SoCal Deek Posted January 2, 2018 Share Posted January 2, 2018 4 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said: thanks for the clip. I wasn't going to dig through the game film to see this one again. however, in the interest of continuing the debate, here's the thing. frame by frame, I find it impossible to identify the moment the ball left the dark gloved hand of landry v. when it appears his jersey touches the line. I'm not arguing with you, but can you definitively see that he still has contact with the ball? I'm wondering because the thing about camera angles is they have limitations. I can most definitely see upholding a no-fumble call if it went that way (much like the Benjamin TD call--had they ruled it incomplete I could understand insufficient evidence to overturn). but here...just seems to me they guessed, and assumed. My point is that the sideline should NOT save you from a fumble. He clearly no longer has POSSESSION of the ball. He may be touching it but he is NOT possessing it. Now...the reverse has always been true: To RECOVER the a fumble you must be totally in the field of play. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pkwwjd Posted January 2, 2018 Share Posted January 2, 2018 6 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said: thanks for the clip. I wasn't going to dig through the game film to see this one again. however, in the interest of continuing the debate, here's the thing. frame by frame, I find it impossible to identify the moment the ball left the dark gloved hand of landry v. when it appears his jersey touches the line. I'm not arguing with you, but can you definitively see that he still has contact with the ball? I'm wondering because the thing about camera angles is they have limitations. I can most definitely see upholding a no-fumble call if it went that way (much like the Benjamin TD call--had they ruled it incomplete I could understand insufficient evidence to overturn). but here...just seems to me they guessed, and assumed. I've attached the frame that I was looking at ... I had to scale it down to fit in the 200k limit, but I see Landry's fingers touching the ball at the same time that his shoulder and hip are on the white. 1 minute ago, SoCal Deek said: My point is that the sideline should NOT save you from a fumble. He clearly no longer has POSSESSION of the ball. He may be touching it but he is NOT possessing it. Now...the reverse has always been true: To RECOVER the a fumble you must be totally in the field of play. Reading the rule like that may make sense, but the actual principle is that a player out of bounds is an extension of the boundary line and the ball is dead immediately upon touching the OOB line. You cannot recover it because it becomes dead before you can fully possess it. It becomes dead the moment that Landry touches the line and the ball reverts to the last team in possession. This one of the few rules that actually shows some consistency. Again ... it's not when he loses possession ... it's all about when he completely stops touching the ball in conjunction with touching the boundary line Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cba fan Posted January 2, 2018 Share Posted January 2, 2018 (edited) 6 minutes ago, Bills Fan in Haiti said: I've attached the frame that I was looking at ... I had to scale it down to fit in the 200k limit, but I see Landry's fingers touching the ball at the same time that his shoulder and hip are on the white. Reading the rule like that may make sense, but the actual principle is that a player out of bounds is an extension of the boundary line and the ball is dead immediately upon touching the OOB line. You cannot recover it because it becomes dead before you can fully possess it. It becomes dead the moment that Landry touches the line and the ball reverts to the last team in possession. This one of the few rules that actually shows some consistency. No way. It is not 100% conclusive that he is OOB in this pic. His ass has not touched down yet. His shoulder is close but may be just up yet. Can't tell as point in view is the white shoulder strip. It may be just up. I can see a dark line under ass. You can not see 100% that his fingers are on that ball. Looks like they could just be off the ball and black gloves make it impossible to say with 100% conclusive. The way the rules for replay are written that is inconclusive and call should have stood. TD all day. Edited January 2, 2018 by cba fan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pkwwjd Posted January 2, 2018 Share Posted January 2, 2018 (edited) 10 minutes ago, cba fan said: No way. It is not 100% conclusive that he is OOB in this pic. His ass has not touched down yet. His shoulder is close but may be just up yet. I can see a dark line under. Same with shoulder. You can not see 100% that his fingers are on that ball. Looks like they could just be off the ball and black gloves make it impossible to say with 100% conclusive. Again ... I had to scale down the pixels to meet the posting limit. I'll give you confusion on the glove/ball. However, you can blow it up enough to see that the lower white stripe on the shoulder disappears into the white boundary line. I agree that this frameshot is not conclusive ... but it is not HD ... I've attached another from a few frames before to help you see the fingers touching the ball. Here you can also see his