Did N'Keal Harry really muff the punt?

[venecol]

I think saying that the "odds are overwhelming that it hit his helmet" is the same thing as saying that it is "clear and obvious".

You don't overturn a call that's 50-50 based on replay. But this was somthing more like 95-5 (or higher, TBH).

He'll never concede. That's just the way Rob is. He's Andy-lite.

BTW, the 2019 rule (instant replay of PIs) quoted by Rob is no longer in effect as of last season. The sky judge rules I referenced are new and in effect for the 2021 season. In addition, the league abandoned the old video review process and adopted the Hawkeye technology this season.

New equipment is ‘Smart’​

Another key change in replay has to do with the equipment. This year, the NFL is using a replay system produced by Hawk-Eye Technologies, the same company that made its name with different system that assists with line calls in tennis. The league has dumped its proprietary NFL Vision replay system. The Hawkeye system will give the replay official a better chance at making these corrections prior to the play clock hitting 20.

The major difference is the replay equipment is now a video ingest system. Rather than waiting for the director in the TV truck to punch up the best angle on the broadcast replay, the Hawkeye system records multiple key angles, allowing there to be, literally, an instant replay in the replay booth. The replay official able to rewind the play with all angles in sync and select the key camera angles where there was smoke as soon as the play is ruled dead.

NFL replay official Robert Lu explained the system to SportTechie in 2020 when he also worked as an XFL replay official:

The Hawk-Eye system gives us the opportunity to have every camera feed that’s available sent directly to us and in-sync. The other systems available out there are dependent on the TV producers to provide the angles [to replay officials]. It’s a system that’s not dependent on another party to provide you with the video that you’ve been positioned with. It basically eliminates a step.

To say that he didn't see the ball hit the helmet with only the TV producers replays is irrelevant (even though many here did in fact see it hit the helmet with the tv replays). The guys in NY, that have access to other videos that all come in sync, saw it hit the helmet. Case closed.

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

That has never been the standard for replay. If that was, far more challenges would be won. There are plenty of times we see challenges where you say the call was definitely wrong, but there isn't visual evidence to overturn it.

The standards for replay have been the same forever. They haven't changed them. Someone on this board saw the standard as "clear and obvious" and decided to rewrite the rules. The standard is indisputable evidence whether you call it indisputable or clear and obvious. The league is admament that they do not the refs making judgement calls. The evidence has to prove it to overturn or they can't. That hasn't changed. And no one has shown any evidence that it has.

In 2015, the league specifically said in an exact same instance like this that you absolutely need to see contact between the player and the ball and changing direction of the ball is not enough to overturn it. We are dealing with the same replay rules today.

Keep moving those goal posts. You’re purposely conflating two issues (as usual), moving back and forth to divert from your bad opinion.

First: should the sky judge have stepped in? That’s the question in dispute because it’s unclear how blatantly obvious it has to be for the sky judge to overrule one call and not another (since there are missed calls all the time that don’t get selected by the sky judge.)

Second: should the play have been overturned upon replay? That’s the relevant question here because, had the sky judge not stepped in, you can be sure Buffalo would have used a challenge flag. Same standard, and it would have been the same result.

Regarding your claim that a few years ago, the NFL stated a change of ball direction itself doesn’t mean you can conclude the ball hit a player, that’s only if there’s no other visual evidence to support the conclusion the ball hit the player. In this case, the ball‘s movement clearly just reaffirms what is already shown. In addition, the ball dramatically changes direction - at the exact same time of impact on the face ask - since it bounces. This is very different from an obstructed replay angle.

In addition, @venecol already posted an article that there are other camera angles available to refs, but you’ve decided again that you’d rather turn yourself into a victim and repeat yourself 800 times.

 

[FCB02062]

let's see...the ball didn't hit Edelman in the 2018 championship game but it did hit Harry on Monday night...win some, lose some...

 

[Rob0729]

He'll never concede. That's just the way Rob is. He's Andy-lite.

BTW, the 2019 rule (instant replay of PIs) quoted by Rob is no longer in effect as of last season. The sky judge rules I referenced are new and in effect for the 2021 season. In addition, the league abandoned the old video review process and adopted the Hawkeye technology this season.

