26CornerBlitz Posted October 17, 2017 Share Posted October 17, 2017 (edited) http://www.footballzebras.com/2017/10/15/jets-lose-touchdown-ball-tight-replay-reversal/ Week 6: Patriots at Jets (video) Jets tight end Austin Seferian-Jenkins scored what appeared to be a clear touchdown. On review, not only was the touchdown reversed, the ball went to the Patriots on a touchback. Seferian-Jenkins bobbles the ball at the 1-yard line and subsequently re-controls the ball. The bobble makes the ball a “loose ball” under the rules. Any loose ball (which includes passes) follows the catch process to establish possession. It may seem like an arbitrary designation, but this is a clear way to bookend loose ball calls by keeping all loose balls consistent, no matter how they occur. Seferian-Jenkins is going to the ground as he regains control of the ball, and lands out of bounds in the end zone. After landing, he is still struggling to demonstrate control of the ball, which is a determining factor if a player had “survived the ground,” establishing possession. This additional attempt to control takes the ball, still considered loose, out of bounds in the end zone, which is a touchback and loss of possession. http://www.footballzebras.com/2017/10/15/quick-calls-week-6-2017/ Hit to Aaron Rodgers Packers at Vikings (video). Quarterback Aaron Rodgers had to leave the game early in the first quarter after taking a hit from Vikings linebacker Anthony Barr. There was no flag thrown on the play. A quarterback is protected under the one-step rule, which prohibits defensive contact on the quarterback after one step. The defender may not “play through” a quarterback or intentionally land on him, either. However, when the quarterback is rolling out, the one-step protection is lost. As for the play-through aspect, the distinction is that it must be an intentional act to unnecessarily drive the quarterback to the ground or land on him. Therefore, the referee will favor the defender if the contact is what is normally part of a conventional tackle by two players at full speed and absent any deliberate act to “stuff” the quarterback. In addition, Rodgers is protected by the standard unnecessary roughness calls afforded to any runner. He is also considered in a defenseless posture upon releasing the pass, but that protection is only for forcible blows to the head or neck area, which do not apply here. Edited October 17, 2017 by 26CornerBlitz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gugny Posted October 17, 2017 Share Posted October 17, 2017 (edited) The Jets call was BS. The Rodgers hit was legal AND clean. My opinions. Edited October 17, 2017 by Gugny Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RoyBatty is alive Posted October 17, 2017 Share Posted October 17, 2017 (edited) There should have been a flag on Barr imo. Can you imagine if that were Tom Brady (i only wish). They throw a flag on Von Miller for a joke but dont flag that? Jets call, manufactured, they really scrambled to come up with a plausible denial but there wasn't enough to overturn the original call. Edited October 17, 2017 by RoyBatty is alive Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
26CornerBlitz Posted October 17, 2017 Author Share Posted October 17, 2017 There absolutely should have been a flag on Barr. Can you imagine if that were Tom Brady (i only wish). They throw a flag on Von Miller for a joke but dont flag that? Incorrect per NFL rules. It was a 100% legal hit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr.Sack Posted October 17, 2017 Share Posted October 17, 2017 Rodgers is my QB, hit while devastating was clean. Wish that was Brady. Keep hitting him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bleeding Bills Blue Posted October 17, 2017 Share Posted October 17, 2017 The jets one bothered me. He didn't even really fumble - the ball never touched the ground... it never advanced... brady can poke the ball over the endzone line for a td.. but a guy carrying 3 players and bobbling the ball is a touchback? Garbage. Fix that rule to be more specific. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mannc Posted October 17, 2017 Share Posted October 17, 2017 Incorrect per NFL rules. It was a 100% legal hit. Actually, it was a 100% illegal hit. See how that works? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
26CornerBlitz Posted October 17, 2017 Author Share Posted October 17, 2017 Actually, it was a 100% illegal hit. See how that works? No. I don't because NFL rules say you are wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mannc Posted October 17, 2017 Share Posted October 17, 2017 No. I don't because NFL rules say you are wrong. Sorry, not that simple. It was an intentional act to drive the QB into the ground and injure him, well after the ball was away. Hence, illegal. Compare it to the two garbage roughing the passer calls in last night's game, where incidental contact, with no intent to injure (or even any real possibility of injury) were flagged. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
