Twitter Reacts to Bizarre Call That Costs Jets a Touchdown vs. Patriots

[oc_jet]

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2738818?iid=ob_article_footer_expansion

 

[shevys]

http://blog.masslive.com/patriots/2017/10/angry_jets_fans_convinced_nfl.html

[Patriot Killa]

Post out the article next time please

[rangerous]

doesn't make any difference at this point.  wake me if the league decides to award the td and call the game a tie. and even there they won't because the extra point wasn't kicked.

[sciond]

So the refs are enforcing our tank?

[Jetsfan80]

It was the correct call.  I don't get the outrage.  He had possession.  He lost possession before he crossed the goalline.  That's a fumble into the end zone.  Touchback.  

[jamesr]

19 minutes ago, Jetsfan80 said:

It was the correct call.  I don't get the outrage.  He had possession.  He lost possession before he crossed the goalline.  That's a fumble into the end zone.  Touchback.  

Can it be proven that he did not have possession again BEFORE he crossed the line? In my opinion it was not, the call was made on extrapolation not evidence.

Overturning the cal must be beyond reasonable doubt.

[shawn306]

17 minutes ago, Jetsfan80 said:

It was the correct call.  I don't get the outrage.  He had possession.  He lost possession before he crossed the goalline.  That's a fumble into the end zone.  Touchback.  

The problem was/is is that the call on the field was TD. There was no proof that the ball was fumbled through the end zone. He juggled it prior to going across the goaline but his back obscures the view if he was still juggling it across the goalline. 

That is the biggest issue. The proof has to be indisputable and to pretty much everyone Replay did not show that it was indisputable.

[Jetsfan80]

I get that overturning the call on the field is supposed to be clear cut.  But that's not what I'm saying here.  Twitter was going nuts today because people thought it was a completely fabricated call with zero basis in reality.  I'd say there's about 75 % evidence that they were right.  You should really need like 90-95 % to overturn a call.  But the call itself, every time you look at it, really was correct based on the rules on the books. 

Going completely nuts over the call, especially at the time of the game at which it came and what it did to the chances of winning, is justified.  But not for the reasons people were doing so.  

Hell, even Bowles and ASJ know it was a fumble.  

[RevisIsland610]

7 hours ago, Jetsfan80 said:

I get that overturning the call on the field is supposed to be clear cut.  But that's not what I'm saying here.  Twitter was going nuts today because people thought it was a completely fabricated call with zero basis in reality.  I'd say there's about 75 % evidence that they were right.  You should really need like 90-95 % to overturn a call.  But the call itself, every time you look at it, really was correct based on the rules on the books. 

Going completely nuts over the call, especially at the time of the game at which it came and what it did to the chances of winning, is justified.  But not for the reasons people were doing so.  

Hell, even Bowles and ASJ know it was a fumble.  

He lost possession for a split second and then had it secured before crossing the goal line. That was not a fumble because it never hit the ground. In order to overturn a called TD on the field the evidence has to be indisputable as in 100%, not 75% or 90%. Truly awful call. Even Brady and Bellicheat are snickering now knowing the jets got screwed. 

[JohnnyLV]

8 hours ago, Jetsfan80 said:

I get that overturning the call on the field is supposed to be clear cut.  But that's not what I'm saying here.  Twitter was going nuts today because people thought it was a completely fabricated call with zero basis in reality.  I'd say there's about 75 % evidence that they were right.  You should really need like 90-95 % to overturn a call.  But the call itself, every time you look at it, really was correct based on the rules on the books. 

Going completely nuts over the call, especially at the time of the game at which it came and what it did to the chances of winning, is justified.  But not for the reasons people were doing so.  

Hell, even Bowles and ASJ know it was a fumble.  

There is no element of that call that is correct. None. He CLEARLY regains control, and both Blandino and Perreira think it is a clear touchdown. You can be the outlier if you want but there is like 100% evidence they are wrong. It is possibly the worst call in the history of the NFL, because it was not a bad call on the field, it was an incorrect and totally ludicrous overrule on review.