New equipment is ‘Smart’​

Another key change in replay has to do with the equipment. This year, the NFL is using a replay system produced by Hawk-Eye Technologies, the same company that made its name with different system that assists with line calls in tennis. The league has dumped its proprietary NFL Vision replay system. The Hawkeye system will give the replay official a better chance at making these corrections prior to the play clock hitting 20.

The major difference is the replay equipment is now a video ingest system. Rather than waiting for the director in the TV truck to punch up the best angle on the broadcast replay, the Hawkeye system records multiple key angles, allowing there to be, literally, an instant replay in the replay booth. The replay official able to rewind the play with all angles in sync and select the key camera angles where there was smoke as soon as the play is ruled dead.

NFL replay official Robert Lu explained the system to SportTechie in 2020 when he also worked as an XFL replay official:



To say that he didn't see the ball hit the helmet with only the TV producers replays is irrelevant (even though many here did in fact see it hit the helmet with the tv replays). The guys in NY, that have access to other videos that all come in sync, saw it hit the helmet. Case closed.

I will respond to this one. Either you have a reading comprehension problem or you are not too bright.

• Yes, the NFL changed the rules in 2019 to expand the replay challenge to cover PI, but they applied the existing standard to the expansion. They didn't change the standard of how they review the play. In fact, the rule states that it is apply the existing standards that were already used for all other replays. If they changed the standards, they would have stated as such in the rules change announcement.
• And you clearly do not understand what the Hawkeye technology is. Nowhere in what you posted does it say they have additional camera angles or feeds with this technology. What Hawkeye is a piece of software that allows them to instantaneously sync up all the existing feeds into one so they can look at the play at all angles available. It doesn't provide new camera angles that aren't part of the broadcasts.

And you can keep on trying to bait me all you want. You are not bothering me. You are only making an arse of yourself. Half the stuff you are accusing me of, you are doing yourself. You should have admitted you were wrong about the clear and obvious BS and left it at that. And now you are displaying your ignorance again showing that you don't understand how the technology you posted to prove me "wrong" even works. If I was you, I would quit while you are way behind.

But if you want. Keep on acting like an a-hole. I will just keep ignoring you. I don't even read most of your posts unless someone is responding to you.

 

[Palm Beach Pats Fan]

The league is admament that they do not the refs making judgement calls.

That's indeed the line, but it is still a judgement call/decision as to what passes the set standard of being "clear and obvious". Sometimes it seems to mean "it is way more likely than not that this happened" and sometimes it seems to mean "I'm 100% sure that this is what happened".

I don't think you can get rid of the human element unless you let one person looking at a screen in NY make every single replay decision.

 

[Rob0729]

That's indeed the line, but it is still a judgement call/decision as to what passes the set standard of being "clear and obvious". Sometimes it seems to mean "it is way more likely than not that this happened" and sometimes it seems to mean "I'm 100% sure that this is what happened".

I don't think you can get rid of the human element unless you let one person looking at a screen in NY make every single replay decision.

How are setting the standard for "clear and obvious"? Until today, you didn't even know that was what the league called the standard. Nothing on the web page posted in this thread defined clear and obvious. No offense, but you are taking your interpretation of what you think "clear and obvious" means and applying it to the league's standard without proof.

You have been watching the NFL with replay for how many years? Have you ever seen a replay overturn a call where there is no actual indisputable proof of a player crossing the first down marker, going out of bounds, muffing a punt, or whatever using the standard you think clear and obvious is? How many times have you seen a challenge when a player is given the first down when it looks clear and obvious that he didn't get past the first down marker or clear and obvious that the player didn't cross the goal line, but no camera angle picked up where the ball was when the play was blown dead to overturn the call? Or there is no camera angle to show when his knee was down? How many of those plays have been overturned? I am guessing none.

 

[venecol]

I will respond to this one. Either you have a reading comprehension problem or you are not too bright.