white hip blend into the boundary line. Edited January 2, 2018 by Bills Fan in Haiti Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cba fan Posted January 2, 2018 Share Posted January 2, 2018 (edited) 9 minutes ago, Bills Fan in Haiti said: Again ... I had to scale down the pixels to meet the posting limit. I'll give you confusion on the glove/ball. However, you can blow it up enough to see that the lower white stripe on the shoulder disappears into the white boundary line. I agree that this frameshot is not conclusive ... but it is not HD ... I've attached another from a few frames before to help you see the fingers touching the ball. Here you can also see his white hit blend into the boundary line. I agree HD is better for Riveron on this........however.....with high up camera angle there is absolutely no way you can say with 100% conclusive that that white stripe is touching the sideline. NO WAY. You would need a camera on the ground. (on this pic you can see a clear black line below the white stripe) The rules have been changed mid season. Riveron has taken upon his own self to changed the "100% conclusive to overturn a call on field"...............to a "preponderance of evidence to overturn a call on field". He is wrong and it should be an immediate fireable offense. Especially since he did not overturn a clear lost ball into ground winning TD catch by Pats Cooks that rolled from his hands to below his waste and was in clear plain sight vs Texans earlier in year. Edited January 2, 2018 by cba fan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ndirish1978 Posted January 2, 2018 Share Posted January 2, 2018 Riveron needs to be fired 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rochesterfan Posted January 2, 2018 Share Posted January 2, 2018 10 hours ago, SoCal Deek said: The Fumble: I had taped the game and was able to go back and slow the play down to a frame by frame review. Landry is most definitely NOT touching the out of bounds when he lays the ball on the field. It seems to me that the league is looking for reasons to make calls more difficult than they actually are. If this is due to Riveron then he needs to be replaced. And even better still, return the referees on the field to being in charge. Somehow the NCAA has been able to do a far better, and faster, job at replay review for many many years now. Actually it appears he is and they got the call right. Nice picture 2 posts after yours showing it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted January 2, 2018 Share Posted January 2, 2018 2 hours ago, SoCal Deek said: My point is that the sideline should NOT save you from a fumble. He clearly no longer has POSSESSION of the ball. He may be touching it but he is NOT possessing it. Now...the reverse has always been true: To RECOVER the a fumble you must be totally in the field of play. No disagreement from me, but at least if it's a crappy rule (runner can cross the plane and drop the ball, receiver has a different set of rules), at least it's crappy for everyone. 2 hours ago, Bills Fan in Haiti said: I've attached the frame that I was looking at ... I had to scale it down to fit in the 200k limit, but I see Landry's fingers touching the ball at the same time that his shoulder and hip are on the white. Ok, fair enough but... 1 hour ago, cba fan said: I agree HD is better for Riveron on this........however.....with high up camera angle there is absolutely no way you can say with 100% conclusive that that white stripe is touching the sideline. NO WAY. You would need a camera on the ground. (on this pic you can see a clear black line below the white stripe) The rules have been changed mid season. Riveron has taken upon his own self to changed the "100% conclusive to overturn a call on field"...............to a "preponderance of evidence to overturn a call on field". He is wrong and it should be an immediate fireable offense. Especially since he did not overturn a clear lost ball into ground winning TD catch by Pats Cooks that rolled from his hands to below his waste and was in clear plain sight vs Texans earlier in year. this post says it all, and to be honest, I always assumed that's why the proof must be irrefutable. it looks like his should is on the ground and probably is...but it's not about probably. it looks like his hand is still on the ball, but if the ball is slightly closer to the camera than his hand, it would look that way. it is what it is, but they don't do themselves any favors on these types of calls. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drunken Pygmy Goat Posted January 2, 2018 Share Posted January 2, 2018 On 1/1/2018 at 12:12 PM, 26CornerBlitz said: Jerry had a great game yesterday, but the two sacks were missed because he was going for the strip on Fales. Get the sack 1st! This has been the theme all year. Not necessarily with just Jerry or guys getting to the QB, but the defense as a whole. The missed tackles, or failed stops, have been due in large part to defenders trying to strip the ball. It's something I noticed early in the season, especially as the takeaways started to dwindle. Too often they seemed to be hell bent on stripping the ball away from the ball carrier, but come away empty handed, while giving up unnecessary extra yards as a result. