Missed Tackles, Jerry Hughes, Preston’s Overturned TD....

[SoCal Deek]

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.

[pkwwjd]

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

[cba fan]

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

[pkwwjd]

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

[cba fan]

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

[ndirish1978]

Riveron needs to be fired

 

[Rochesterfan]

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.

 

 

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

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.

[Drunken Pygmy Goat]

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. 

 

[SoCal Deek]

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!

[NewEra]

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  

[Big Turk]

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

[Kelly the Dog]

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.

[Rochesterfan]

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.

[NewEra]

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).

[cba fan]

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

[Dadonkadonk]

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.  

[Rochesterfan]

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.

 

[BuffaloWings]

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.

 

[cba fan]

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

[LABILLBACKER]

While we're talking about Hughes, has anyone seen Alexander in the last month?

[vincec]

I still think that the system is fundamentally flawed in that it puts the officiating front and center as the most important aspect in deciding close games. It’s set up so that the refs re-review every important call: scoring plays, turnovers, plays inside 2 minutes, plus any other big play that a coach challenges.

 

You typically have a big play, followed by a lengthy review killing all game momentum, and then frequently concluded by a controversial decision that is hard to understand. That’s not what fans want to see at the key moments of a game.  No one pays to watch the refs stare into a camera and explain archane passages from the rule book.

[SoCal Deek]

On ‎1‎/‎2‎/‎2018 at 4:21 PM, 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.

The issue is not whether the rule is specific.  I'll assume that it is. But, we send lawmakers to Washington not only to make new laws, but to amend existing ones when new circumstances arise.  In this case, once again, I do not believe that the INTENT of the rule is being properly interpreted or applied.  I do not believe the rule-writer intended the out of bounds stripe to be a life boat for a player to use as a means of negating a fumble that was clearly made when he was still in bounds.

[Rochesterfan]

10 hours ago, SoCal Deek said:

The issue is not whether the rule is specific.  I'll assume that it is. But, we send lawmakers to Washington not only to make new laws, but to amend existing ones when new circumstances arise.  In this case, once again, I do not believe that the INTENT of the rule is being properly interpreted or applied.  I do not believe the rule-writer intended the out of bounds stripe to be a life boat for a player to use as a means of negating a fumble that was clearly made when he was still in bounds.

 

Ok - so using that logic how would you feel if the Bills fumble there and a Dolphin player clearly out of bounds recovers the fumble and is awarded the ball.  Is that ok?  That exact situation comes up several times throughout the year including early this season for the Bills where the review took forever to see if a ball fumbled near the sidelines was touched or recovered by a player out of bounds.

 

I am not sure what you are looking for with intent - intent is what is causing the catch rule to be very difficult ( where exactly does possession occur and football moves).  This is a black and white rule that we should be looking for more of.  No matter the reason if a ball is loose and someone touching the out of bounds boundary touches the ball - it is dead.  There is no interpretation or gray with it - therefore it can be interpreted the same each time - even if the guy was not trying to recover the ball - he just happened to touch it.

 

The issue with the rule is typically it is not clear because with the fumble usually there is a mad scramble and a pile of bodies and to see exactly who is in bounds and who is out of bounds is the issue - the rule is not the problem it is the increase in camera angles and HD frame by frame film that changes the game and is making replay very difficult compared to 5 or 10 years ago.

 

 

[SoCal Deek]

Rochester.  

 

Im not referring to the intent of the PLAYER, as in the tuck rule.  I'm talking about the intent of the RULE. 

 

Yes, if the player is touching out of bounds he cannot RECOVER a ball that he never had. Why?  Because he isn't actually in the game if he's out of bounds.

 

But, in this case the player left the ball on the field, so just as in the case above he should not be able to regain possession by merely contacting the ball while he's out of bounds!

 

let me ask you this.  If a running back is tip toeing down the sideline and a defender who is now standing out of bounds reaches out and swipes at the ball, hitting it with his fingertips, but NOT causing a fumble, is the play whistled dead because an out of bounds defender touched the ball?  I don't think so. After Sunday I'm not so sure.

[KW95 - JA17]

On 1/2/2018 at 1:52 PM, KW95 said:

 

New Years eve, he's having fun.  Could it be that he will retire after this year and will be his last game?  Who knows, but I thought he called a great game.

 

 

 

It was him and I just saw that Orlando Brown died in 2011 at the age of 40.  

 

I thought Triplette had a good game.

 

DUNKIRK DON GAVE ME THIS INSIDE INFO!