• Yes, the NFL changed the rules in 2019 to expand the replay challenge to cover PI, but they applied the existing standard to the expansion. They didn't change the standard of how they review the play. In fact, the rule states that it is apply the existing standards that were already used for all other replays. If they changed the standards, they would have stated as such in the rules change announcement.
• And you clearly do not understand what the Hawkeye technology is. Nowhere in what you posted does it say they have additional camera angles or feeds with this technology. What Hawkeye is a piece of software that allows them to instantaneously sync up all the existing feeds into one so they can look at the play at all angles available. It doesn't provide new camera angles that aren't part of the broadcasts.

And you can keep on trying to bait me all you want. You are not bothering me. You are only making an arse of yourself. Half the stuff you are accusing me of, you are doing yourself. You should have admitted you were wrong about the clear and obvious BS and left it at that. And now you are displaying your ignorance again showing that you don't understand how the technology you posted to prove me "wrong" even works. If I was you, I would quit while you are way behind.

But if you want. Keep on acting like an a-hole. I will just keep ignoring you. I don't even read most of your posts unless someone is responding to you.

Sure Rob, we've all witnessed what you've said from the get go, but as always, you're changing your position to suit your narrative:

1. You started using the word "indisputable" evidence as the standard.
2. It wasn't until I introduced the actual language in the Rule book "clear and obvious" that you all of a sudden changed your narrative to "clear and obvious." A confirmation of this happening is that several posters then decided that "clear and obvious" was more likely than "indisputable". Or are those posters having reading comprehensions as well?
3. You then went even further, to try to salvage your horrible take, by conflating "clear and obvious" with "indisputable" even though nowhere in the rule book it say that. You're just making sh!t up.
4. You used a 2015 example that no longer applies, because the rules have changed 6 times (they change every year) since then.
5. You claimed the sky judge rules are the same as the instant replay rules, but they're not. Otherwise they wouldn't have a separate section for those rules. Yes, the "clear and obvious" standard is the same but not your so-called "indisputable" standard that doesn't exist.
6. You then quoted a 2019 rule that no longer exists. Either you're just lazy or not smart enough to actually look at the current rules. Here let me help you out: 2020 NFL Rulebook | NFL Football Operations
7. They do have access to other videos, look it up yourself.

I'm not baiting you, simply challenging your horrible takes and exposing the hypocrite that you are. A real man would have conceded, given all the current and factual information provided. However, for some reason you feel that admitting you were wrong is somehow a hit on your character, when the opposite is true.

You are wrong. 95% of posters on this thread agree that you are wrong, yet you continue to push your horrible take based on a standard that doesn't exist.

I don't expect you to concede because that's who you are. You've actually stated this in other threads, that once you form an opinion, you like to be argumentative and see it through to the end. Knock yourself out dude. It is you, who looks like an ass.

 

[Rob0729]

Sure Rob, we've all witnessed what you've said from the get go, but as always, you're changing your position to suit your narrative:

1. You started using the word "indisputable" evidence as the standard.
2. It wasn't until I introduced the actual language in the Rule book "clear and obvious" that you all of a sudden changed your narrative to "clear and obvious." A confirmation of this happening is that several posters then decided that "clear and obvious" was more likely than "indisputable". Or are those posters having reading comprehensions as well?
3. You then went even further, to try to salvage your horrible take, by conflating "clear and obvious" with "indisputable" even though nowhere in the rule book it say that. You're just making sh!t up.
4. You used a 2015 example that no longer applies, because the rules have changed 6 times (they change every year) since then.
5. You claimed the sky judge rules are the same as the instant replay rules, but they're not. Otherwise they wouldn't have a separate section for those rules. Yes, the "clear and obvious" standard is the same but not your so-called "indisputable" standard that doesn't exist.
6. You then quoted a 2019 rule that no longer exists. Either you're just lazy or not smart enough to actually look at the current rules. Here let me help you out: 2020 NFL Rulebook | NFL Football Operations
7. They do have access to other videos, look it up yourself.

I'm not baiting you, simply challenging your horrible takes and exposing the hypocrite that you are. A real man would have conceded, given all the current and factual information provided. However, for some reason you feel that admitting you were wrong is somehow a hit on your character, when the opposite is true.