[bitonti]

13 hours ago, Jetsfan80 said:

It was the correct call.  I don't get the outrage.  He had possession.  He lost possession before he crossed the goalline.  That's a fumble into the end zone.  Touchback.  

this is how Stockholm Syndrome victims sound 

[Charlie Brown]

15 minutes ago, johnnysd said:

There is no element of that call that is correct. None. He CLEARLY regains control, and both Blandino and Perreira think it is a clear touchdown. You can be the outlier if you want but there is like 100% evidence they are wrong. It is possibly the worst call in the history of the NFL, because it was not a bad call on the field, it was an incorrect and totally ludicrous overrule on review.

Thank you the poster that you are responding to is making a totally asinine point. 

The whole point of replay was to overturn totally ridiculous calls based upon clear and irrefutable video evidence.  Now we are told that the video booth folks can extrapolate what they think might have happened to overturn a call ........ AND THAT CRAP HAS NEVER HAPPENED EVER IN AN NFL GAME AND CAN NOT BE JUSTIFIED!!

The replay booth made a call that went against what was evident on the field without proof, it is as simple as that; don't folks see this who continue to defend this nonsense!!

[Adoni Beast]

This botched call was outrageous. In protest, we should call take a knee before the next game.

Too soon?...

[Jetsfan80]

11 hours ago, Charlie Brown said:

Thank you the poster that you are responding to is making a totally asinine point. 

The whole point of replay was to overturn totally ridiculous calls based upon clear and irrefutable video evidence.  Now we are told that the video booth folks can extrapolate what they think might have happened to overturn a call ........ AND THAT CRAP HAS NEVER HAPPENED EVER IN AN NFL GAME AND CAN NOT BE JUSTIFIED!!

The replay booth made a call that went against what was evident on the field without proof, it is as simple as that; don't folks see this who continue to defend this nonsense!!

 

My point was that if the original call on the field were a fumble and it stood, there would be little outrage.  Because it was correct.

The legitimate outrage is over OVERTURNING the call under the circumstances.  The call itself ended up being correct. 

Just because we're miserable Jets fans who root for a miserable franchise doesn't mean the world is always out to get us.  Even Bowles and ASJ know that was the right call. 

If the goal of replay is to get the call right based on the rules, then it worked here.  Just because we stomp our feet about the concept of "indisputable evidence" doesn't mean a temper tantrum is really all that justified. 

[Jetsfan80]

I will say that the rules do need to be changed, however.  There is little consistency about what a touchdown is and is not.  It changes from game to game and referee based on interpretation of the play and the rules on the books.  The goal should be to minimize the "gray area" so that referees don't have to make as many judgment calls.  The rules on the books simply don't make that happen. 

Ask Lions fans about this some time.  They've been screwed time and again on this.  Remember the Calvin Johnson play, where he basically put the ball down after a TD and they called it incomplete because he didn't "finish" the play?  Yeah. 

[Charlie Brown]

15 minutes ago, Jetsfan80 said:

 

My point was that if the original call on the field were a fumble and it stood, there would be little outrage.  Because it was correct.

The legitimate outrage is over OVERTURNING the call under the circumstances.  The call itself ended up being correct. 

Just because we're Jets fans doesn't mean the world is always out to get us.  Even Bowles and ASJ know that was the right call. 

I respect your your thoughtfulness in your response.  

IMO however citing  Bowles and ASJ is really not the issue. Many Jets came out the next day and said it was a nonsense reversal. Bowles isn't a fan, he is the coach of the Jets and as such his focus has to be to prepare for the next game not harp on calls from a previous game when harping on it will change nothing.  He is a big guy and understands this despite some of us wanting to him to act like a clown and get his team unfocused or undisciplined.  

And as for ASJ he is a professional and acted as such he acknowledged his need for superior ball security and I for one commend him for his stand up attitude.    

