Blandino and Pereria weigh in

[Scott Dierking]

16 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

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

 

And that is the point of replay. You either see it clearly, or the call on the field stands. How many times have we seen plays that defy the logic of physics and common sense, yet because we do not have a clear shot of it actually happening, the play is deferred to what was called.

Someone got over zealous. And I do not believe it was out of what team was involved nor a conspiracy. Just a bad overrule.

 

[joewilly12]

View image on Twitter

 

 Follow

Manish Mehta 

 

✔@MMehtaNYDN

Why sugarcoat it? #Jets  were SCREWED by replay officials on overturned TD in loss to Patriots. Everyone knows it: http://nydn.us/2kTAgcv

[jetrider]

43 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

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.

 

That's when and why the call on the field stands BY RULE.

[Gen X Jet]

Al Riveron statement:

https://www.newsday.com/sports/football/jets/nfl-director-of-officiating-al-riveron-defends-controversial-replay-review-in-jets-patriots-game-1.14498734

The NFL’s senior vice president of officiating said Monday that the controversial replay reversal that negated Jets tight end Austin Seferian-Jenkins’ fourth-quarter touchdown in Sunday’s 24-17 loss to the Patriots was the correct call and proper enforcement of league rules.

“No doubt about it. It was clear and obvious,” Al Riveron said Monday on an afternoon conference call with reporters. “Unless it’s clear and obvious to us, we will not change the ruling on the field.

With the Jets trailing, 24-14, Seferian-Jenkins initially was awarded a touchdown when he took a short pass from Josh McCown and ran into the end zone. But a subsequent replay review determined that Seferian-Jenkins lost possession of the ball shortly before he reached the goal line after being hit by cornerback Malcolm Butler, and that he did not fully regain possession until he was out of bounds. The play was then ruled a touchback, and the Patriots took over at their own 20-yard line.While it appeared to be difficult to tell on televised replays that Seferian-Jenkins hadn’t re-established possession when he went down in the end zone, Riveron said there was no doubt in his mind that he did not have possession before going out of bounds.

“Once [Seferian-Jenkins] is going to the ground, we see the ball is loose,” said Riveron, who makes all replay determinations from the league’s New York office. “Now, we know we have a fumble. By rule, he has to re-establish possession, must regain control of the football again. We see in two other instances [on the replay review] where the ball is loose, he has not regained control of the football before he lands out of bounds.

“By rule, we have a touchback,” Riveron said. “We might not agree with the rule, but that is the rule. So the rule was enforced correctly.”

Riveron said any replay review he looked at was from the CBS broadcast, not from any additional video feed from inside MetLife Stadium.

“We told the [CBS production] truck to dump the bucket [of television angles],” Riveron said. “Give us everything they had.”

Several Jets players said after the game they disagreed with the call, but Seferian-Jenkins accepted the ruling.

“I feel like I scored, but at the end of the day, that’s what the ref called,” he said. “I’m going with what the ref said, and I have to have better ball security. I have to make sure I make the necessary corrections so that doesn’t happen again.”

[Matt39]

8 minutes ago, Gen X Jet said:

Al Riveron statement:

 

“No doubt about it. It was clear and obvious,” Al Riveron said Monday 

 

What a jerkoff.

[fltflo]

Wow, what a surprise the idiots who made the call in NY say "no doubt it was the right call". Clear evidence that the runner fumbled that ball out of bounds that he was still holding. The NFL wonders why the ratings and attendance is taking a crap


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Philc1]

Laughable call

[The Crusher]

18 minutes ago, Gen X Jet said:

Al Riveron statement:

https://www.newsday.com/sports/football/jets/nfl-director-of-officiating-al-riveron-defends-controversial-replay-review-in-jets-patriots-game-1.14498734

The NFL’s senior vice president of officiating said Monday that the controversial replay reversal that negated Jets tight end Austin Seferian-Jenkins’ fourth-quarter touchdown in Sunday’s 24-17 loss to the Patriots was the correct call and proper enforcement of league rules.

“No doubt about it. It was clear and obvious,” Al Riveron said Monday on an afternoon conference call with reporters. “Unless it’s clear and obvious to us, we will not change the ruling on the field.