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoCal Deek Posted January 3, 2018 Share Posted January 3, 2018 34 minutes ago, Rochesterfan said: Actually it appears he is and they got the call right. Nice picture 2 posts after yours showing it. I disagree. One has to consider the INTENT of any law or a rule. Riveron's interpretation does not consider the intent. A player should not be rewarded for fumbling the ball. For example, if Landry had fumbled the ball by clearly laying it in the field of play... then went over and laid out of bounds....then reached back onto the field and batted the ball while still laying out of bounds....should the Dolphins retain possession? Clearly that is NOT the INTENT of the rule! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewEra Posted January 3, 2018 Share Posted January 3, 2018 I can understand why fans don’t like Jerry Hughes, but that’s my guy. I love his fire and passion. Yes, he goes overboard and makes boneheaded plays but I’ll take it. I proudly rock the 55 Hughes jersey every Sunday and yell JEEEEEEEERRRRRRRRRRRRRY everytime he makes a play (or almost makes a play. That happens more often for sure). hated watching him whiff on the strips but I like where his head is at going for the his arm. Although he should’ve went for his arm and his body. He’s got some great burst out there and some tricky powerful moves at times. I enjoy watching his skill set 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Turk Posted January 3, 2018 Share Posted January 3, 2018 On 1/1/2018 at 11:58 AM, chris heff said: Once again how do you over turn that? Why bother have the officials on the field rule on anything? I believe officials have been instructed to let the play continue if they aren't sure since it will automarically be reviewed on turnovers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted January 3, 2018 Share Posted January 3, 2018 7 minutes ago, NewEra said: I can understand why fans don’t like Jerry Hughes, but that’s my guy. I love his fire and passion. Yes, he goes overboard and makes boneheaded plays but I’ll take it. I proudly rock the 55 Hughes jersey every Sunday and yell JEEEEEEEERRRRRRRRRRRRRY everytime he makes a play (or almost makes a play. That happens more often for sure). hated watching him whiff on the strips but I like where his head is at going for the his arm. Although he should’ve went for his arm and his body. He’s got some great burst out there and some tricky powerful moves at times. I enjoy watching his skill set He's always the lone DL chasing every play from behind, and sometimes even catches up with runners after exploding off the line in case it's a pass play. He tries harder than virtually everyone on the team, including Kyle, who doesn't do that. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rochesterfan Posted January 3, 2018 Share Posted January 3, 2018 8 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said: I disagree. One has to consider the INTENT of any law or a rule. Riveron's interpretation does not consider the intent. A player should not be rewarded for fumbling the ball. For example, if Landry had fumbled the ball by clearly laying it in the field of play... then went over and laid out of bounds....then reached back onto the field and batted the ball while still laying out of bounds....should the Dolphins retain possession? Clearly that is NOT the INTENT of the rule! I totally disagree. The rule is pretty specific - if a loose ball is touched by a player out of bounds - the ball is out of bounds. There is no intent. You are making it much more complex than it needs to be. If he was out of bounds and touching the ball at all - it is out of bounds. It it would be the same issue if the defender touched it out of bounds. Additionally if a kickoff is in bounds, but the receiver reaches and touches it and he is out of bounds - the kick-off is considered out of bounds. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewEra Posted January 3, 2018 Share Posted January 3, 2018 3 minutes ago, Kelly the Dog said: He's always the lone DL chasing every play from behind, and sometimes even catches up with runners after exploding off the line in case it's a pass play. He tries harder than virtually everyone on the team, including Kyle, who doesn't do that. That’s why he’s my dog. Really hope we can get him some good pass rush help next season (run stoppping too). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cba fan Posted January 3, 2018 Share Posted January 3, 2018 (edited) 5 hours ago, Rochesterfan said: I totally disagree. The rule is pretty specific - if a loose ball is touched by a player out of bounds - the ball is out of bounds. There is no intent. You are making it much more complex than it needs to be. If he was out of bounds and touching the ball at all - it is out of bounds. It it would be the same issue if the defender touched it out of bounds. Additionally if a kickoff is in bounds, but the receiver reaches and touches it and he is out of bounds - the kick-off is considered out of bounds. Here I got one for loser Riveron in NY office. https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/look-jets-hosed-by-the-awful-replay-reversal-of-all-awful-replay-reversals/ According to NFL rulebook the pylon is considered out of bounds and the end zone simultaneously.