Now i guess I put stock in the two former heads of officiating who said that the reversal was blown, those two gentlemen could hardly be called or considered Jets fans, nor could the folks in the broadcast booth who said it was the worst call they had ever seen or the dozen of Pats posters who have admitted online that the call was blown. 

Your position falls because the overturning of that call was not is proscribed in the issue of instant replay.  Instant replay is to utilized only if you have clear and overwhelming evidence that a bad call has been made and the replay booth and their subsequent justifications admit that they were speculating rather reviewing and that is wrong and has never been done before. 

That is the issue not whether or not we are Jets fans that is not relevant but justice and what is right is.  

[TuscanyTile2]

On 10/16/2017 at 8:21 AM, Jetsfan80 said:

It was the correct call.  I don't get the outrage.  He had possession.  He lost possession before he crossed the goalline.  That's a fumble into the end zone.  Touchback.  

I did see one replay where he was on his back in the end zone and it looked questionable that he had possession.  At that point he was lying out of bounds so even if he did regain control it would be like he fumbled it out of bounds.  Having said that, I still think it was a stretch to say it was "irrefutable evidence".  Basically whatever the call on the field was (regardless of TD or fumble), I think it should have stood. 

Replay has gone way overboard.  It was instituted (well, re-instituted) because of the Vinny T phantom TD against the Seahwaks (back when they were coached by Dennis Erickson IIRC).  Vinny was tackled a yard short (I think it was 4th down) but was given the TD.  THAT was a worse call than this one.  

[NoBowles]

42 minutes ago, Jetsfan80 said:

 

My point was that if the original call on the field were a fumble and it stood, there would be little outrage.  Because it was correct.

The legitimate outrage is over OVERTURNING the call under the circumstances.  The call itself ended up being correct. 

Just because we're miserable Jets fans who root for a miserable franchise doesn't mean the world is always out to get us.  Even Bowles and ASJ know that was the right call. 

If the goal of replay is to get the call right based on the rules, then it worked here.  Just because we stomp our feet about the concept of "indisputable evidence" doesn't mean a temper tantrum is really all that justified. 

Huh? In what universe is that the correct call? I don’t know what some of you guys are looking at.

[jack48]

On 10/16/2017 at 8:42 AM, shawn306 said:

The problem was/is is that the call on the field was TD. There was no proof that the ball was fumbled through the end zone. He juggled it prior to going across the goaline but his back obscures the view if he was still juggling it across the goalline. 

That is the biggest issue. The proof has to be indisputable and to pretty much everyone Replay did not show that it was indisputable.

Except when NE is involved.  Indisputable becomes questionable.  The NFL, on the whole, is a joke.  The refs are one of its biggest punch lines

[RutgersJetFan]

I think you guys may want to consider accepting it and moving on. The Internet has a short memory. It's Tuesday. Almost nobody cares anymore and nobody is really going to care by Sunday. It's over. Like The Sopranos. Find a new show.

[Sperm Edwards]

1 minute ago, jack48 said:

Except when NE is involved.  Indisputable becomes questionable.  The NFL, on the whole, is a joke.  The refs are one of its biggest punch lines

It just happened again last night. Personally, I thought Doyle had established possession. On replay they thought he didn't, and reversed it. I was able to see it both ways. Sometimes it's that close, with the official(s) 100% sure, but others may think it's not so clear (and therefore not irrefutable). 

I don't know. I see it on both sides: the refs can use judgment, seeing the play in motion, to decide the ground aided in establishing full control (with the ground being out of bounds) and therefore he didn't do enough to re-establish possession. But was that obvious enough to overturn the ruling on the field? Most say no. But then, fan polls aren't exactly unbiased, as most NFL fans despise the Patriots in the first place.

[Scott Dierking]

3 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

It just happened again last night. Personally, I thought Doyle had established possession. On replay they thought he didn't, and reversed it. I was able to see it both ways. Sometimes it's that close, with the official(s) 100% sure, but others may think it's not so clear (and therefore not irrefutable). 

