Did N'Keal Harry really muff the punt?

[203Pat]

The ball hit his face mask. What are we talking about?

 

[Sicilian]

Again, physics is irrelevant.

And here is where I'm in agreement about league consistency with this stuff, because they made it very clear during Deflategate that they consider physics to be irrelevant.

 

[venecol]

The ball hit his face mask. What are we talking about?

We're talking about the NFL rules not allowing humans to be human. Like when a human sees something that is clear and obvious, their mind needs to shut down, and ignore the clear and obvious because the rules don't allow them to use their minds in those situations. This is the theory being postulated by a not so brilliant mind. It's sheer nonsense but hey that's what these threads are for.

 

[203Pat]

We're talking about the NFL rules not allowing humans to be human. Like when a human sees something that is clear and obvious, their mind needs to shut down, and ignore the clear and obvious because the rules don't allow them to use their minds in those situations. This is the theory being postulated by a not so brilliant mind. It's sheer nonsense but hey that's what these threads are for.

Apparently the ball changing direction isn't enough proof. What a thread.

 

[pazrul72]

Apparently the ball changing direction isn't enough proof. What a thread.

By the letter of the rules, its not.

 

[Rob0729]

Apparently the ball changing direction isn't enough proof. What a thread.

Yes, you are right. It isn't enough. The VP of officiating said as as much in 2015:

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.”

I do love how the guy you responded to is making a fool of himself trying to mock me for his ignorance though.

 

[DaBruinz]

I think it hit him. I can't think of another reason that the ball would change direction, even a little bit, that close to the ground. It was BARELY contact, but it was contact.

Really? The wind blew the ball on Jake Bailey's first punt in between the point he dropped it and the point it hit his ANKLE, but you can't think of another reason that the ball would "change direction"?

 

[DaBruinz]

Yes, and it was dumb of him to be out there at all.

So, you think Harry CHOSE to go out there?

 

[Rob0729]

Really? The wind blew the ball on Jake Bailey's first punt in between the point he dropped it and the point it hit his ANKLE, but you can't think of another reason that the ball would "change direction"?

 

[Sicilian]

Really? The wind blew the ball on Jake Bailey's first punt in between the point he dropped it and the point it hit his ANKLE, but you can't think of another reason that the ball would "change direction"?

I'm not getting into this again, because as you go through the rest of the thread you'll see it's already been addressed. But short answer, I saw it touch the facemask. If you want to say the wind blew it at the EXACT moment it was closest to Harry's helmet and happened to blow it in EXACTLY the way it would move if it grazed the facemask, then we'll just agree to disagree on the likelihood of that event.

 

[DaBruinz]

So this thread is about getting into your mind to convince you of why the call was made but even though every single person agrees that it was, you'll continue to say there wasn't indisputable evidence because in your mind there isn't and we all know how once you make up your mind about something there's no convincing you otherwise, so basically this is just a waste of time because no one wants to be in your mind dude.

View attachment 38487

Please show the indisputable proof of the ball hitting the helmet. Not the ball changing direction. Of the ball actually TOUCHING the helmet. Because in the shot they showed on the TV, there a needle's worth of daylight between Harry's helmet and the Ball.

 

[DaBruinz]

When he did that I knew it hit him because he knew. He was there because BB says he has good hands, he must see that in practice and maybe he does but last night with the wind was too risky to put him out there.

You're getting the sequence of events confused. Harry slipped twice on the play. The first time before the ball came down initially and the second time was after the ball bounced and was still in the Air. Harry had been moving towards the ball in both cases. So, this idea was that it convinced you it had hit him just doesn't cut it.

If you're talking about AFTER the Buffalo player ran into him, Harry could have thought the ball hit his arm/hand at that point.. Lots of things happening for you to say that he KNEW that it hit his helmet.

 

[venecol]

By the letter of the rules, its not.

