The ASJ Fumble

[Deus Irae]

Butch Cassidy and The Sundance Kid? I guess it's a individual taste thing -- that's a top 7 on my list.
One that may not make many other lists but mine, Tombstone. It's an overly canned Hollywood production but a damn fine movie/western overall (I thought Costner's Wyatt Earp got too bogged down in the details -- but I do like Dances With Wolves thought a bit too long for my A.D.D.).

I agree on The Wild Bunch -- just doesn't get me wrapped up in the movie the way a, for example, Unforgiven did.
Some good notable mentions from me(not best though): Breakhart Pass, Dueces Wild, The White Buffalo

I could argue Tombstone as a top 10 western, on Kilmer's performance alone. Some others I, personally, really like (I'll just add one from the Duke to the list, or my obvious bias will get even more obvious), some because I really think they're excellent movies, and some that just strike a chord:

No Name on the Bullet
Red River
Appaloosa
Silverado
The Outlaw Josey Wales
Night of the Grizzly
Winchester '73
Westward the Women

Ok, I'll stop there, or keep adding to the list all night.

 

[Joker]

"Joe Kerr only pawn in game of life...

 

[Joker]

Red River...I watch it once a week...sorta like a western Casablanca...Monty the cowboy...heh..and yet it worked

 

[TheBostonStraggler]

I could argue Tombstone as a top 10 western, on Kilmer's performance alone. Some others I, personally, really like (I'll just add one from the Duke to the list, or my obvious bias will get even more obvious), some because I really think they're excellent movies, and some that just strike a chord:

No Name on the Bullet
Red River
Appaloosa
Silverado
The Outlaw Josey Wales
Night of the Grizzly
Winchester '73
Westward the Women

Ok, I'll stop there, or keep adding to the list all night.

No doubt, could go on for a long time (didn't even mention For a Few Dollars More -- Lee Van Cleef had a way about him that made him perfect for a certain type Western). Yea, Night of the Grizzly, an overlooked one that's name hints at something that it isn't (like a cheesy 70s made for TV movie) -- it's a good flick (Clint Walker another good character possibilities for the genre).
Anyway, a good distraction from the controversial call frenzy. Have a good remainder of the night DI...

 

[Wheelman]

Didn't get to see the game live, but after watching footage of it. I think the correct call was made. That being said, initially I was thinking there's not enough to overturn it, and the wrong call was made.

But then I looked harder at it, and also because the explanation was being done while ads were being done so I couldn't hear, and the key point is he loses the ball and goes to the ground, so he's gotta maintain control of the ball after he hits the ground. He does not maintain control of the ball as it moves a 2nd time while he's out of bounds. This is a good call! Correct call. The ball looks to be across the white line, so it's a touchback to me. Clear evidence!

And after reading the explanation by Corrente posted by Howe's tweet, that's how it went down.

 

[Wordsmyth]

 

[Ivan]

Great call

Loved it

 

[Triumph]

Same Old Jets

Cant even fumble right.

 

[Triumph]

The curse of Rex anyone?

 

[QuantumMechanic]

Then why ask the coach what aspect of the play he's challenging when the flag comes out? And why don't they call penalties after review (like, say, holding on the O-line on a catch along the sidelines) if the entire play is under review?

I've always assumed they ask that to make sure they're allowed to do the replay in the first place (a coach can only request a review for certain reasons) and to know what to give particular attention to. But once they're reviewing it they look at the whole play. That's been mentioned a zillion times in the history of modern replay.

They don't call penalties (or take them away) on review because the replay rules explicitly say they cannot (except for certain specifically-mentioned penalties like too many men, whether or not the passer was over the LOS when he threw the ball, or whether or not a lateral went forward).

 

[Tony2046]

OK I finally saw the angle I think the refs used to state that he lost control of the ball a second time.

It appears that the ball bounces into his left hand after he lands in the endzone.

It comes down to how you interpret the sequence of applying the rules imo.

1. It was ruled a TD and there must be conclusive evidence that it wasn't.
2. Does the initial loss of control nullify the original TD call? I think the refs think it did and therefore needed to see that he regained control.

Looking at the angle the ball appears to bounce into his left hand as he lands into the end zone. There is a lot of ball movement and I think the refs saw that as loss of control.

Bottom line in all this is that Butler is one scrappy fighting M'fer. That dude does not quit on any play.


I slowed it down in this clip.


Original review footage.

 

[PatsDeb]

Frankly, I don't know how you can overturn that call. There is one frame (the one everyone keeps posting) that shows the ball loose, but I think the guy regained control quickly before he went out of bounds. Who among us can say we thought that was getting overturned? We all sat there in stunned disbelief at my house, but then said, "We'll take it!" Goofy calls get made every week in the NFL. It's nice for the Pats to be on the good side of one once in a while. Thanks Tony. On to Atlanta!