You are wrong. 95% of posters on this thread agree that you are wrong, yet you continue to push your horrible take based on a standard that doesn't exist.

I don't expect you to concede because that's who you are. You've actually stated this in other threads, that once you form an opinion, you like to be argumentative and see it through to the end. Knock yourself out dude. It is you, who looks like an ass.

Thank you for the response. Have a lovely day. You are the best. Don't ever change.

 

[Jlaff]

I understand that base on logic and physics the odds are overwhelming that it hit his helmet. But the NFL standard and precedence says that it isn't enough. You actually need to see the ball make contact with his helmet.

Harry should have never gone after the ball unless he thought the ball already hit him when he missed catching the ball. If he didn't, I don't care if the ball bounced in the wrong direction because he should have been running in the opposite direction of the ball the second he missed catching the ball.

I'm starting to agree with you. Relying on the ball changing direction is relying on circumstantial evidence. While circumstantial evidence CAN be indisputable, I don't think that's enough here with the wind being what it was that night. Unless the booth knew with certainty that the wind at the ball at that exact moment was moving in the opposite direction from the direction the ball moved.

 

[venecol]

That's indeed the line, but it is still a judgement call/decision as to what passes the set standard of being "clear and obvious". Sometimes it seems to mean "it is way more likely than not that this happened" and sometimes it seems to mean "I'm 100% sure that this is what happened".

I don't think you can get rid of the human element unless you let one person looking at a screen in NY make every single replay decision.

BINGO.

Even the old 2019 (voided) rule that Rob quoted acknowledges the subjectivity of these calls:

2. After the two-minute warning in each half, and during an overtime period, the Replay Official will stop the game to initiate a replay review for pass interference under stricter criteria/guidelines than is applicable for other reviewable play types. The rationale for the stricter criteria is to prevent excessive game clock stoppages for a foul that involves a greater degree of subjectivity than other reviewable plays. Accordingly, the Replay Official will stop the game when there is clear and obvious visual evidence that a pass interference foul may or may not have occurred, based on viewing the play live or any initial available line feed views.

It's human nature for people to see things differently. We've seen studies of crime witnesses identifying the same person differently. This doesn't even take into account the obvious mental aspect of making a decision based on visual cues.

In this example, it is being postulated that there is no video evidence that the ball hits the helmet, even though:

I understand that base on logic and physics the odds are overwhelming that it hit his helmet. But the NFL standard and precedence says that it isn't enough. You actually need to see the ball make contact with his helmet.

How does the mind of a sky judge supposed to parse these two pieces of information? His main purpose is to make the correct call. Are we to believe that under the "clear and obvious" standard he's supposed to ignore "overwhelming odds" the ball hit his helmet? Of course not.

Now in this case I saw the ball hit his facemask, as did 95% of the other posters. Pretty sure the sky judge with access to state-of-the-art technology did as well. I got sucked into going into Rob's weird mind. I'm out.

 

[Rob0729]

I'm starting to agree with you. Relying on the ball changing direction is relying on circumstantial evidence. While circumstantial evidence CAN be indisputable, I don't think that's enough here with the wind being what it was that night. Unless the booth knew with certainty that the wind at the ball at that exact moment was moving in the opposite direction from the direction the ball moved.

 

[Dingleberry]

Clear and obvious and indisputable seem to be a distinction without a difference. The examples given by the league for clear and obvious are the same as indisputable. Like stepping out of bounds. Either they see a part of the foot go out of bounds or they didn't. It isn't that sky judge is going to overturn a play where they give a receiver a TD but the sky judge claimed he went out of bounds before he crossed the end zone because the grass by his foot moved in a certain direction. No. It is because he has visual evidence of the receiver's foot going out of bounds.

The examples given by the league doesn't include the sky judge making judgement calls. In fact, the standard for replay is also clear and obvious.

This is a news release from the NFL for the 2019 NFL rules changes for pass interference. The standard in replay for overturning a pass interfence call is also "clear and obvious".