I don't know. I see it on both sides: the refs can use judgment, seeing the play in motion, to decide the ground aided in establishing full control (with the ground being out of bounds) and therefore he didn't do enough to re-establish possession. But was that obvious enough to overturn the ruling on the field? Most say no. But then, fan polls aren't exactly unbiased, as most NFL fans despise the Patriots in the first place.

Instant replay is not supposed to be a "judgement" call. It is supposed to be a call based on certainty displayed by evidence. 

[Sperm Edwards]

2 minutes ago, Scott Dierking said:

Instant replay is not supposed to be a "judgement" call. It is supposed to be a call based on certainty displayed by evidence. 

Judgment is always used to decide possession (when possession is questioned), and it's done all the time. Sunday wasn't the first nor the last time. The reality is with the number of plays in the NFL every year, there are going to be a few where the threshold for certainty is at x-percent plus (or minus) a micron. 

The alternative is a ref going back out there and effectively say, "In our estimation, even though we think replay showed the player did not re-establish full control in bounds, by NFL rules we're unable to reverse the call and must let [what we feel or know to be] an erroneous call stand." 

I think if the rulebook itself (touchback + possession change) wasn't so stupid, even a bad call here would be far less controversial. Barring a turnover on the ensuing play(s) a FG would make it a 7-point deficit with enough time for 2 more Jets possessions, or we'd still have had 2 more shots (if we went for it on 4th down) to punch it in from point-blank range. 

[Scott Dierking]

28 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

Judgment is always used to decide possession (when possession is questioned), and it's done all the time. Sunday wasn't the first nor the last time. The reality is with the number of plays in the NFL every year, there are going to be a few where the threshold for certainty is at x-percent plus (or minus) a micron. 

The alternative is a ref going back out there and effectively say, "In our estimation, even though we think replay showed the player did not re-establish full control in bounds, by NFL rules we're unable to reverse the call and must let [what we feel or know to be] an erroneous call stand." 

I think if the rulebook itself (touchback + possession change) wasn't so stupid, even a bad call here would be far less controversial. Barring a turnover on the ensuing play(s) a FG would make it a 7-point deficit with enough time for 2 more Jets possessions, or we'd still have had 2 more shots (if we went for it on 4th down) to punch it in from point-blank range. 

Nowhere are they to use "estimation". Replay is meant to be conclusive, if they are going to overturn the call on the field. It is what the video shows. Not conjecture on their part. If conjecture has to be imparted, then the play stands.

Is it perfect? Of course not. But somone DID use conjecture here, and it was wrong to. It was not supported.

[Sperm Edwards]

7 minutes ago, Scott Dierking said:

Nowhere are they to use "estimation". Replay is meant to be conclusive, if they are going to overturn the call on the field. It is what the video shows. Not conjecture on their part. If conjecture has to be imparted, then the play stands.

Is it perfect? Of course not. But somone DID use conjecture here, and it was wrong to. It was not supported.

Again, they did the same thing last night in the Colts/Titans game. It's an imperfect system, and they sometimes get it wrong.

[AFJF]

On 10/16/2017 at 1:42 PM, shawn306 said:

The problem was/is is that the call on the field was TD. There was no proof that the ball was fumbled through the end zone. He juggled it prior to going across the goaline but his back obscures the view if he was still juggling it across the goalline. 

That is the biggest issue. The proof has to be indisputable and to pretty much everyone Replay did not show that it was indisputable.

Cannot believe how many people I’ve seen who don’t understand this.

[Jetster]

40 minutes ago, AFJF said:

Cannot believe how many people I’ve seen who don’t understand this.

This is the biggest issue with the REVERSAL, his back is to the viewer when he either 1- gets position or 2- is still bobbling the ball, so because it was called a TD it has to stand because by overturning it conjecture was introduced into the equation. Like Rodney Harrison said "GARBAGE CALL".

[bealeb319]

Bet the touchdown would have held if it were Brady and gronk instead of mccown and asj.

