Did N'Keal Harry really muff the punt?

[Rob0729]

This is the head of officiating in 2015 talking about how they couldn't overturn the call on the field that the ball didn't tough the returner's leg on a punt.

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

This is the head of officiating in 2015 talking about how they couldn't overturn the call on the field that the ball didn't tough the returner's leg on a punt.

Good thing we can all see the ball hit Harry’s face mask.

And here you go: Florio (your authority, when convenient) concedes that precedent is irrelevant. But by all means, continue to back yourself into a corner citing what a guy said six years ago on a decision which was widely scorned, while downplaying that the overwhelming majority of fans (including Patriots fans) believe this was the correct call.

There’s nothing in the rulebook about the ball moving and how to assess the replays. There’s no official manual or document. What Blandino said back then has no meaning now, clearly, since the NFL believes this was the right call. The NFL replay system isn’t sworn to uphold past statements from years ago, on a different play, where the angle was much less conclusive than the one here, where the ball clearly hits the facemask. And it’s very possible that the league did change their replay standards considering the criticism for that call.

For NFL officiating, precedent has "gone out the window" in recent years

This week's edition of After Further Review on PFT Live took a look at, among other things, the decision by the replay official and/or league office to change the ruling on the field that a punt didn't touch Patriots receiver N'Keal Harry.

profootballtalk.nbcsports.com

 

[Rob0729]

Good thing we can all see the ball hit Harry’s face mask.

And here you go: Florio (your authority, when convenient) concedes that precedent is irrelevant. But by all means, continue to back yourself into a corner citing what a guy said six years ago on a decision which was widely scorned, while downplaying that the overwhelming majority of fans (including Patriots fans) believe this was the correct call.

There’s nothing in the rulebook about the ball moving and how to assess the replays. There’s no official manual or document. What Blandino said back then has no meaning now, clearly, since the NFL believes this was the right call. The NFL replay system isn’t sworn to uphold past statements from years ago, on a different play, where the angle was much less conclusive than the one here, where the ball clearly hits the facemask. And it’s very possible that the league did change their replay standards considering the criticism for that call.

View attachment 38598

For NFL officiating, precedent has "gone out the window" in recent years

This week's edition of After Further Review on PFT Live took a look at, among other things, the decision by the replay official and/or league office to change the ruling on the field that a punt didn't touch Patriots receiver N'Keal Harry.

profootballtalk.nbcsports.com

Sorry, but plenty of people here didn't see that it actually hit his face mask. In fact a majority of them didn't. Only a few people claimed they saw the ball actually hit the face mask. Most people are basing their opinion on the direction of the ball only.

And Florio is just reposting information said by other people. And someone else used Florio in here first, not me.

And Blandino made an official statement for the NFL. That is their standard. The standard is clear and obvious which Blandino said according to the NFL is that means they need visual evidence of contact with the player and the ball.

And presidents going out the window is what is wrong with the NFL today. They don't call things the same from drive to drive never mind game to game. That doesn't change that the rules and president is clear.

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

Moron.

 

[Rob0729]

Moron.

View attachment 38600

View attachment 38601

The only other time I have seen this picture from this angle, it wasn't a as sharp of an image and their looked like there was a space between Harry and the ball. And the video looked the same. But sharper image it looks like there is definitely contact. Assuming that cleaning up the picture didn't change any of the depth perception or anything else of the picture (not saying it did, just saying if), this looks like visual evidence of contact.

This obviously could definitely change the whole argument. Now it isn't a case of basing a judgement on the ball trajectory. This picture would be indisputable evidence of the ball hitting his head.

Based on this picture, I am wrong about there is not enough evidence to overturn. This picture appears to have clear contact. There is no it was clear and obvious because the football changed direction argument involved.

But again, few people in this thread has seen this picture though because they didn't talk about visual evidence the ball hit the helmet and only about the ball trajectory.

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

The only other time I have seen this picture from this angle, it wasn't a as sharp of an image and their looked like there was a space between Harry and the ball. And the video looked the same. But sharper image it looks like there is definitely contact. Assuming that cleaning up the picture didn't change any of the depth perception or anything else of the picture (not saying it did, just saying if), this looks like visual evidence of contact.

This obviously could definitely change the whole argument. Now it isn't a case of basing a judgement on the ball trajectory. This picture would be indisputable evidence of the ball hitting his head.

Based on this picture, I am wrong about there is not enough evidence to overturn. This picture appears to have clear contact. There is no it was clear and obvious because the football changed direction argument involved.

But again, few people in this thread has seen this picture though because they didn't talk about visual evidence the ball hit the helmet and only about the ball trajectory.

It’s a screenshot from this video here, which is in slow mo…and then a zoomed in screen shot. I added the circle but didn’t edit it otherwise.



Now I’m editing by taking to make it brighter and some mode called shadow, which I guess removes shadows (just using iPad.)

 

[1960Pats]

It pretty clear to me that Jones didn't make the first down either. That is why I never mocked McDermott for calling the challenge, but I knew it was never going to get overturned because there was no way you could see the ball from any of the camera angles.

I certainly wouldn't have a problem if the league allowed refs to make judgement calls when all the evidence clearly points to the fact the ruling on the field was the incorrect call. In fact, I think they should give the refs that ability. But the league doesn't. The rule is that the replay official actually has to see the ball actually hit Harry's helmet to overturn the call and not that the ball changes trajectory because the ball seems to clearly hit his helmet.

There was no video evidence at all that Jones was short, but you think it was "pretty clear."

But in a situation where there's actual video evidence that the ball changed direction, you're not sure?

None of that makes a bit of sense.

 

[Rob0729]

There was no video evidence at all that Jones was short, but you think it was "pretty clear."

