The Jets first TD should not have been a TD

[Pujo]

Wow you guys are ruthless!
My point was that Cotchery was leveled after the catch and if it was not for landing on another player he would have been down.

But he did land on another player and wasn't down (though his knee and elbow came close to hitting the ground - they weren't on top of anybody, he just kept them above the ground).

I take nothing away from his catch, it was a great play, but he was hit and knocked to the ground by two Patriot players

Again, he WASN'T knocked to the ground - he was knocked very very close to the ground but not quite there.

he was only NOT down on a fluke

The distinction is whether he was down or not - reasons, excuses, etc don't matter.

 

[Amnorix]

Rewriting the rule might be tricky, though.

Ya think?

Seriously, it'd be impossible to rewrite it. The rule is clear, and it took freak luck AND a great play by the WR to score a TD on that.

It was a TD, ti was a great call by the refs to get it right, and we still won the game, so relax folks.

 

[godef]

I'm sorry, but the Jets first score should not have happened. When you make a catch, than get drilled by a defender hard enough to hit the ground shoulders first, I feel that is a tackle. The only reason his knee did not touch the ground is because the reciever was on top of a defender.
I don't think that call was in the spirit of the rule. He was down

I agree. He was tackled and the only thing that prevented him from being "down" was an opponent (who helped tackle him) laying on the ground below him. I'm sorry, but this is DOWN. If it is technically a good call, then I say time to review the rule.

 

[jeffd]

I agree. He was tackled and the only thing that prevented him from being "down" was an opponent (who helped tackle him) laying on the ground below him. I'm sorry, but this is DOWN. If it is technically a good call, then I say time to review the rule.

Good idea, we'll just ignore the fact that it would be impossible to enforce.

 

[godef]

Good idea, we'll just ignore the fact that it would be impossible to enforce.

Why would it? It would involve a judgement call, just as it does now, and I think it would be easier to judge that a player would have fallen flat on the ground were it not for the flat-on-the-ground opponent beneath him than wether his knee or shoulder ever touched.

 

[Sundayjack]

It would involve a judgement call, just as it does now. . .

How on earth is it a judgment call?! You look at the player, you see if his knee or elbow hit the ground, you blow the whistle. That's about as objective as you can get.

 

[jeffd]

Why would it? It would involve a judgement call, just as it does now, and I think it would be easier to judge that a player would have fallen flat on the ground were it not for the flat-on-the-ground opponent beneath him than wether his knee or shoulder ever touched.

Because it does not involve a judgement call. the current rule makes a players down when any part of his body with the exception of his hands and feet touch the ground. There is no judgement to make. If it were a judgement call it would not be reviewable.

 

[Pujo]

I agree. He was tackled and the only thing that prevented him from being "down" was an opponent (who helped tackle him) laying on the ground below him. I'm sorry, but this is DOWN. If it is technically a good call, then I say time to review the rule.

Why would you say that? He had one elbow and one knee come close to hitting the ground, and they weren't on an opponent. I'd love to see you make the same argument if the play benefited the Pats. I'd say if the only thing keeping a player off the ground is an opponent, the opponent needs to do a better job of tackling said player. We already have a rule against assisting your own runner, do we really need a rule against assisting an opponent?

How about another rule change... if the guy with the ball is close to the end zone but doesn't make it in, let's give it to him anyway for being close. It would be in the spirit of the rule... Gimme a break.

 

[patsfan13]

You don't change a rule because of 1 play great play by the Jet WR, with the blow delivred the defender had no reason to think the wr wasn't going down. I was afraid the wr was going to be hurt by the high low hit, glad his leg didn't get trapped.

The only bad call o the play was the low hit on Chad. Seymour was pushed in the back and the Jets should have been called for the illegal block. Glad Penny didn't get hurt.

 

[sarge]

I'm sorry, but the Jets first score should not have happened. When you make a catch, than get drilled by a defender hard enough to hit the ground shoulders first, I feel that is a tackle. The only reason his knee did not touch the ground is because the reciever was on top of a defender.
I don't think that call was in the spirit of the rule. He was down

The tuck rule isn't in the spirit of the rule either, but it is still the rule.

I was actually impressed that the refs didn't mess that one up. It would have been easy to.

But it was a td, no doubt about that!

 

[FloridaPatsFan]

The thing that still impresses me is that Cotchery took a wicked upper body hit and Still managed to hold onto the ball and prevent himself from going down

And give the ref the credit for making the right call. That was a big time and ballsy call.

Dont' get me wrong. I hope we kill the Jets.

But that was a good call.

 

[I'm Ron Borges?]

I'm sorry, but the Jets first score should not have happened. When you make a catch, than get drilled by a defender hard enough to hit the ground shoulders first, I feel that is a tackle. The only reason his knee did not touch the ground is because the reciever was on top of a defender.
I don't think that call was in the spirit of the rule. He was down

Are you out of your mind? He wasn't even close to being down. Obviously you don't understand the rule or just think that every call on the planet should go the Patriots way. I'm sorry but that one wasn't even close.