Sent from my LGUS991 using JetNation.com mobile app

[jack48]

4 hours ago, Sperm Edwards said:

It just happened again last night. Personally, I thought Doyle had established possession. On replay they thought he didn't, and reversed it. I was able to see it both ways. Sometimes it's that close, with the official(s) 100% sure, but others may think it's not so clear (and therefore not irrefutable). 

I don't know. I see it on both sides: the refs can use judgment, seeing the play in motion, to decide the ground aided in establishing full control (with the ground being out of bounds) and therefore he didn't do enough to re-establish possession. But was that obvious enough to overturn the ruling on the field? Most say no. But then, fan polls aren't exactly unbiased, as most NFL fans despise the Patriots in the first place.

 I think he closed his right arm over the ball after the little bobble.  Then he hit the ground.  It was in his possession on two occasions. It is a ridiculous rule and it created a idiculpous situation. ut the NFL is ridiculous, so....

[hawk]

On 10/16/2017 at 12:17 PM, Jetsfan80 said:

I get that overturning the call on the field is supposed to be clear cut.  But that's not what I'm saying here.  Twitter was going nuts today because people thought it was a completely fabricated call with zero basis in reality.  I'd say there's about 75 % evidence that they were right.  You should really need like 90-95 % to overturn a call.  But the call itself, every time you look at it, really was correct based on the rules on the books. 

Going completely nuts over the call, especially at the time of the game at which it came and what it did to the chances of winning, is justified.  But not for the reasons people were doing so.  

Hell, even Bowles and ASJ know it was a fumble.  

Undisbutable evidence is pretty self-explanatory, need 100% evidence to the contrary.

[jack48]

I like the NFL the way it used to be.  Used to be a guy fumbled, two or three guys jumped on it and the ref made a call.  Now 7 guys jump on it and you have to pull them off before making a call.  Meanwhile guys are stealing it from each other after the whistle.  That is WWF stuff. Used to be on, over or above the goal line--the theory being if you could not keep the ball from being advanced to the goal line you had failed.  Pretty simple and straightforward. Fine with me.  Football is about advancing the ball, not standing in the end zone clutching a baby.  Used to be we did not have this two step nonsense after a catch.  You get both hands on the ball, get hit, the bal pops loose----guess what---you just fumbled.  The NFL keeps legislating the game into a comedic farce.

[T0mShane]

On 10/16/2017 at 12:17 PM, Jetsfan80 said:

I get that overturning the call on the field is supposed to be clear cut.  But that's not what I'm saying here.  Twitter was going nuts today because people thought it was a completely fabricated call with zero basis in reality.  I'd say there's about 75 % evidence that they were right.  You should really need like 90-95 % to overturn a call.  But the call itself, every time you look at it, really was correct based on the rules on the books. 

Going completely nuts over the call, especially at the time of the game at which it came and what it did to the chances of winning, is justified.  But not for the reasons people were doing so.  

Hell, even Bowles and ASJ know it was a fumble.  

Remember when Vinny was down at the two vs Seattle and was awarded the TD anyway and Jets fans were like que sera sera 

[Miss Lonelyhearts]

3 minutes ago, T0mShane said:

Remember when Vinny was down at the two vs Seattle and was awarded the TD anyway and Jets fans were like que sera sera 

If Kobe punches Mike Bibby in the face and the refs throw a flag on Jamal Adams, fine. Let's have ten threads about it. This? It was a probably correct application of a probably dumb rule using the probably wrong standard of scrutiny on replay review. All this. For that.

[56mehl56]

17 minutes ago, Miss Lonelyhearts said:

If Kobe punches Mike Bibby in the face and the refs throw a flag on Jamal Adams, fine. Let's have ten threads about it. This? It was a probably correct application of a probably dumb rule using the probably wrong standard of scrutiny on replay review. All this. For that.

Do you use a random word generator that just spits out nonsense and BS , that Tom and dbatesman will obligatory upvote .