26CornerBlitz Posted October 17, 2017 Author Share Posted October 17, 2017 (edited) Sorry, not that simple. It was an intentional act to drive the QB into the ground and injure him, well after the ball was away. Hence, illegal. Compare it to the two garbage roughing the passer calls in last night's game, where incidental contact, with no intent to injure (or even any real possibility of injury) were flagged. Blah blah blah. Still not an illegal hit per the rule and since when can you get into a defenders mind to determine intent. Type it was illegal 100 times if you like. You'l still be wrong. Edited October 17, 2017 by 26CornerBlitz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Game Manager Posted October 17, 2017 Share Posted October 17, 2017 Sorry, not that simple. It was an intentional act to drive the QB into the ground and injure him, well after the ball was away. Hence, illegal. Compare it to the two garbage roughing the passer calls in last night's game, where incidental contact, with no intent to injure (or even any real possibility of injury) were flagged. Aka tackling ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heavy Kevi Posted October 17, 2017 Share Posted October 17, 2017 Sorry, not that simple. It was an intentional act to drive the QB into the ground and injure him, well after the ball was away. Hence, illegal. Compare it to the two garbage roughing the passer calls in last night's game, where incidental contact, with no intent to injure (or even any real possibility of injury) were flagged. I don't believe he intended (nor did he) "drive rodgers to the ground". He clearly let up, and yes he landed on rodgers, but that is definitely a clean play. No question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mannc Posted October 17, 2017 Share Posted October 17, 2017 Blah blah blah. Still not an illegal hit and since when can you get into a defenders mind to determine intent. Type it was illegal 100 times if you like. You'l still be wrong. You're the one who made (and keeps repeating) a statement, with nothing to back it up. In this world, we infer intent all the time from people's actions. Well after Rodgers threw the pass, Barr, who could easily have pulled up, tackled Rodgers (who was totally defenseless) and drove his shoulder into the ground with all of his body force. If it was not roughing the passer, it was clearly unnecessary roughness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
26CornerBlitz Posted October 17, 2017 Author Share Posted October 17, 2017 You're the one who made (and keeps repeating) a statement, with nothing to back it up. In this world, we infer intent all the time from people's actions. Well after Rodgers threw the pass, Barr, who could easily have pulled up, tackled Rodgers (who was totally defenseless) and drove his shoulder into the ground with all of his body force. If it was not roughing the passer, it was clearly unnecessary roughness. Nothing to back it up? I posted the rule in the OP of this thread. Not my fault you haven't read it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mannc Posted October 17, 2017 Share Posted October 17, 2017 I don't believe he intended (nor did he) "drive rodgers to the ground". He clearly let up, and yes he landed on rodgers, but that is definitely a clean play. No question.Go watch the replay and show me where Barr lets up. He doesn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bray Wyatt Posted October 17, 2017 Share Posted October 17, 2017 (edited) The Jets call, I believe there was a still on ESPN that showed him clearly have the ball separated from him, and therefore I think he has to reestablish possession. I think he controls the ball again when crossing the pylon but lands out of bounds without getting his two feet back in bounds, so therefore he recovered it out of bounds. Now I am not 100% on the last part but I think that is what they are saying Edit: Here is a link to the picture I was talking about, its the still image before the video plays http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/21036046/new-york-jets-upset-baffled-apparent-touchdown-turned-fumble-replay-review Edited October 17, 2017 by Bray Wyatt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mannc Posted October 17, 2017 Share Posted October 17, 2017 Nothing to back it up? I posted the rule in the OP of this thread. Not my fault you haven't read it. Posting the rule is not the same as explaining how it applies to a certain set of facts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
26CornerBlitz Posted October 17, 2017 Author Share Posted October 17, 2017 Posting the rule is not the same as explaining how it applies to a certain set of facts. There was no flag on the play and there shouldn't have been per NFL rules. Those are the facts. Despite your vociferous objection, you remain incorrect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mannc Posted October 17, 2017 Share Posted October 17, 2017 There was no flag on the play and there shouldn't have been per NFL rules. Those are the facts. Despite your vociferous objection, you remain incorrect. It's not a fact, no matter how many times you or the league says it. It's a judgment call. In my opinion, it should have been flagged and I explained why, in the context of the rule. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
26CornerBlitz Posted October 17, 2017 Author Share Posted October 17, 2017 It's not a fact, no matter how many times you or the league says it. It's a judgment call. In my opinion, it should have been flagged and I explained why, in the context of the rule. Right. You read his mind and determined that Barr attempted to injure Rodgers. The referee didn't and that's the right call. As for the play-through aspect, the distinction is that it must be an intentional act to unnecessarily drive the quarterback to the ground or land on him. Therefore, the referee will favor the defender if the contact is what is normally part of a conventional tackle by two players at full speed and absent any deliberate act to “stuff” the quarterback. In addition, Rodgers is protected by the standard unnecessary roughness calls afforded to any runner. He is also considered in a defenseless posture upon releasing the pass, but that protection is only for forcible blows to the head or neck area, which do not apply here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts