I thought it was the correct call.
“He lost the ball,” referee Tony Corrente told a pool reporter. “It came out of his control as he was almost to the ground. Now he re-grasps the ball and by rule, now he has to complete the process of a recovery, which means he has to survive the ground again. So in recovering it, he recovered, hit the knee, started to roll and the ball came out a second time. So the ball started to move in his hands this way … he’s now out of bounds in the end zone, which now created a touchback. So he didn’t survive the recovery and didn’t survive the ground during the recovery is what happened here.”
Correct call according to the rules. If you don't like the call, then change the rules.
“He lost the ball,” referee Tony Corrente told a pool reporter. “It came out of his control as he was almost to the ground. Now he re-grasps the ball and by rule, now he has to complete the process of a recovery, which means he has to survive the ground again. So in recovering it, he recovered, hit the knee, started to roll and the ball came out a second time. So the ball started to move in his hands this way … he’s now out of bounds in the end zone, which now created a touchback. So he didn’t survive the recovery and didn’t survive the ground during the recovery is what happened here.”
Correct call according to the rules. If you don't like the call, then change the rules.
I 100% agree with you. But Isn't the rule worded as must have control not doesn't fumble
I think the refs screwed up.
ASJ did juggle the ball but as people have pointed out, he controlled the ball while in the end zone. At that instant, the player has crossed the plane of the end zone and is in possession of the football. The play should have been ruled dead and a touchdown.
Instead, the referees appear to have misapplied a possesion standard in the nfl rulebook for a catch or fumle and recovery. Here, the catch was already well established. The ball never hit the ground nor changed player hand so there would be no need to reestablish possession.
If juggling the ball without the ball touching the ground or turning it over is technically a fumble, then there would be a lot more data points for fumbles in the nfl game official statistics. I've seen countless times when a qb, rb or wr has the ball squirt loose on a big hit but not lost nor hit the ground and immediately secured by the ballcarrier. If the ref's interpretation of a fumble is that technical, then there should be a lot more fumbles being recorded. There are not.
It was a juggle and should have been ruled a td as soon as ASJ secured it the first time in the end zone. The fact that it switched hands after he hit the ground should not matter.
ASJ did juggle the ball but as people have pointed out, he controlled the ball while in the end zone. At that instant, the player has crossed the plane of the end zone and is in possession of the football. The play should have been ruled dead and a touchdown.
Instead, the referees appear to have misapplied a possesion standard in the nfl rulebook for a catch or fumle and recovery. Here, the catch was already well established. The ball never hit the ground nor changed player hand so there would be no need to reestablish possession.
If juggling the ball without the ball touching the ground or turning it over is technically a fumble, then there would be a lot more data points for fumbles in the nfl game official statistics. I've seen countless times when a qb, rb or wr has the ball squirt loose on a big hit but not lost nor hit the ground and immediately secured by the ballcarrier. If the ref's interpretation of a fumble is that technical, then there should be a lot more fumbles being recorded. There are not.
It was a juggle and should have been ruled a td as soon as ASJ secured it the first time in the end zone. The fact that it switched hands after he hit the ground should not matter.
He had already caught it. Losing the ball going to the ground after crossing the goaline means nothing.
If this play were at the 50 yard line he would be ruled down by contact after fumbling into his own hands.
If he fumbled on the 1....it has no affect if the ball doesn't go through the end zone with no control. But he did have control. And he did cross the pylon. Then he lost it on the way back to the ground. Makes no sense. It was already a catch. Who cares if he fumbles a second time after already crossing the goal line.
Todd Gurley fumbled on the 1and the ball went through the end zone under no one's control.
If this play were at the 50 yard line he would be ruled down by contact after fumbling into his own hands.
If he fumbled on the 1....it has no affect if the ball doesn't go through the end zone with no control. But he did have control. And he did cross the pylon. Then he lost it on the way back to the ground. Makes no sense. It was already a catch. Who cares if he fumbles a second time after already crossing the goal line.
Todd Gurley fumbled on the 1and the ball went through the end zone under no one's control.
Ok I didn't even see a 2nd fumble on the videos in this thread. I don't know anymore. It was already a catch and then he caught his own fumble before he entered the endzone to avoid losing possession. Looked like a great play by the TE to save the touchdown honestly. Lol.
He got the ball stripped but he re caught it before he got into the end zone and then hit the pylon. Easy call.
He got the ball stripped but he re caught it before he got into the end zone and then hit the pylon. Easy call.
<header class="entry-header" style="position: relative; box-sizing: border-box; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 16px;">[h=1]Head referee says Jets touchdown-turned-fumble call was 'pretty obvious'[/h]By Phil Perry October 15, 2017 6:25 PM
<tbody style="border: none; padding: 0px; margin: 0px; width: auto; float: none; border-radius: 0px; background: none; box-sizing: border-box;">
</tbody>
</header><iframe id="google_ads_iframe_/6003/csn.ne/patriots_3" title="3rd party ad content" name="google_ads_iframe_/6003/csn.ne/patriots_3" style="width: 300px" height="250" scrolling="no" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" frameborder="0"></iframe>
EAST RUTHERFORD, N.J. -- Tony Corrente said there was one replay of the Austin Seferian-Jenkins touchdown-that-wasn't which made the correct call, in his mind, fairly apparent.