 

[bormio]

Frankly, I don't know how you can overturn that call. There is one frame (the one everyone keeps posting) that shows the ball loose, but I think the guy regained control quickly before he went out of bounds. Who among us can say we thought that was getting overturned? We all sat there in stunned disbelief at my house, but then said, "We'll take it!" Goofy calls get made every week in the NFL. It's nice for the Pats to be on the good side of one once in a while. Thanks Tony. On to Atlanta!

We might think it was hard to fathom, but NFL referees (for the most part) really do know the rules. Corrente knew exactly what to look for - there was a checklist in his mind. The criteria to rule a TD after the loss of possession were not met - so no TD. He said it was obvious. How Twitter feels about it doesn't really matter.

 

[QuantumMechanic]

1. It was ruled a TD and there must be conclusive evidence that it wasn't.
2. Does the initial loss of control nullify the original TD call? I think the refs think it did and therefore needed to see that he regained control.

Re (2), I don't think it does. At the very least you can't infer that from Corrente's statement. His wording makes it quite clear that he believes (for public consumption, at least) that he and Riveron conclusively saw lack of possession as the ballcarrier went OOB in the EZ.

 

[QuantumMechanic]

Where I was going with this was: what was the guideline for replay conclusion? For the Ref's call on the field (call it a simple TD - Ref ruled that the runner immediately broke the plane with possession of the ball -- everything else that happened was dead ball nothingness), it is that well known 'conclusive video evidence to overturn the call on the field'. But if the replay official determines that a simple TD was conclusively wrong, where do you go with the determination from there? Does the follow up action also need to produce something conclusive else it defers back to the erroneous call on the field?
It's a bit confusing...

I think your first couple of sentences is where you go wrong -- that there are "kinds" of calls. The call wasn't "TD because the ballcarrier crossed the plane holding the ball". It was "TD". I really do think it's as simple as "Look at the play on replay. Is what you see on replay conclusively not a TD when all is said and done? If so, overturn. If not, confirm."

In this case the ref's public statement is that he saw conclusive evidence that there was a fumble and the ball was not re-possessed in time, thus conclusive evidence there was not a TD, thus overturn. Of course, that's consistent with both your view and mine of the overturn criteria and so doesn't tell us anything

It would be nice to know what the actual standard of overturn is for something like this, though.

 

[bormio]

Re (2), I don't think it does. At the very least you can't infer that from Corrente's statement. His wording makes it quite clear that he believes (for public consumption, at least) that he and Riveron conclusively saw lack of possession as the ballcarrier went OOB in the EZ.

Once you admit there was a fumble you cannot pretend it did not occur. You have to make a ruling on when possession was regained in order to rule TD or no TD.

 

[Tony2046]

Re (2), I don't think it does. At the very least you can't infer that from Corrente's statement. His wording makes it quite clear that he believes (for public consumption, at least) that he and Riveron conclusively saw lack of possession as the ballcarrier went OOB in the EZ.

Yeah I'm not sure how they processed the decision. If they ruled that the original loss of control nullified the TD call then they would need to see that he regained control before going OOB. I see the ball bounce in those clips and I think they saw that too. There isn't footage showing that he regained control before going OOB.

OTOH if he had not lost control before crossing the goal line and they ruled it a TD I think they confirm the TD.

FWIW: I think they got it right but I also think this was a 50/50 call.

 

[bormio]

I think your first couple of sentences is where you go wrong -- that there are "kinds" of calls. The call wasn't "TD because the ballcarrier crossed the plane holding the ball". It was "TD". I really do think it's as simple as "Look at the play on replay. Is what you see on replay conclusively not a TD when all is said and done? If so, overturn. If not, confirm."

In this case the ref's public statement is that he saw conclusive evidence that there was a fumble and the ball was not re-possessed in time, thus conclusive evidence there was not a TD, thus overturn. Of course, that's consistent with both your view and mine of the overturn criteria and so doesn't tell us anything

It would be nice to know what the actual standard of overturn is for something like this, though.

Actually that is exactly the way NFL refs think - I am friends with one in my hometown. They make rulings based on the rules - it is not a TD because it looks like one, it is a TD when he breaks the plane with possession. Every single time.

 

[Mack Herron]

 

[Sfpat]

ASJ's fumble cost me 8 points in fantasy. Yes I feel dirty for playing a Jet but the TE market in in my league is thin. My original TE was Olsen replaced by Clay. Maybe there's a message to ASJ.