• Clear and Obvious Visual Evidence: A pass interference ruling (called or not called on the field) will be changed in replay only when there is clear and obvious visual evidence that the on-field ruling was incorrect. This standard (“clear and obvious visual evidence”) is consistently applied to all replay reviews.

Competition Committee Finalizes Replay Rule for 2019 Season | NFL Football Operations

operations.nfl.com

So here is proof that the sky judge is held to the same standard as a replay. More proof the call on the field shouldn't be oveturned. The poster you are responding to just doesn't understand the NFL rules for replay and thought he found a difference with the sky judge that doesn't exist.

I disagree that " clear and obvious" and "indisputable" are without difference. They are actually quite different legally and literally.

If clear and obvious is the NFL guideline for overturns, then this was an appropriate overturn. The replay shows clear and obvious evidence that the ball hit his helmet. Is it indisputable? Well, no as this thread proves. Someone can say it is possible that the wind sharply effected the ball's movement at the exact moment it was next to the helmet. But be honest, there is a 99%+ chance that it was not the wind. Technically, not indisputable as we do not have a still photo of the ball touching the helmet, but it is clear and obvious.

"Indisputable" requires proof not just evidence. A photo showing the ball wedged in the facemask would be the best indisputable proof. According to our rule researchers this is not the requirement.

Let's go to the Bills' challenge of Mac's QB sneak. If you asked me to bet my life, I would say he didn't get the first down. Thankfully, there was no evidence (certainly none clear and obvious). Correct not to overturn.

This all reminds me of my crazy experience with jury duty several years back. I had a days long argument with the rest of the jury about the distinction between proof and reasonable doubt. It was a trial for assault with a deadly weapon. At the beginning of deliberations, it was 9-3 Not Guilty. I was one of the 3. After day 2, they had worn down the other 2, and I was the lone ******* keeping us from completing our civic duty. They all admitted the person was probably guilty, but kept throwing out "what if" scenarios (most ridiculous). I finally agreed to one more soliloquy where if I didn't sway anyone, I would agree to their verdict.

I explained for the 100th time that there is huge difference between reasonable doubt and indisputable proof. They were living in a fantasy land of CSI shows where every crime is packaged with a nice, tidy bow of proof. The real world rarely works that way. Just because you can come up with an alternative reality does not mean it is reasonable. Their "what ifs" were really akin to the wind moving that ball away from the helmet. It's possible, but really, is it?

The defendant was determined to be Not Guilty. Several of the jurors reached out to me in the following weeks to apologize after they were able to read/research some items related to the case that were deemed inadmissible by the judge. This person should have been found guilty and punished.

Sorry for the tangent. As you can tell, it still irritates me today!

 

[Palm Beach Pats Fan]

You have been watching the NFL with replay for how many years? Have you ever seen a replay overturn a call where there is no actual indisputable proof of a player crossing the first down marker, going out of bounds, muffing a punt, or whatever using the standard you think clear and obvious is?

about 50 years, and yes, occasionally I disagree with a replay decision. Sometimes it's probably becaude I'm a fan wanting to see it my team's way, but sometimes it is a replay official who I think went with a "more likely than not" standard, when I expected proof and didn't see it.

Have you never seen a call reversal and thought "Well, they PROBABLY got that call right, but I am not SURE that they did"???

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

If clear and obvious is the NFL guideline for overturns, then this was an appropriate overturn. The replay shows clear and obvious evidence that the ball hit his helmet. Is it indisputable? Well, no as this thread proves. Someone can say it is possible that the wind sharply effected the ball's movement at the exact moment it was next to the helmet. But be honest, there is a 99%+ chance that it was not the wind. Technically, not indisputable as we do not have a still photo of the ball touching the helmet, but it is clear and obvious.

By Rob’s dishonest standard, you can’t even prove the ball hit the ground on the punt. All we saw were some isolated video frames…one where the ball was headed towards the ground…the next where it’s milimeters away, the next where it’s bouncing up. None where the ball rests on the ground.

How do we know the ball didn’t stop a millimeter from the ground and then get thrusted upward by a once-in-a-lifetime upward wind coming from the field?