"We went through two or three primary looks," Corrente told pool reporter Bob Glauber of his interaction with the replay officials in New York, "and then this other shot came up. When the other shot came up, it was just 'boom, boom, booom.' It was a pretty quick determination. It was pretty obvious."
Corrente said that midway through the fourth quarter Seferian-Jenkins was ruled to have scored a touchdown because his back was to the down judge on the field. The down judge thought he saw the ball pass over the goal line in the front right corner of the end zone, but he couldn't see the ball tucked away.
MORE:
The bottom line for Corrente -- and obviously for senior vice president of officiating Alberto Riveron and his team, who make the final decisions on video reviews -- was that Seferian-Jenkins had not re-established himself in-bounds with possession of the football after Malcolm Butler punched it loose. That would mean, like a catch, having two feet (or a knee, or a forearm, etc.) in bounds with the football secured.
"You've got to keep in mind, he doesn't have possession of the football yet," Corrente said when asked about Seferian-Jenkins hitting the pylon. "When he lost the ball short of the goal line, when he lost the ball, he re-gained control but that doesn't mean he possesses the ball. He doesn't possess the ball until he's completed going to the ground now and re-controlling the ball, which he did not survive the ground, which is why it wasn't a touchdown."
It was a game-changing call and a controversial one given that the replay, according to some, seemed inconclusive. But Corrente and the officials in New York saw it differently.
"At [the] point he touched the pylon, it was during the process of trying to recover the ball," Corrente said. "Even though he may have had the ball in his hands the second time, that control does not mean possession until he comes to the ground and shows firm control of the ball at that point."
15 |
<tbody style="border: none; padding: 0px; margin: 0px; width: auto; float: none; border-radius: 0px; background: none; box-sizing: border-box;">
</tbody>
</header><iframe id="google_ads_iframe_/6003/csn.ne/patriots_3" title="3rd party ad content" name="google_ads_iframe_/6003/csn.ne/patriots_3" style="width: 300px" height="250" scrolling="no" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" frameborder="0"></iframe>
EAST RUTHERFORD, N.J. -- Tony Corrente said there was one replay of the Austin Seferian-Jenkins touchdown-that-wasn't which made the correct call, in his mind, fairly apparent.
"We went through two or three primary looks," Corrente told pool reporter Bob Glauber of his interaction with the replay officials in New York, "and then this other shot came up. When the other shot came up, it was just 'boom, boom, booom.' It was a pretty quick determination. It was pretty obvious."
Corrente said that midway through the fourth quarter Seferian-Jenkins was ruled to have scored a touchdown because his back was to the down judge on the field. The down judge thought he saw the ball pass over the goal line in the front right corner of the end zone, but he couldn't see the ball tucked away.
MORE:
- Did the refs get the Austin Seferian-Jenkins call right?
- Brady picks up record-breaking 187th regular-season win, but isn't thrilled
- Dion Lewis makes his case, helps Patriots running attack vs. Jets
- Gronkowski a force in return to action
- Best and Worst: Patriots 24, Jets 17
The bottom line for Corrente -- and obviously for senior vice president of officiating Alberto Riveron and his team, who make the final decisions on video reviews -- was that Seferian-Jenkins had not re-established himself in-bounds with possession of the football after Malcolm Butler punched it loose. That would mean, like a catch, having two feet (or a knee, or a forearm, etc.) in bounds with the football secured.
"You've got to keep in mind, he doesn't have possession of the football yet," Corrente said when asked about Seferian-Jenkins hitting the pylon. "When he lost the ball short of the goal line, when he lost the ball, he re-gained control but that doesn't mean he possesses the ball. He doesn't possess the ball until he's completed going to the ground now and re-controlling the ball, which he did not survive the ground, which is why it wasn't a touchdown."
It was a game-changing call and a controversial one given that the replay, according to some, seemed inconclusive. But Corrente and the officials in New York saw it differently.
"At [the] point he touched the pylon, it was during the process of trying to recover the ball," Corrente said. "Even though he may have had the ball in his hands the second time, that control does not mean possession until he comes to the ground and shows firm control of the ball at that point."
Simplified: No Possession of the ball existed as the ball crossed the goal line. AS-J was unable to demonstrate Re-Posession of the ball, within the end zone, to a degree that satisfied what the Rule demands. While trying to do that the ball went outta bounds.
Touchback.
I was on Jets +9.5, did not like this & I agree with those above who REALLY dislike this outcome.
Just Sayin: That Above is what NFL is trying to say just they're using way too many words.
Touchback.
I was on Jets +9.5, did not like this & I agree with those above who REALLY dislike this outcome.
Just Sayin: That Above is what NFL is trying to say just they're using way too many words.
