Refs blow call by overturning White's reception.

[DaBruinz]

James White clearly had control of the ball and was in bounds with toes and a whole foot.

No way this should have been over-turned..

 

[Joker]

watch the replay in 57 minutes...

 

[GrogansArmy]

Yeah I didn't get why that was overturned either. I've seen many times a receiver catch a ball with both toes in bounds then when he falls over the heels are out of bounds and its considered a catch. How was this any different?

 

[meatface]

i was listening on the radio but Zolak immediately said it was 100% a catch so i was surprised it was overturned.

 

[smg93]

Yes, I didn't get this either. On the bright side, damn what a catch by White. Way to get after that ball.

 

[DaBruinz]

This will be one that the Pats send in, for sure..

 

[GrogansArmy]

This will be one that the Pats send in, for sure..

I'm not normally a conspiracy theorist, but I'm not sure it matters any more what we send into the NYJFL.

 

[Joker]

This will be one that the Pats send in, for sure..

and Dean "Luca Brazzi" Blandino will categorically deny this shot even exists and/or their cameras never had THAT angle. This clown is an organized crime figure. He's never refereed a game in his putrid life.

 

[TBR]

Yeah that was outrageous.

I think they're trying to claim he didn't have full possession at that point - and by the time he did, the rest of his foot touched out of bounds. But you couldn't tell at all from the replay. Call on the field should stand.

 

[Wheelman]

It should have stood as called. It's way too close to call. More inconsistencies by blandino. Terrible!

 

[neuronet]

That pic isn't sufficient to establish it: if he lands toe-then-hell, then it is incomplete. If it is just toe, and he slides out of bounds *on his toes* then it is complete. This is not actually in the rule book, but part of their case studies the refs go through. It comes up every few years.

In the NFL, a toe is a foot but a heel isn’t

As Michaels and Collinsworth said, if he landed toe-then-heel, it is incomplete. So we'd need to see if his heel touched out of bounds after that toe.

I agree though it is a very strange interpretation of the rules, but they have been consistent on this for a while.

 

[TheBostonStraggler]

This will be one that the Pats send in, for sure..

Blandino will review the Patriot's submission then decide if he was correct in overruling it in the first place.

Hmmm, huh, ummm, yea this one could go either way......

 

[TheBostonStraggler]

That pic isn't sufficient to establish it: if he lands toe-then-hell, then it is incomplete. If it is just toe, and he slides out of bounds *on his toes* then it is complete. This is not actually in the rule book, but part of their case studies the refs go through. It comes up every few years.

In the NFL, a toe is a foot but a heel isn’t

As Michaels and Collinsworth said, if he landed toe-then-heel, it is incomplete. So we'd need to see if his heel touched out of bounds after that toe.

I agree though it is a very strange interpretation of the rules, but they have been consistent on this for a while.

To be fair I thought it could go either way. My issue with it -- unless the review crew had a better image/angle -- is those replays did not show his heel down. It showed what might have been or even likely been a heel just barely down (or barely not down). Is that indisputable to validate a reversal of the on field crew??

 

[neuronet]

To be fair I thought it could go either way. My issue with it -- unless the review crew had a better image/angle -- is those replays did not show his heel down. It showed what might have been or even likely been a heel just barely down (or barely not down). Is that indisputable to validate a reversal of the on field crew??

Yeah, that seems the right question. If they didn't have clear toe-->heel evidence, it should not have been overturned...Would love to get that nice close-up bruinz posted, but the full movie with the best angle so we can tell if his heel went down after his toe.

Michaels and Collinsworth were pretty clear they thought it would be overturned, but didn't really show the angles very well. At another point they seemed unsure. It was weird.

Incidentally, this was a reddit last year:
Rules: Why is dragging a toe considered in, but toe in, then heel out considered out? • /r/nfl

 

[TheBostonStraggler]

Yeah, that seems the right question. If they didn't have clear toe-->heel evidence, it should not have been overturned...Would love to get that nice close-up bruinz posted, but the full movie with the best angle so we can tell if his heel went down after his toe.

Michaels and Collinsworth were pretty clear they thought it would be overturned, but didn't really show the angles very well. At another point they seemed unsure. It was weird.

Incidentally, this was a reddit last year:
Rules: Why is dragging a toe considered in, but toe in, then heel out considered out? • /r/nfl

Why? I'll take a shot at this. Is it because the goose that laid the golden egg is being guarded by a gaggle of galloping ***holes?

 

[ausbacker]

Take it easy guys. Blandino himself has said you can't replace experience... wait what?

 

[neuronet]

Take it easy guys. Blandino himself has said you can't replace experience... wait what?

lol

Which explains why they don't want full-time refs, of course, because they get a lot more experience that way....because.....moonlighting is more than..wait..what?

 

[neuronet]

It's clear it would be a legal catch if he got his camel toe down first.

 

[Patriot Missile]

I thought it had to be conclusive evidence to overturn the call? Didn't look that way to me. Play should of stood imo.

 

[Joker]

heh...."Deflated over two pounds!!!! That's THIS much!!!!"