fumble attempt, then call a penalty that takes it back 15 yds from the spot of the fumble, plus a loss of down like with intentional grounding).

[NoBowles]

4 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

It's hard to swallow - especially vs the Pats - but this was nothing like that situation. We benefitted from this identical ruling just last year vs the Chiefs. Ware fumbled when trying to stretch over the goal line, they ruled he lost possession before that, and the ball bounced out of bounds when in the EZ. And just like yesterday, that was also called a TD on the field, that was reversed on replay. 

I honestly don't even see how this is remotely comparable to that play.... ASJ clearly regained and had possession when he hit the pile on, where as Ware did not have possession and the ball bounced out of bounds. The ball moved in ASJ's arm, but he never lost possession of it, and had full possession in every video angle shown. There wasn't one image or video that shows the ball not clearly being held as he hit the pile on, and the ground and rolled over. 

[drsamuel84]

I think the NFL really needs to reevaluate replay and not just because of this game.  Yes, I'm in complete agreement that call was b.s. but at the same time, look around the league the refs are getting worse because of replay.  It's become a crutch for the refs, I mean they know in the back of their mind they can make the call knowing it'll probably be up for replay especially scoring plays. I don't know, maybe the league already does this but I think they need to start penalizing refs if they have too many overturned calls in a season.  Hold them accountable, don't let replay just make the decision for them.

[Sperm Edwards]

20 minutes ago, NoBowles said:

I honestly don't even see how this is remotely comparable to that play.... ASJ clearly regained and had possession when he hit the pile on, where as Ware did not have possession and the ball bounced out of bounds. The ball moved in ASJ's arm, but he never lost possession of it, and had full possession in every video angle shown. There wasn't one image or video that shows the ball not clearly being held as he hit the pile on, and the ground and rolled over. 

Lolwut?

From Butler's angle/position, there's the same point in time where the ball popped out above, from another angle where you can see the goal line:

The ball's a good half-yard from the goal line.

Hey, **** the Pats, but again, how about this: Sefarian-Jenkins needs to hold onto the ****ing football.

 

Here's a shot of Ware clearly not having possession as the ball crossed the goal-line. You tell me which of the two was the closer call.

The ruling was that Sefarian-Jenkins didn't regain full possession again until he was out of bounds in the EZ. That's a much closer call, but he clearly fumbled before crossing the plane.

 

It's a tough call - and no matter what the call, I think the existing rule where there's a change of possession, in any other than NE recovering in bounds, is moronic. 

[NoBowles]

11 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

Lolwut?

From Butler's angle/position, there's the same point in time where the ball popped out above, from another angle where you can see the goal line:

The ball's a good half-yard from the goal line.

Hey, **** the Pats, but again, how about this: Sefarian-Jenkins needs to hold onto the ****ing football.

 

Here's a shot of Ware clearly not having possession as the ball crossed the goal-line. You tell me which of the two was the closer call.

The ruling was that Sefarian-Jenkins didn't regain full possession again until he was out of bounds in the EZ. That's a much closer call, but he clearly fumbled before crossing the plane.

 

It's a tough call - and no matter what the call, I think the existing rule where there's a change of possession, in any other than NE recovering in bounds, is moronic. 

Your cherry picking pictures that suit your case. Your on an island on this one, you and Shane. Even Blandino and Pereira who are far more knowledgeable on this stuff than any of us disagree with you.

[Sperm Edwards]

Just now, NoBowles said:

Your cherry picking pictures that suit your case. Your on an island on this one, you and Shane. Even Blandino and Pereira who are far more knowledgeable on this stuff than any of us disagree with you.

A still shot of the moment where the ball's clearly out is cherry picking? Lol, okay.
 

[Jimmy 2 Times]

12 hours ago, LionelRichie said:

 

While the ASJ "review" was egregious, the call that really changed the momentum of the game was the retracted personal foul penalty when Anderson was hit in the head.   The refs threw the flag, Anderson was clearly hit in the head, and the refs then picked up the flag.   Rather than a punt that would have put the Jets in scoring position up 14-0.   Kind of big deal that no one is really talking about b/c the ASJ play.    

That's right.  It puts us up three scores.  Instead they gift them with a phantom 30 yard pi that puts them on the one with all the momentum.

[NoBowles]

1 minute ago, Sperm Edwards said:

A still shot of the moment where the ball's clearly out is cherry picking? Lol, okay.
 

Ummm, yeah, it is. Look at the follow up frames where he regains possession before he hits the pile on, and then rolls over on the ground with clear possession. Lol.

[jetrider]

2 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

A still shot of the moment where the ball's clearly out is cherry picking? Lol, okay.
 

Lol ... yes, because he regained control before crossing the goal as other views confirm 

[Rangers9]

When you say the ball was "out." It never hit the ground. It was in his hands bouncing around because I think the NEP Db made a good play and jostled it. So how is that a fumble? 

[Sperm Edwards]

4 minutes ago, NoBowles said:

Ummm, yeah, it is. Look at the follow up frames where he regains possession before he hits the pile on, and then rolls over on the ground with clear possession. Lol.

Lol yourself. You said he never lost possession, and that it wasn't shown on any angle anywhere, which is patently ridiculous.

I said already that the whole thing is whether or not ASJ regained possession before he was out of bounds.

[Sperm Edwards]

6 minutes ago, jetrider said:

Lol ... yes, because he regained control before crossing the goal as other views confirm 

That part is close. The idea that he never lost possession is ridiculous.