With the Jets trailing, 24-14, Seferian-Jenkins initially was awarded a touchdown when he took a short pass from Josh McCown and ran into the end zone. But a subsequent replay review determined that Seferian-Jenkins lost possession of the ball shortly before he reached the goal line after being hit by cornerback Malcolm Butler, and that he did not fully regain possession until he was out of bounds. The play was then ruled a touchback, and the Patriots took over at their own 20-yard line.While it appeared to be difficult to tell on televised replays that Seferian-Jenkins hadn’t re-established possession when he went down in the end zone, Riveron said there was no doubt in his mind that he did not have possession before going out of bounds.

“Once [Seferian-Jenkins] is going to the ground, we see the ball is loose,” said Riveron, who makes all replay determinations from the league’s New York office. “Now, we know we have a fumble. By rule, he has to re-establish possession, must regain control of the football again. We see in two other instances [on the replay review] where the ball is loose, he has not regained control of the football before he lands out of bounds.

“By rule, we have a touchback,” Riveron said. “We might not agree with the rule, but that is the rule. So the rule was enforced correctly.”

Riveron said any replay review he looked at was from the CBS broadcast, not from any additional video feed from inside MetLife Stadium.

“We told the [CBS production] truck to dump the bucket [of television angles],” Riveron said. “Give us everything they had.”

Several Jets players said after the game they disagreed with the call, but Seferian-Jenkins accepted the ruling.

“I feel like I scored, but at the end of the day, that’s what the ref called,” he said. “I’m going with what the ref said, and I have to have better ball security. I have to make sure I make the necessary corrections so that doesn’t happen again.”

Since when is bobbling the ball while still in your hands the same as a fumble?   So basically when a player switches hands while running the moment he does it that's considered a fumble?  Im a big fat idiot because I always thought the ball had to come out to be a fumble.

[Philc1]

3 minutes ago, The Crusher said:

Since when is bobbling the ball while still in your hands the same as a fumble? 

Since Vegas odds makers call the league office in Manhattan and beg those jerks to save the game for them because they were about to lose tons of money

[NoBowles]

23 minutes ago, Gen X Jet said:

Al Riveron statement:

https://www.newsday.com/sports/football/jets/nfl-director-of-officiating-al-riveron-defends-controversial-replay-review-in-jets-patriots-game-1.14498734

The NFL’s senior vice president of officiating said Monday that the controversial replay reversal that negated Jets tight end Austin Seferian-Jenkins’ fourth-quarter touchdown in Sunday’s 24-17 loss to the Patriots was the correct call and proper enforcement of league rules.

“No doubt about it. It was clear and obvious,” Al Riveron said Monday on an afternoon conference call with reporters. “Unless it’s clear and obvious to us, we will not change the ruling on the field.

With the Jets trailing, 24-14, Seferian-Jenkins initially was awarded a touchdown when he took a short pass from Josh McCown and ran into the end zone. But a subsequent replay review determined that Seferian-Jenkins lost possession of the ball shortly before he reached the goal line after being hit by cornerback Malcolm Butler, and that he did not fully regain possession until he was out of bounds. The play was then ruled a touchback, and the Patriots took over at their own 20-yard line.While it appeared to be difficult to tell on televised replays that Seferian-Jenkins hadn’t re-established possession when he went down in the end zone, Riveron said there was no doubt in his mind that he did not have possession before going out of bounds.

“Once [Seferian-Jenkins] is going to the ground, we see the ball is loose,” said Riveron, who makes all replay determinations from the league’s New York office. “Now, we know we have a fumble. By rule, he has to re-establish possession, must regain control of the football again. We see in two other instances [on the replay review] where the ball is loose, he has not regained control of the football before he lands out of bounds.

“By rule, we have a touchback,” Riveron said. “We might not agree with the rule, but that is the rule. So the rule was enforced correctly.”

Riveron said any replay review he looked at was from the CBS broadcast, not from any additional video feed from inside MetLife Stadium.

“We told the [CBS production] truck to dump the bucket [of television angles],” Riveron said. “Give us everything they had.”

Several Jets players said after the game they disagreed with the call, but Seferian-Jenkins accepted the ruling.

“I feel like I scored, but at the end of the day, that’s what the ref called,” he said. “I’m going with what the ref said, and I have to have better ball security. I have to make sure I make the necessary corrections so that doesn’t happen again.”

 I am personally shocked that they did not come out and say, we are trying to fix the game. That was what I expected.