But in a situation where there's actual video evidence that the ball changed direction, you're not sure?

None of that makes a bit of sense.

Yes, if you twist everything I said into something I never said you are on the money.

I said that I think that is extremely likely Harry did touch the ball and that Mac Jones didn't get the first down. And until Ice Ice Brady posted an image that showed the ball more clearly on the punt I said that there wasn't video evidence in either case to overturn either ruling on the field.

Sorry to confuse you with my consistency.

 

[Wozzy]

It clearly hit his face mask, the clown was wearing a dark face shield at night in rain and sleet.

Still wasn't his fault though, the person who is at fault is the guy who thought it would be smart to put him out there.

They have the best PR in the NFL and thought they would get tricky... dumb.

 

[DropKickFlutie]

It clearly hit his face mask, the clown was wearing a dark face shield at night in rain and sleet.

Still wasn't his fault though, the person who is at fault is the guy who thought it would be smart to put him out there.

They have the best PR in the NFL and thought they would get tricky... dumb.

Correct. Is there actually an argument whether Harry touched the ball? He definitely did.

Also btw NKeal Harry remains an epic 1st round bust.

 

[Brotherblues]

It clearly hit his face mask, the clown was wearing a dark face shield at night in rain and sleet.

Still wasn't his fault though, the person who is at fault is the guy who thought it would be smart to put him out there.

They have the best PR in the NFL and thought they would get tricky... dumb.

Gunner was lined up to field a shorter, crappier punt, which was deemed more likely to happen. Harry was not put out there to actually be a returner, but to prevent the ball from bouncing and rolling all the way to the goal line. It wasn't really asking a lot from him.

 

[patman12]

It's as if Harry doesn't recognize what he's looking at.

 

[The Brandon Five]

Still don't why he as moving in the direction of the bouncing ball rather than away from it.

 

[Brotherblues]

It's as if Harry doesn't recognize what he's looking at.

I can't either. Is that a girl or some dude in a hoodie? And if it's a girl how come her hair is all perfect and unaffected by the wind? Is she a vision? I'm beginning to see why Harry got confused and started stumbling.

 

[Pats1971]

Odds are that it hit his mask. But by the rules, there has to be indisputable evidence that the ball hit Harry. And from my standpoint, there is no such evidence.

The fact that everyone could see it hit his facemask seems to be indisputable. I mean, we all saw it hit his facemask. When they start leaving it up to biased pats fans as the ones who judge that then I guess things will change, but until then, the ball hit his facemask very obvious.

 

[Pats1971]

Sure, in a gradual arc. But hitting his helmet caused an instant change in angle. I thought it was clear as day, TBH.

Very much clear as day. In fact he said it hit his facemask. lol. Nobody even argued and I cannot believe there is actually someone saying it didnt.

 

[Rob0729]

The fact that everyone could see it hit his facemask seems to be indisputable. I mean, we all saw it hit his facemask. When they start leaving it up to biased pats fans as the ones who judge that then I guess things will change, but until then, the ball hit his facemask very obvious.

Did you read the this thread? Most people didn't see it hit the face mask. That was the point of this whole thread. Most people saw that the ball changed direction, not hit the face mask. Let's not revise history. And according to the NFL, you need to see it actually hit the player to overturn the call. The change of direction of the ball is not enough proof.

And when did Eli and Peyton Manning become biased Patriots fans? Both of them said during the Manning Cast that the video didn't show it hitting the facemask.

Ice Ice Brady posted an enhanced picture that shows the ball actually hitting the helmet. I assume that is what the sky judge saw because he has software that allows to manipulate the video to get clearer views. But the actual broadcast film shown during the game didn't show it clearly hitting his face mask.

 

[Wozzy]

Gunner was lined up to field a shorter, crappier punt, which was deemed more likely to happen. Harry was not put out there to actually be a returner, but to prevent the ball from bouncing and rolling all the way to the goal line. It wasn't really asking a lot from him.

Gunner took a full season to learn how to field punts cleanly and safely… N’Keal shouldn’t have been out there… period.

 

[DropKickFlutie]

Gunner was lined up to field a shorter, crappier punt, which was deemed more likely to happen. Harry was not put out there to actually be a returner, but to prevent the ball from bouncing and rolling all the way to the goal line. It wasn't really asking a lot from him.

Harry should only play where he's ok at like TE3.

 

[Jlaff]

Sorry, us adults know the NFL rules and know that what you said is a bunch of garbage,

The ball definitely moved. However, a similar situation happened in 2015, during a game between the Bears and the Seahawks. During a punt, replay review explored whether the ball struck the leg of a Seattle player. In a weekly video, then-V.P. of officiating Dean Blandino explained that, to overturn the ruling on the field, there must be clear and obvious evidence that the ball actually touched the player.

“Does this ball really jump that far to the right where we think the ball clearly hit his leg?” Blandino said at the time. “It’s reasonable to assume that it hit his leg. But, again, we cannot make a decision based on the ball changing direction. We have to see clear evidence that the ball absolutely touched his leg.”

Said Eli last night, accurately: “You can’t tell if it hit. You see the ball move, but you can’t see it hit anything, I don’t think.”

Added Peyton: “The ball is the same color as the facemask, and so you can’t see [if] it his the facemask.”

N'Keal Harry ruling was changed by new partial sky judge procedure, but was it the right call?

The NFL has begun using the modified sky judge procedure this year, with the replay official and the league office now permitted to consult with the game officials on several specific, objective dynamics of rule application and game administration.

profootballtalk.nbcsports.com

By the league's standard, the changing direction is irrelevant.

Looks like we're on the right side of history here.

Edit: ok from that blown up picture I'm 90% on hit the facemask. Angle could still be deceiving though with depth, etc.