Know what should have happened? He should have held onto the ****ing football.

[Jimmy 2 Times]

It's obvious he lost possession, but kind of cloudy as to if he regained in time.  IMO it looks like he regained.  Fact is, it has to be undisputed proof to reverse a call.  Call on the field should have stood.

[NoBowles]

1 hour ago, NoBowles said:

The ball moved in ASJ's arm, but he never lost possession of it

 

15 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

Lol yourself. You said he never lost possession, and that it wasn't shown on any angle anywhere, which is patently ridiculous.

I said already that the whole thing is whether or not ASJ regained possession before he was out of bounds.

lol

[FloridaJetsFan]

How is there no offensive PI call on Gronk for pushing Adams and then covering his face/grabbing him in a headlock while he’s tracking the ball?

The first thing I thought when I saw the flag was “Good - Gronkowski was mugging Adams!” Of course, then reality sunk in when the ref called PI on the guy who got fouled - Patriots justice.


Sent from my iPhone using JetNation.com mobile app

[jetrider]

Just now, Sperm Edwards said:

That part is close. The idea that he never lost possession is ridiculous.

Nobody disagrees that the ball was momentarily free

[Sperm Edwards]

18 minutes ago, Jimmy 2 Times said:

It's obvious he lost possession, but kind of cloudy as to if he regained in time.  IMO it looks like he regained.  Fact is, it has to be undisputed proof to reverse a call.  Call on the field should have stood.

I'm not saying no, since I don't think it's perfectly clear he did or didn't regain control on replay, but I can see how the call went that way without a bunch of conspiracy ideas floated around.

It's hard (if not impossible) to fully lose control at the half yard line, with the ball touching no part of either hand, and then in the span of a tenth of a second or less, fully re-establish possession and full control in the air, before crossing those first turf fibers.

Looked like he regained possession as he hit the ground (the ground squeezed the ball into a hand-ball-chest sandwich). But then, the ground itself is out of bounds. It's very close.

 

There's no question at all it's a TD if he doesn't lose possession of it in the first place. And it's still a stupid rule, whether he regained possession or not.

[Scott Dierking]

8 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

I'm not saying no, since I don't think it's perfectly clear he did or didn't regain control on replay, but I can see how the call went that way without a bunch of conspiracy ideas floated around.

It's hard (if not impossible) to fully lose control at the half yard line, with the ball touching no part of either hand, and then in the span of a tenth of a second or less, fully re-establish possession and full control in the air, before crossing those first turf fibers.

Looked like he regained possession as he hit the ground (the ground squeezed the ball into a hand-ball-chest sandwich). But then, the ground itself is out of bounds. It's very close.

 

There's no question at all it's a TD if he doesn't lose possession of it in the first place. And it's still a stupid rule, whether he regained possession or not.

Isn't the whole idea of replay to visually see the supposed action, in order to make judgement on that action, otherwise it is inconclusive?

I understand the rule, but just feel they were over-officious in this case.

[Sperm Edwards]

8 minutes ago, Scott Dierking said:

Isn't the whole idea of replay to visually see the supposed action, in order to make judgement on that action, otherwise it is inconclusive?

I understand the rule, but just feel they were over-officious in this case.

I get that, and don't disagree. I said a few times it's a close and tough call.

But also I kind of know the real likelihood that he regained possession and re-established control in the span of time/distance he had from the point where the ball's in the air. They always make such a big deal about establishing control and such; I don't see how he could have had control in that amount of time/distance, from where the ball came out onward. For a ref, I can see how that's seen as conclusive.

It looks like the ground, which out of bounds, causes the re-establishment of possession.

But I don't dispute that there isn't a shot of him clearly without possession as he's crossed the line. I can see it both ways.

He should have just held onto it.

[munchmemory]

1 minute ago, Sperm Edwards said:

I get that, and don't disagree. I said a few times it's a close and tough call.

But also I kind of know he super-likely didn't regain possession and re-establish control in the span of time/distance he had from the point where the ball's in the air. They always make such a big deal about establishing control and such; I don't see how he could have had control in that amount of time/distance. For a ref, I can see how that's seen as conclusive.

It looks like the ground, which out of bounds, causes the re-establishment of possession.

But I don't dispute that there isn't a shot of him clearly without possession as he's crossed the line. I can see it both ways.

He should have just held onto it.

Bottom line right here.   

[Matt39]

Funny thing is, the Patriots actually benefited from a similar type call not being overturned a few weeks ago. Cooks never caught this but its ruled a TD. The Pats are going to get calls in close games.

 

 

[NoBowles]

1 minute ago, Matt39 said:

Funny thing is, the Patriots actually benefited from a similar type call not being overturned a few weeks ago. Cooks never caught this but its ruled a TD. The Pats are going to get calls in close games.

 

 

LOL, I had never seen that one. What a joke the NFL has become.

[Gaffneycatch]

13 hours ago, LionelRichie said:

 

While the ASJ "review" was egregious, the call that really changed the momentum of the game was the retracted personal foul penalty when Anderson was hit in the head.   The refs threw the flag, Anderson was clearly hit in the head, and the refs then picked up the flag.   Rather than a punt that would have put the Jets in scoring position up 14-0.   Kind of big deal that no one is really talking about b/c the ASJ play.    

Yep. That was huge, and no one is talking about it. Both were huge, actually. As was the PI on Adams.