Hey, you’re arguing with a guy who says physics are irrelevant.

For those who wish to be adults: the ball’s sharp, angular trajectory change isn’t possible with the wind but only due to contact on the facemask. Specific frames of video footage, taken individual as stills, fail to prove much when you’re looking at the motion of a football relative to other objects like a player’s hands, the ground, etc. The actual motion produced by the video, at 60 frames per second, is needed. Sometimes there are gaps between frames. It doesn’t make something less ”indisputable” because cameras often fail to capture a nanosecond still image where two things are touching each other.

”But your honor, the video doesn’t show the actual bullet. There’s only the sound of the gun, a small explosion, and then we just know the bullet ended up in the victim.“

 

[Rob0729]

I disagree that " clear and obvious" and "indisputable" are without difference. They are actually quite different legally and literally.

If clear and obvious is the NFL guideline for overturns, then this was an appropriate overturn. The replay shows clear and obvious evidence that the ball hit his helmet. Is it indisputable? Well, no as this thread proves. Someone can say it is possible that the wind sharply effected the ball's movement at the exact moment it was next to the helmet. But be honest, there is a 99%+ chance that it was not the wind. Technically, not indisputable as we do not have a still photo of the ball touching the helmet, but it is clear and obvious.

"Indisputable" requires proof not just evidence. A photo showing the ball wedged in the facemask would be the best indisputable proof. According to our rule researchers this is not the requirement.

Let's go to the Bills' challenge of Mac's QB sneak. If you asked me to bet my life, I would say he didn't get the first down. Thankfully, there was no evidence (certainly none clear and obvious). Correct not to overturn.

This all reminds me of my crazy experience with jury duty several years back. I had a days long argument with the rest of the jury about the distinction between proof and reasonable doubt. It was a trial for assault with a deadly weapon. At the beginning of deliberations, it was 9-3 Not Guilty. I was one of the 3. After day 2, they had worn down the other 2, and I was the lone ******* keeping us from completing our civic duty. They all admitted the person was probably guilty, but kept throwing out "what if" scenarios (most ridiculous). I finally agreed to one more soliloquy where if I didn't sway anyone, I would agree to their verdict.

I explained for the 100th time that there is huge difference between reasonable doubt and indisputable proof. They were living in a fantasy land of CSI shows where every crime is packaged with a nice, tidy bow of proof. The real world rarely works that way. Just because you can come up with an alternative reality does not mean it is reasonable. Their "what ifs" were really akin to the wind moving that ball away from the helmet. It's possible, but really, is it?

The defendant was determined to be Not Guilty. Several of the jurors reached out to me in the following weeks to apologize after they were able to read/research some items related to the case that were deemed inadmissible by the judge. This person should have been found guilty and punished.

Sorry for the tangent. As you can tell, it still irritates me today!

But the standard has always been clear and obvious. That hasn't changed from day one. But everyone knows it as indisputable. Seriously, before you saw it on this site, did you think the replay standard was indisputable evidence or clear and obvious evidence? Are you changing your perceptions of the standard based on them using the words clear and obvious? Because I have seen them apply the standard that most of us believe is indisputable evidence for as long as they have been doing replay. I hate that they take the human element out of the replay because I have seen calls that should have been overturned but didn't because there was no indisputable visual evidence to overturn it.

But there was evidence that showed that there is no way Jones got the first down. Here is the video (sorry for the Spanish version). But you can see that Trent Brown falls down in front of the first down marker blocking his path to the first down and then you can see that Jones pushed Trent Brown forward to get past the first down marker. Brown was in his way of the first down and there was no way he could have past the first down marker. And you can see that he had the ball tucked to his chest which means that the ball was a good foot or two behind his nearest point to the first down marker. That is clear and obvious evidence he didn't cross the first down marker. But since you can't see the ball, it is impossible to overturn.



Sorry about your jury duty experience. Next time you get jury duty and they call on you, just turn to the defendant and say "Uncle Joe (or whatever their name is), the police finally caught you? It is about time." Works every time.