The rule doesn't say that. What is being quoted as a source is something that happened in a game 6 years ago. The rules have changed a lot since 2015. In addition, the sky judge rules were just implemented this season so they're new. The standard is clear and obvious

From the previously linked article:

"First, the replay official would have to see something abundantly clear on video within a narrow scope:

• Whether or not the pass was completed or intercepted
• Whether or not a loose ball touches a boundary line or the goal line
• Correct a spot when the location of the ball relates to the boundaries, line of scrimmage, line to gain, or the goal line.
• Correct a spot to an earlier part of a run where a runner was down by contact but not ruled down.

Added to this list under existing rules, the replay official can aid in the spot of the foul or to fix the clock to sync with the call made on the field. An example of this would be if the clock ran after an incomplete pass, but the official’s signal is delayed by 3 seconds to make sure it isn’t a fumble; the replay official can radio in with the 3-second correction. Otherwise, replay will not intervene in other aspects that continue to be reviewable, rather the standard challenge/review procedure would make that correction."

"In replay, Yurk’s term for when a replay official has to be alert for a potential reviewable item is when you “see smoke.” If a foot of a runner lands near the sideline during a run or a quarterback passes the ball seemingly on (but maybe beyond) the line of scrimmage, that’s seeing smoke; this means a replay official would halt the game for a review inside the 2-minute warning, on a scoring play, or on a turnover. The cases under the new rule might be more appropriately classified as “seeing fire.” Rather than checking with a foot close to the boundary line, the replay official will make an immediate correction if the foot is clearly out of bounds."

They seem to be using "clear and obvious" as the standard instead of the more murky indisputable or irrefutable evidence.

I don't think anyone on this thread has disagreed that it was "clear and obvious" the ball hit his helmet.

 

[DaBruinz]

Here is the close up of he moment the ball "changes direction" I can distinctly see space between the two as well as the outlines of the football and the helmet and facemask. Since the NFL isn't using High Speed cameras that take 2000 frames a second, there is no way to tell for certain if the ball actually hit Harry.

 

[DaBruinz]

Again, physics is irrelevant. The league has said that changing of the direction of the ball is not enough to overturn a call on the field. You need visual evidence that the ball actually touched the player. And I mean a still frame where you can see clearly that the ball and player making contact.

And yes, the roughing the passer call was bogus. But even Griese, Levy, and Riddick during the game (along with the John Parry the rules analyst) during the broadcast stated it was a bad call. There is no discussion. Everyone is in agreement that it was a bad call. But it wasn't roughing the passer since Allen was actually running with the ball past the line of scrimmage. It was a personal foul of hitting a player out of bounds.

Actually, Parry said that, because Allen was still in the air, it wasn't a personal foul at all by Bryant. Not roughing the passer. Not hitting a player out of bounds.

 

[Rob0729]

Actually, Parry said that, because Allen was still in the air, it wasn't a personal foul at all by Bryant. Not roughing the passer. Not hitting a player out of bounds.

I am saying the call was hitting a player out of bounds. I didn't say the call was right.

 

[Palm Beach Pats Fan]

The point isn't whether wind can make the ball change direction.

It is rather that a gust of wind makes a change like this:

And a deflection makes a change of direction like this:

The latter is what happened here. the former is what happened on all of those missed FGs.

Maybe they aren't supposed to rely on seeing a change of direction or not, but CLEARLY sometimes they do. Edelman's Super Bowl punt return where they first ruled that he touched it, and then overruled the call, was based on the clear fact that the ball did not change direction at all.

 

[Dingleberry]

I searched for photo evidence of the muffed punt, but found nothing.

I did, however, find photo evidence of a punted muff.

 

[venecol]

Here's the rule on consulting with game officials. The standard is clear and obvious. The fool posting still grainy pics of a micro cvnt hair gap between the ball and the helmet does not obviate the "clear and obvious" standard since EVERYONE clearly sees the ball deflect off the helmet.

 

[Sicilian]

Here is the close up of he moment the ball "changes direction" I can distinctly see space between the two as well as the outlines of the football and the helmet and facemask. Since the NFL isn't using High Speed cameras that take 2000 frames a second, there is no way to tell for certain if the ball actually hit Harry.



View attachment 38509

I think we have different types of eyes, because I can't see any distinct sign of separation there at all.