[jetrider]

13 minutes ago, The Crusher said:

Since when is bobbling the ball while still in your hands the same as a fumble?   So basically when a player switches hands while running the moment he does it that's considered a fumble?  Im a big fat idiot because I always thought the ball had to come out to be a fumble.

Or hit the ground or grabbed by another player. I guess a bobble or double-catch is a fumble now too and you can't advance it.

[Philc1]

2 hours ago, joewilly12 said:

View image on Twitter

 

 Follow

Manish Mehta 

 

✔@MMehtaNYDN

Why sugarcoat it? #Jets  were SCREWED by replay officials on overturned TD in loss to Patriots. Everyone knows it: http://nydn.us/2kTAgcv

Even the clueless eagles fan Mehta knows it

[shawn306]

2 hours ago, jetrider said:

That's when and why the call on the field stands BY RULE.

Too me that 4th picture shows that he has regained control

[jetrider]

15 minutes ago, Philc1 said:

Since Vegas odds makers call the league office in Manhattan and beg those jerks to save the game for them because they were about to lose tons of money

I think refs themselves are placing bets via outside connections. The Vikes–Bears MNF game was very sketchy. 

[Matt39]

1 minute ago, shawn306 said:

Too me that 4th picture shows that he has regained control

He absolutely did.

[Philc1]

2 minutes ago, shawn306 said:

Too me that 4th picture shows that he has regained control

Balls move 95% of the time when receivers catch in the endzone.  This was either Vegas interfering or some clown in the NFL HQ trying to look smart pointing to some obscure rule 

[Philc1]

3 minutes ago, jetrider said:

I think refs themselves are placing bets via outside connections. The Vikes–Bears MNF game was very sketchy. 

Of course they are.  Tim Donaghy and his scandal was the tip of the iceberg

[Bleedin Green]

Isn't it so shocking that someone who is immeasurably awful at his job did not tell us all that he should be fired, and has a complete lack of understanding of the thing that he is laughably paid to do?  Well I'm sold.

[JoJoTownsell1]

41 minutes ago, Philc1 said:

Balls move 95% of the time when receivers catch in the endzone.  This was either Vegas interfering or some clown in the NFL HQ trying to look smart pointing to some obscure rule 

LMAO, you're one of those conspiracy nut-jobs. That explains a lot. 

[56mehl56]

1 hour ago, fltflo said:

Wow, what a surprise the idiots who made the call in NY say "no doubt it was the right call". Clear evidence that the runner fumbled that ball out of bounds that he was still holding. The NFL wonders why the ratings and attendance is taking a crap


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

When the official's are on Bob Kraft's payroll its easy to understand the call.

[TMAC]

Right now I like Kim Jong Un a lot better than Al Riveron and Corrente.

[56mehl56]

1 hour ago, shawn306 said:

Too me that 4th picture shows that he has regained control

Yep, he has the ball and has broken the plane. No different if he was at the goal line stretched the ball over and then blatantly let go. Once the ball broke the plane in possession , the rest is moot.

[joewilly12]

11 minutes ago, 56mehl56 said:

Yep, he has the ball and has broken the plane. No different if he was at the goal line stretched the ball over and then blatantly let go. Once the ball broke the plane in possession , the rest is moot.

Exactly i was thinking the same damn thing,how many guys stretch out break the plane ball balancing in one hand and lose it once over its always ruled a TD. 

[#27TheDominator]

1 hour ago, NoBowles said:

 I am personally shocked that they did not come out and say, we are trying to fix the game. That was what I expected.

Trying?

[thshadow]

5 hours 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.

[Oops, I guess someone else had done pretty much the exact same thing I did, oh well, I guess this is essentially a repost.]

I don't think you looked very closely.  He regained control extremely quickly, by my 3rd snapshot below.

By that 4th picture, he's got both hands on the ball.  And when he hits and rolls over, he clearly has good possession.

AFAICT, there's enough visual evidence to reverse the call if they had ruled it a fumble.

(That's from the following animated gif:

https://twitter.com/PeteBlackburn/status/919651084364328961?ref_src=twsrc^tfw&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cbssports.com%2Fnfl%2Fnews%2Flook-jets-hosed-by-the-awful-replay-reversal-of-all-awful-replay-reversals%2F

)

[Sperm Edwards]

4 hours ago, jetrider said:

That's when and why the call on the field stands BY RULE.