 

[Dingleberry]

But the standard has always been clear and obvious. That hasn't changed from day one. But everyone knows it as indisputable. Seriously, before you saw it on this site, did you think the replay standard was indisputable evidence or clear and obvious evidence? Are you changing your perceptions of the standard based on them using the words clear and obvious? Because I have seen them apply the standard that most of us believe is indisputable evidence for as long as they have been doing replay. I hate that they take the human element out of the replay because I have seen calls that should have been overturned but didn't because there was no indisputable visual evidence to overturn it.

But there was evidence that showed that there is no way Jones got the first down. Here is the video (sorry for the Spanish version). But you can see that Trent Brown falls down in front of the first down marker blocking his path to the first down and then you can see that Jones pushed Trent Brown forward to get past the first down marker. Brown was in his way of the first down and there was no way he could have past the first down marker. That is clear and obvious evidence he didn't cross the first down marker. But since you can't see the ball, it is impossible to overturn.



Sorry about your jury duty experience. Next time you get jury duty and they call on you, just turn to the defendant and say "Uncle Joe (or whatever their name is), the police finally caught you? It is about time." Works every time.

I am not sure what I thought their standard was, to be honest. But I do know "indisputable" is rarely an achievable standard and would be an idiotic standard to set.

So, yes, it would be just like the NFL to do it.

 

[Rob0729]

about 50 years, and yes, occasionally I disagree with a replay decision. Sometimes it's probably becaude I'm a fan wanting to see it my team's way, but sometimes it is a replay official who I think went with a "more likely than not" standard, when I expected proof and didn't see it.

Have you never seen a call reversal and thought "Well, they PROBABLY got that call right, but I am not SURE that they did"???

I have seen calls overturned that I totally disagreed with being overturned. But most of the time because there are parts of a rule I didn't know or there might have been something in the video that I didn't see or whatever. But I don't think it is because the ref is making a judgement call that I disagree with.

But then again, the ref are so inconsistent with the rules these days, that I wouldn't be shocked if some refs use different standards than what they are supposed to. They do in real time on rules like offensive holding and PI. But that doesn't mean they are right.

 

[Rob0729]

I am not sure what I thought their standard was, to be honest. But I do know "indisputable" is rarely an achievable standard and would be an idiotic standard to set.

So, yes, it would be just like the NFL to do it.

I agree that indisputable evidence is a stupid standard. I think that refs should use a little common sense with making calls and overturning calls in replay. The problem is the league disagrees with us.

On this play if the rules allowed the replay officials to use a little common sense and make a judgement call it what it obviously looked like, I wouldn't have started this thread. But the league has stated that they need visual evidence of actual contact of the ball and the player and not the ball changing direction. It is stupid. But that is the rule and precedent.

 

[Chevy]

let's see...the ball didn't hit Edelman in the 2018 championship game but it did hit Harry on Monday night...win some, lose some...

The Edelman miss was clear. There were three angles showing a clear gap between the ball and his body. Unlike Harry's touch, where the gap between him and the ball reached zero and the ball's path changed at that time.

 

[Rob0729]

By Rob’s dishonest standard, you can’t even prove the ball hit the ground on the punt. All we saw were some isolated video frames…one where the ball was headed towards the ground…the next where it’s milimeters away, the next where it’s bouncing up. None where the ball rests on the ground.

How do we know the ball didn’t stop a millimeter from the ground and then get thrusted upward by a once-in-a-lifetime upward wind coming from the field?

Hey, you’re arguing with a guy who says physics are irrelevant.

For those who wish to be adults: the ball’s sharp, angular trajectory change isn’t possible with the wind but only due to contact on the facemask. Specific frames of video footage, taken individual as stills, fail to prove much when you’re looking at the motion of a football relative to other objects like a player’s hands, the ground, etc. The actual motion produced by the video, at 60 frames per second, is needed. Sometimes there are gaps between frames. It doesn’t make something less ”indisputable” because cameras often fail to capture a nanosecond still image where two things are touching each other.

”But your honor, the video doesn’t show the actual bullet. There’s only the sound of the gun, a small explosion, and then we just know the bullet ended up in the victim.“

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.