(I know weird as it sits several inches out of bounds as it is so thick. But all a player has to do is touch, pass ball over, or behind, and ball is in end zone) Applying what we now understand about the pylon and what happened in Bills game with Preston Brown TD and what happened to the Jets TE vs Pats. Jenkins scored a TD vs Pats because he had contact with the ball when he hit the pylon. Dead ball Jets retain possession TD JETS JETS JETS !!! Riveron you are FIRED...again.... Edited January 3, 2018 by cba fan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dadonkadonk Posted January 3, 2018 Share Posted January 3, 2018 On 1/1/2018 at 9:12 AM, 26CornerBlitz said: Jerry had a great game yesterday, but the two sacks were missed because he was going for the strip on Fales. Get the sack 1st! I disagree. One strip sack probably equals two or three sacks. See Hughes, Ryan, White - strip sack fumble TD. Game changer. And it is still a QB pressure. Keep hacking at that arm Jerry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rochesterfan Posted January 3, 2018 Share Posted January 3, 2018 7 hours ago, cba fan said: Here I got one for loser Riveron in NY office. https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/look-jets-hosed-by-the-awful-replay-reversal-of-all-awful-replay-reversals/ According to NFL rulebook the pylon is considered out of bounds and the end zone simultaneously.(I know weird as it sits several inches out of bounds as it is so thick. But all a player has to do is touch, pass ball over, or behind, and ball is in end zone) Applying what we now understand about the pylon and what happened in Bills game with Preston Brown TD and what happened to the Jets TE vs Pats. Jenkins scored a TD vs Pats because he had contact with the ball when he hit the pylon. Dead ball Jets retain possession TD JETS JETS JETS !!! Riveron you are FIRED...again.... Sorry you really lost me with this one. The ruling was that ASJ lost possession before breaking the plain and you can clearly see that for a second the ball is completely free from his hands. They cross the goal line and hit the pylon - out of bounds. Therefore the ball was ruled dead at that spot - since the ball was the Jets and the fumble crossed the goal line and then was considered out of bounds - by rule that is a touchback for the Patriots. This is actually consistent with the ruling in the Bills game. ASJ was deemed out of bounds upon full control and therefore if it had been at the 2 yard line like Landry’s the Jets would have maintained possession - the difference is the fumble crossed the plain and therefore a different rule takes effect where if the offensive team fumbles before reaching the goal line and the ball crosses the plain and goes out of bounds it is a touchback for the defending team. There are several issues I have with that ruling because you can not tell when he regains possession, but if the decision was that possession was not regained until he hit out of bounds - they got the call correct. If he had possession before hitting the ground it is incorrect. I personally think he regained possession and it should have been a TD, but I hate the Pats so that colors the decision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloWings Posted January 3, 2018 Share Posted January 3, 2018 22 hours ago, BeginnersMind said: Ah--that makes sense. He's not down, but he's still got a fingertip on the fumbled ball. That's why it's out. So close but looks right. In real time, I thought for sure it was out. Every time I hear about this rule (touching a live ball while part of the body is touching the white), I can't help but think that's one of the reasons the Patsies got that home playoff game in 2001. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cba fan Posted January 3, 2018 Share Posted January 3, 2018 (edited) 11 hours ago, Rochesterfan said: Sorry you really lost me with this one. The ruling was that ASJ lost possession before breaking the plain and you can clearly see that for a second the ball is completely free from his hands. They cross the goal line and hit the pylon - out of bounds. Therefore the ball was ruled dead at that spot - since the ball was the Jets and the fumble crossed the goal line and then was considered out of bounds - by rule that is a touchback for the Patriots. This is actually consistent with the ruling in the Bills game. ASJ was deemed out of bounds upon full control and therefore if it had been at the 2 yard line like Landry’s the Jets would have maintained possession - the difference is the fumble crossed the plain and therefore a different rule takes effect where if the offensive team fumbles before reaching the goal line and the ball crosses the plain and goes out of bounds it is a touchback for the defending team. There are several issues I have with that ruling because you can not tell when he regains possession, but if the decision was that possession was not regained until he hit out of bounds - they got the call correct. If he had possession before hitting the ground it is incorrect. I personally think he regained possession and it should have been a TD, but I hate the Pats so that colors the decision. I agree it was inconclusive. TD jets. I see him pull it back in before he hits pylon. I am not clear on the rule...as it states the pylon is simultaneously in end zone and out of bounds. I could not find a clarification on different effect in this case. You are probably right but it is confusing. Edited January 3, 2018 by cba fan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts