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

[Jay Z]

Now there was another ruling in the Colts Titans game. Colts QB was trying to get a first down late, stretched the ball across the first down line while he was over the out of bounds line but had not yet touched down. Apparently the Cam Newton play applies only to the touchdown line, not other cases.

[Reaser]

Now there was another ruling in the Colts Titans game. Colts QB was trying to get a first down late, stretched the ball across the first down line while he was over the out of bounds line but had not yet touched down. Apparently the Cam Newton play applies only to the touchdown line, not other cases.

I remember when they changed it to having to get the ball inside or over the pylon for it to be a TD but the announcers evidently didn't get the memo since they'd always repeat what I grew up with that the goalline extended "around-the-world" ...

ASJ: Still not seeing anyone on TV or online talking about how he was in the air when he regained 'possession' of the ball. That's pretty much all I was hung up on watching it live, he was in the air and landed out of bounds. So technically he never recovered his fumble or regained possession, the way I saw it.

[JWL]

ASJ: Still not seeing anyone on TV or online talking about how he was in the air when he regained 'possession' of the ball. That's pretty much all I was hung up on watching it live, he was in the air and landed out of bounds. So technically he never recovered his fumble or regained possession, the way I saw it.

I'd love to see something that convinces me that ultimately the right call was made. It would be easier for me. Even easier for me would be the Jets having lost the game 52-10, mind you. As things stands, this is going to fester especially if the Jets fall one game short of the playoffs.

The ball can clearly be seen going from one hand to the other prior to breaking the plane of the goal line. Of this, I believe everyone agrees. It is after that action that we have some divide.

I have seen clear footage- both on field and a still image in the New York Post, of the player having possession of the ball as he breaks the plane of the goal line. I have also seen video of ball movement after he broke the plane. Then he once again establishes clear possession as he rolls out of the end zone. We have all seen countless touchdowns where a player breaks the plane of the goal line only to have a defender knock the ball loose. Unless this rule change too is open to interpretation, the way I saw it 50+ times, I saw Seferian-Jenkins with ball possession as he breaks the plane. Considering how the call eventually went and the final score of the game, I DO NOT WANT TO SEE THIS! We may have to just agree to disagree on what we saw/see.

As for calling it a fumble maybe this is for a philosopher to answer. How can you fumble a ball that you never fumble?

[Gary Najman]

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.

I see two simple problems: 1) On the field the officials called touchdown. Was there enough evidence to overturn it? and 2) I never heard of a fumble from one hand to another. Maybe the rule book should be more specific on this topic.

[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.

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.

If he had possession of the ball and suddenly he's not holding it any more, that is a fumble. And the ball was so clearly separated from his hands when he was at approximately the 1-foot line that I don't see how he could possibly have regained control in the split-second between that point and the time when the ball is obviously out of his control and the ball is going out of bounds. There's actually about 2/10 of a second between those two points. Doesn't seem like enough for it to be possession by any legitimate definition of the word.

[Reaser]

I'd love to see something that convinces me that ultimately the right call was made. It would be easier for me. Even easier for me would be the Jets having lost the game 52-10, mind you. As things stands, this is going to fester especially if the Jets fall one game short of the playoffs.

The ball can clearly be seen going from one hand to the other prior to breaking the plane of the goal line. Of this, I believe everyone agrees. It is after that action that we have some divide.

I have seen clear footage- both on field and a still image in the New York Post, of the player having possession of the ball as he breaks the plane of the goal line. I have also seen video of ball movement after he broke the plane. Then he once again establishes clear possession as he rolls out of the end zone. We have all seen countless touchdowns where a player breaks the plane of the goal line only to have a defender knock the ball loose. Unless this rule change too is open to interpretation, the way I saw it 50+ times, I saw Seferian-Jenkins with ball possession as he breaks the plane. Considering how the call eventually went and the final score of the game, I DO NOT WANT TO SEE THIS! We may have to just agree to disagree on what we saw/see.

As for calling it a fumble maybe this is for a philosopher to answer. How can you fumble a ball that you never fumble?

Bolded/underlined for what I'm responding to.

He didn't have possession. You have to be inbounds to have possession (i.e. two feet, knee, etc). This is why I immediately thought it was a touchback and every replay since has strengthened that, for me. And why in realtime I was stuck on "he's in the air" and kept wondering why Eagle/Fouts and subsequent media weren't talking about that.

If someone is out-of-bounds when they grab/touch the ball after a fumble then they didn't actually recover a fumble, that just puts the ball out of bounds. In the rare case that a player is attempting to recover a fumble while they're both feet off the ground in the air and land out-of-bounds they didn't recover the fumble, it puts the ball out-of-bounds. Same with a reception obviously, receiver can 'catch' the ball, first foot down at the half-yardline, break the plane, and second foot come down out of bounds and it's incomplete, not a reception. Breaking the plane doesn't matter if you don't have possession. He never regained possession because he landed out-of-bounds. It's as if no one recovered the fumble and the ball landed out of bounds because him touching the ball and first landing out-of-bounds puts the ball out-of-bounds.

Ball ripped out of his hands, while in the air he grabs the ball, he lands out-of-bounds. It seemed simple to me at the time and still does though I'm still surprised they overturned it and not surprised at all that it's a 'controversy'.

Regardless, he wasn't switching the ball in his hands, it got knocked out and the next time anyone touched the ball while not in the air was when he was touching it while out-of-bounds. That puts the ball out-of-bounds. That's essentially what I immediately thought and continue to think but it's a fluky play where the ball gets knocked out and the player who fumbled grabs it while in the air and lands out of bounds.