It's very close, but I can see how it'd be overturned from these images. They see a fumble but don't see him re-establish full control until he's hit the sideline.

It sucks - particularly because it benefitted NE - but it's certainly not the worst call ever.

[Sperm Edwards]

44 minutes ago, thshadow said:

 

By that 4th picture, he's got both hands on the ball.  And when he hits and rolls over, he clearly has good possession.

AFAICT, there's enough visual evidence to reverse the call if they had ruled it a fumble.

(That's from the following animated gif:

https://twitter.com/PeteBlackburn/status/919651084364328961?ref_src=twsrc^tfw&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cbssports.com%2Fnfl%2Fnews%2Flook-jets-hosed-by-the-awful-replay-reversal-of-all-awful-replay-reversals%2F

)

I can see, and it would be better if they hadn't overturned it. But you're looking at a still that doesn't mean he has full control. Control is determined by moving. They go nuts - to the point where, in the past, they used to do that "football move" stuff - where they require more than a still of the ball touching his hand on a freeze frame.

In other words, a single freeze frame can show lost possession, but it doesn't necessarily show possession.

Just saying I can see how it was overturned. Doesn't change 2 things:

1) He should have held onto the f***ing ball.

2) The rule is ****ing moronic. At worst, it should be Jets ball on the 1 or something, like when there's DPI in the EZ.

[The Crusher]

Just now, Sperm Edwards said:

It's very close, but I can see how it'd be overturned from these images. They see a fumble but don't see him re-establish full control until he's hit the sideline.

It sucks - particularly because it benefitted NE - but it's certainly not the worst call ever.

Makes sense. But they also have no proof he didn't gain full control. The call was a TD on the field and should have remained a TD. Same way if they called it a touch back on the field it should have stayed a touch back. Unless they saw it still moving after he touched the out of bound that call should remain a TD. Just sucks. We most likely lose the game anyhow. The picked up flag did more towards us losing than that play did. IMHO

[Sperm Edwards]

2 minutes ago, The Crusher said:

Makes sense. But they also have no proof he didn't gain full control. The call was a TD on the field and should have remained a TD. Same way if they called it a touch back on the field it should have stayed a touch back. Unless they saw it still moving after he touched the out of bound that call should remain a TD. Just sucks. We most likely lose the game anyhow. The picked up flag did more towards us losing than that play did. IMHO

Yeah I'm not saying he didn't. I'm saying on replay they see he lost possession and couldn't see that he clearly regained it until he was out of bounds.

Depends on how they're looking at it I guess. I don't even know, on the original call, if the ref even realized the ball came out for that split-second, and that's what seemed so damning on replay.

Just saying I can see it both ways. It was really close.

[Jimmy 2 Times]

There’s no video evidence either way so the call stands.  End of argument.

 

[Charlie Brown]

6 hours 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.

 

 

I saw this and the ball clearly hits the ground and the player cradles it.  It is a joke.  Please show me where the Jets player clearly had the ball on the ground he didn't and there is no such evidence; it's a joke. 

[Charlie Brown]

48 minutes ago, Jimmy 2 Times said:

There’s no video evidence either way so the call stands.  End of argument.

 

The key is the refs in this case had to make a conjecture that he didn't have to ball and didn't have clear and convincing proof as is stipulated in the rule.    

That is the very definition of looking for something when you don't have to.  

It is disgusting.  

PI not called and then called against the player being interfered with.  It isn't right!

[Charlie Brown]

7 hours 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.

This is the rule!!!

Now according to some of the refs in replay think something happened without proof they can make a ruling.  

Well......

That has never been the rule until now!!!

Why have a rule if it isn't adhered to?

Magically the refs know what happened?; they don't and neither does anyone else and as such the play should have stood.   

It is a joke and I will continue to say so until actual proof not conjecture and random speculation is proffered otherwise. 

[Gen X Jet]

More clean Pats play: 

 

 

 

[Dcat]

9 hours ago, Sperm Edwards said:

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

I agree that ASJ has to learn how to hold on to the ball.  And I agree that if the ball was lost (as shown in your photo) with possession not regained, then the call is fine.  However, he did regain control after that photo and before hitting the pylon. You need to show *all* the photos in presenting the case, counselor.  You are cherry picking as stated in one of the above posts.