 

[brady2brown]

Wow you guys are ruthless!
My point was that Cotchery was leveled after the catch and if it was not for landing on another player he would have been down. I take nothing away from his catch, it was a great play, but he was hit and knocked to the ground by two Patriot players, he was only NOT down on a fluke

He wasn't knocked to the ground. The replay clearly showed this. You can be knocked down but if you only touch hands to the ground, you are not down.

Why is it a fluke? THis happens a lot. Maroney did it in preseason, landed on his butt but his butt was on Neal who was laying on the ground. Maroney kept running. Ricky Williams did it to us last year, too.

You want to hear about a real fluke play, ask a Pats fan about the 2001 season, in which Patton was knocked unconscious. A Buffalo Bill picked up the loose ball and ran it in for a score. Play was called back because while rolling around the ball touched Patton and one of Patton's feet were out of bounds. Therefore the ball by rule was out of bounds.

 

[jeffd]

He wasn't knocked to the ground. The replay clearly showed this. You can be knocked down but if you only touch hands to the ground, you are not down.

Why is it a fluke? THis happens a lot. Maroney did it in preseason, landed on his butt but his butt was on Neal who was laying on the ground. Maroney kept running. Ricky Williams did it to us last year, too.

You want to hear about a real fluke play, ask a Pats fan about the 2001 season, in which Patton was knocked unconscious. A Buffalo Bill picked up the loose ball and ran it in for a score. Play was called back because while rolling around the ball touched Patton and one of Patton's feet were out of bounds. Therefore the ball by rule was out of bounds.

Yeah, that was freakin awsome....

 

[godef]

Why would you say that? He had one elbow and one knee come close to hitting the ground, and they weren't on an opponent. I'd love to see you make the same argument if the play benefited the Pats.

I would say "Whew! We got away with one!" same as I said for the famous tuck rule play, a technically correct call of a flawed rule.

I'd say if the only thing keeping a player off the ground is an opponent, the opponent needs to do a better job of tackling said player.

Are you serious? Go back and look at that play and tell me how the Pats could have done a better job of tackling that guy, other than the obvious "don't fall under him". What did they do wrong? They *clobbered* the ball carrier, and perhaps the only fault is that they were *too* efficient in coverage, having two guys as it were on the play.

The player did not maintain his balance by any athletic move on his part. He may as well of fell from a tree and landed on his feet.

How about another rule change... if the guy with the ball is close to the end zone but doesn't make it in, let's give it to him anyway for being close. It would be in the spirit of the rule... Gimme a break.

Bad comparison. Guilty of patronizing. :snob:

 

[godef]

Because it does not involve a judgement call. the current rule makes a players down when any part of his body with the exception of his hands and feet touch the ground. There is no judgement to make. If it were a judgement call it would not be reviewable.

OK, you're right, what I did mean was "seeing" what actually happens, which I meant as a judgement call only in the sense of deciding whether you actually saw what you think you saw. But correct, that was NOT a judgement call, because the rule makes it clear. What I'm saying is that rule needs reviewing, to say that being DOWN includes being tackled by an opponent, losing balance and coming in contact with another player involved in the play also on the ground as a result of the play, yadda yadda yadda.

Consider a tackler meeting a ball carrier head on, tackling him, the runner falling directly on top of him on the ground, but getting up and continuing the play because the tackler was beneath him and prevented him from touching down with an elbow or knee. I'm sorry, but in my book, that player is DOWN.

 

[marty]

That was definitely a TD and an awesome play by their WR! Our guys should have wrapped him up.

 

[jeffd]

OK, you're right, what I did mean was "seeing" what actually happens, which I meant as a judgement call only in the sense of deciding whether you actually saw what you think you saw. But correct, that was NOT a judgement call, because the rule makes it clear. What I'm saying is that rule needs reviewing, to say that being DOWN includes being tackled by an opponent, losing balance and coming in contact with another player involved in the play also on the ground as a result of the play, yadda yadda yadda.

Consider a tackler meeting a ball carrier head on, tackling him, the runner falling directly on top of him on the ground, but getting up and continuing the play because the tackler was beneath him and prevented him from touching down with an elbow or knee. I'm sorry, but in my book, that player is DOWN.

judgement calls put games in the hands of the refs. clear rules put the games in the hands of the players. i understand and respect your position but i don't think you thought out where it would lead to.

 

[arrellbee]

Are you out of your mind? He wasn't even close to being down. Obviously you don't understand the rule or just think that every call on the planet should go the Patriots way. I'm sorry but that one wasn't even close.

I don't know what game you were watching, but I beg to differ. His knee was VERY close to the ground. Within what - less than an inch ? You don't make any sense.

 

[Sundayjack]

Just what the hell did we ever do before the internet?!

Here's the play => Cotchery Catch