[Reaser]

To add a hypothetical. After ASJ lost the ball, had a Patriots player grabbed the ball out of the air, while in the air himself both feet off the ground and landed out of bounds at the one-yard line it would have been the Jets ball at the 1-yard line 3rd-and-goal because he wouldn't have recovered the fumble because he would have been out-of-bounds (because he was in the air when he grabbed the ball) ...

[Reaser]

I see two simple problems: 1) On the field the officials called touchdown. Was there enough evidence to overturn it? and 2) I never heard of a fumble from one hand to another. Maybe the rule book should be more specific on this topic.

#2 first. Doesn't apply because that's not what happened. He wasn't switching what hand the ball was in, it got knocked out of his hands and the ball was in the air.

#1: Enough evidence to overturn it?

- Was the ball in the air with no one being in possession of it? Clearly, 100% yes.
- After that did anyone/he establish possession of the ball (INBOUNDS)? Clearly, 100% no, to me. Though announcers at the time and media that night and yesterday weren't talking about that or at least I didn't and haven't seen anyone talking about him being in the air -- which matters in terms of establishing possession. Nor have I seen it online nor has anyone agreed with me about the fact that he was in the air and landed out-of-bounds. So it's possible that everyone else is seeing replays showing ASJ regain possession of the ball with 2-feet inbounds before he lands out-of-bounds (or a knee which there's screenshots of his knee seemingly inbounds but while he's hitting the pylon and without possession of the ball / ball moving and bobbles again after he hits the ground) , but all video I've seen doesn't show established clear possession inbounds. Not to mention that when he did land he was bobbling the ball so even if he had first hit inbounds and rolled out he still wouldn't have had clear possession until he had clear possession (ball not moving around while he attempted to regain possession.)

That said, there's been plenty of plays - especially this year - that had enough evidence to overturn calls but the officials stayed with the call on the field. I certainly thought they would stay with the call on the field despite being near 100% in thinking that it was a touchback.

[JWL]

Bolded/underlined for what I'm responding to.

He didn't have possession. You have to be inbounds to have possession (i.e. two feet, knee, etc). This is why I immediately thought it was a touchback and every replay since has strengthened that, for me. And why in realtime I was stuck on "he's in the air" and kept wondering why Eagle/Fouts and subsequent media weren't talking about that.

If someone is out-of-bounds when they grab/touch the ball after a fumble then they didn't actually recover a fumble, that just puts the ball out of bounds. In the rare case that a player is attempting to recover a fumble while they're both feet off the ground in the air and land out-of-bounds they didn't recover the fumble, it puts the ball out-of-bounds. Same with a reception obviously, receiver can 'catch' the ball, first foot down at the half-yardline, break the plane, and second foot come down out of bounds and it's incomplete, not a reception. Breaking the plane doesn't matter if you don't have possession. He never regained possession because he landed out-of-bounds. It's as if no one recovered the fumble and the ball landed out of bounds because him touching the ball and first landing out-of-bounds puts the ball out-of-bounds.

Ball ripped out of his hands, while in the air he grabs the ball, he lands out-of-bounds. It seemed simple to me at the time and still does though I'm still surprised they overturned it and not surprised at all that it's a 'controversy'.

Regardless, he wasn't switching the ball in his hands, it got knocked out and the next time anyone touched the ball while not in the air was when he was touching it while out-of-bounds. That puts the ball out-of-bounds. That's essentially what I immediately thought and continue to think but it's a fluky play where the ball gets knocked out and the player who fumbled grabs it while in the air and lands out of bounds.

When I saw the play live I knew something funky happened. Then during the first replay, I thought Seferian-Jenkins had transferred the ball on purpose from his left hand to his right because the defender on his left was going for the ball. We do see ball carriers from time to time transfer the ball from one hand to the other. It is usually always in the open field, though. That was the one thing several replays had to clear up for me. The difference between me and some of these officials is I would not be throwing a flag or blowing a whistle unless I was certain I saw something that merited a flag or whistle (see my Rams-Jaguars comment). If I was an official in the Patriots-Jets game I would have called the play a touchdown.

When Seferian-Jenkins hit the turf, I believe he had regained possession of the ball and he had crossed the end zone. What it appears I am missing here is he was supposed to get feet or knees in the end zone, that his back and shoulder don't count and he has to touch his hand and toes and do the hokey pokey. No..... I can't anymore. Nurse!

[JWL]

I think I have tapped out from the actual dissecting and documenting of the play but everything Reaser wrote is correct as far as how this sideline and end zone stuff works. We are just disagreeing about when/where Seferian-Jenkins regained possession. It is clear that he regained possession. I am saying he regained it in the end zone and that his subsequent rolling out of the end zone is irrelevant. Reaser is saying Seferian-Jenkins regained possession out of bounds.

That all said, the Jets who I heard from (Todd Bowles, Josh McCown, Seferian-Jenkins) all handled it well. It is okay for fans to get mad and complain all week long, but it was good that the Jets didn't. They stayed clear of fines and probably moved on from it already. Seferian-Jenkins does have to not put the Jets in a spot where the officials can make such a call.

I've never had pity for a player who loses the ball and creates a touchback. It is actually not a bad rule. The only aspect I have never been keen on is letting the other team get the ball at the 20. However, I don't know what would be a better option.