officials-seeing-things-that-didn't-happen rant

[JWL]

In yesterday's NE-NYJ game, Austin Seferian-Jenkins was determined to have fumbled a ball that never touched the ground and was not recovered by another player. As a Jets fan, I am not allowed to have nice football things. Considering this, when I saw the very first replay (before Ian Eagle and Dan Fouts even considered the possibility of the touchdown being taken away) I saw the ball was temporarily loose. Being aware of the fumbling-into-the-end zone rule and being a Jets fan, I said to myself, "Well, this could be a touchback." Then I said to myself, "But, nooooooooooo. There isn't conclusive evidence to have the officials in New York overturn the call on the field. A few minutes later it was overturned. I almost went through the roof. My wife got mad at me and thought I was complaining about the dinner she was making when I blurted, "Are you kidding me?!!?"

Now we move on to the Rams-Jaguars game. In the third quarter Robert Woods of the Rams fumbled at midfield and Telvin Smith of the Jaguars recovered the ball. An official blew the play dead and Smith was not allowed to advance the ball. It is definite that Smith was going to gain at least 15 yards. It was possible he could have scored a touchdown. I could see live on TV that Woods fumbled before he was down. Yet, an official "saw" that he was down! Then the play was blown dead. I can't stand this particular type of event. It is not the first time I have seen a clean fumble recovery return not be allowed because a play was blown dead because an official "saw" something that did not actually happen.

[Reaser]

In yesterday's NE-NYJ game, Austin Seferian-Jenkins was determined to have fumbled a ball that never touched the ground and was not recovered by another player. As a Jets fan, I am not allowed to have nice football things. Considering this, when I saw the very first replay (before Ian Eagle and Dan Fouts even considered the possibility of the touchdown being taken away) I saw the ball was temporarily loose. Being aware of the fumbling-into-the-end zone rule and being a Jets fan, I said to myself, "Well, this could be a touchback." Then I said to myself, "But, nooooooooooo. There isn't conclusive evidence to have the officials in New York overturn the call on the field.

I actually said "that's a touchback" before they even said it was being reviewed.

At first I was wondering what the Patriots players were freaking out about to the official. Then they showed the replay and it didn't show anything that the Patriots would be complaining about but the second replay angle you could clearly see the ball 'come out' and my though process was; he fumbled and didn't recover it and/or didn't recover it until he was out-of-bounds. Touchback. But they'll probably say the call stands.

As more replays were shown I thought about how he 'recovered' it in the air and landed out of bounds so he wouldn't have possession ... Then finally noticed from one angle that the ball still moving when he landed out-of-bounds, in the process of 'recovering' it. As the review went on I went from snap-judgement "that's a touchback" to being 99% sure it was a touchback but also 99% sure they would stay with the call on the field. Obviously 'wrong' on the latter.

On the other one, it's near the top of pet peeves for me. Can't stand when there's a clear fumble - and it was pretty clear - and the defense picks it up and the play gets blown dead. Colvin could have returned it for a TD.

[rhickok1109]

Oddly enough, I saw one still photo this morning that made it quite clear that he fumbled before he crossed the goal line. If the replay officials use freeze frames as they review a play, it would certainly have been very obvious to them.

[JWL]

Oddly enough, I saw one still photo this morning that made it quite clear that he fumbled before he crossed the goal line. If the replay officials use freeze frames as they review a play, it would certainly have been very obvious to them.

I always thought a fumble was a play in which the ball hit the ground or was lost and another player recovered before it hit the ground. I have since learned one can fumble a ball when moving it from one hand to the other.

This was not a matter of a pass being bobbled with the pass receiver finally securing the ball out of bounds.

Seferian-Jenkins was not holding the ball for one half second or so of time but he never actually fumbled the ball. There is conclusive evidence that the ball is "in space" at the 1-foot line, but there is no clear evidence that he does not possess the ball as he crosses the plane of the end zone.

[JWL]

The only play I remember as being somewhat similar was a Robert Griffin III play at the end of the first half in a Redskins-Giants game. I recall my mind being numbed that day too.

[sheajets]

There is a legitimate chance that was a touchback, but because of what it was ruled on the field actually ruling that a touchback should've been impossible.

We see Seferian-Jenkins catch the ball and assume possession. Then the ball starts to come out but he pulls it back in. Then the ball disappears for a while so we really don't know what is going on there but it looks like from where his arms are he's probably got it tight. As he turns over he definitely has the ball. It does move a bit but the ball wasn't actually loose. It was still in his grasp. You can't fumble a ball that's in your grasp

Actually the worst case scenario for the Jets there should've been ball at the 1 inch line. Because option 2 for the refs would be to declare that perhaps he has the ball back, has his knee down, but the ball has yet to have broken the plain.

There was never anything remotely conclusive to contort that into a touchback. Too big a stretch.

[sheajets]

Oddly enough, I saw one still photo this morning that made it quite clear that he fumbled before he crossed the goal line. If the replay officials use freeze frames as they review a play, it would certainly have been very obvious to them.

I always thought a fumble was a play in which the ball hit the ground or was lost and another player recovered before it hit the ground. I have since learned one can fumble a ball when moving it from one hand to the other.

This was not a matter of a pass being bobbled with the pass receiver finally securing the ball out of bounds.

Seferian-Jenkins was not holding the ball for one half second or so of time but he never actually fumbled the ball. There is conclusive evidence that the ball is "in space" at the 1-foot line, but there is no clear evidence that he does not possess the ball as he crosses the plane of the end zone.

When he turns over and is already sliding out of the endzone he has the ball. Basically it looks like he has it loosely...but he has it and slides it with his arm across his jersey

The NFL doubled down today and defended this which was bizarre. They definitely have not been doing a good job with crisis management of late.

[JKelly]

Sheajets two questions.

What was your wife making for dinner?

Is she still mad at you?

[JWL]

Sheajets two questions.

What was your wife making for dinner?

Is she still mad at you?

You mean me, not sheajets. She made pork, some green stuff (possibly callaloo), and potatoes. I am normally very quiet when watching sports. For me to literally jump off my couch and yell "Are you kidding me?" when she was talking about dinner was a bit of a shock. I did have to explain myself, that I was having a conversation with the television set.

[Jay Z]

I think the runner firmly has to be grasping the ball when he is crossing the goal line. If he isn't, he needs to resecure the ball. That must have been the ruling, and I do think the ball has to be well secured, if it slips for a moment it needs to be resecured. I don't really know how long; if some goofball is screwing around crossing the goal line, drops it with no one else around, how long he has to pick it up again to establish touchdown.

It's odd that the offense no longer gets the benefit of a forward fumble. Except in this case the ball is considered to go forward for a touchback. I would be fine with calling it like the other fumbles, marking it back to the spot of the fumble unless it goes out of the back of the end zone. But the rules are explicit.

Then there is the Cam Newton play, where he has the ball over out of bounds but the goal line goes around the world. Not a play I like from an aesthetic standpoint, but I understand the rule. If that ball gets knocked out, lands well out of bounds past the goal line, that needs to be a touchback as well. The rule would have to be the same for both cases.

This is a play I would call unfortunate. I don't want to penalize the offensive player here, but per the rule if the ball is moving and not resecured while in play it's a touchback. They are always going to check replay for ball security while crossing, this play was just an unusual case.