Post Game Thread Pats @ Jets

Bartmac36 said:

If you showed the tuck rule to a group of 5 year old kids and asked them if it was a fumble, they would all say yes. Like its not hard to look at a play and go, "thats a fumble, and any obscure rule that says otherwise is just plain idiotic"

The tuck rule was never a patriots problem or a raiders problem, it was an nfl problem that they themselves have since corrected. Better late than never

Click to expand...

Ah, yes, the collective wisdom of children learning to tie their shoes and wipe their noses -- an excellent place to start a discussion based on the correct interpretation of rules. Why doesn't the NFL just hire kids with common sense?

Food for thought for next week.

Not trying to be Mr. Know-it-all here, but does anyone here understand WHY the rule gives the ball back to the opposing team as a touchback? WHY a team is so penalized for fumbling at the opposing team's 1 YL? There is a reason. The Jets were not trying to do what the NFL is trying to prevent with this rule, but there is a very good reason the rule is in place. Anyone wanna take a stab?

NG Pats Fan said:

So how do you explain a league worst 27 points per game the patriots give up?

And if not for a lucky rule that was still questionable, the patriots give up at least 20 + yesterday to the worst NFL in the league

Click to expand...

And not even 80 passing yards against the Bucs for three quarters. After shutting down the Panthers for the last couple of drives a week before if it wasnt for a hands to the face mask penalty.

Did they play a full game yet ? Nope. But neither has the offense. But the point is that things are trending into the right direction.

Things dont just suddenly click like turning on a light. It is a process and they are clearly getting more comfortable and successful in their scheme.

Antdawg said:

Not trying to be Mr. Know-it-all here, but does anyone here understand WHY the rule gives the ball back to the opposing team as a touchback? WHY a team is so penalized for fumbling at the opposing team's 1 YL? There is a reason. The Jets were not trying to do what the NFL is trying to prevent with this rule, but there is a very good reason the rule is in place. Anyone wanna take a stab?

Click to expand...

the rule has plenty of merit, and trying to simplify (or in turn make more complex) as a subjective call and put in the eyes of the ref will always leave someone unhappy

the reason is so that a player stopped short of the goalline with presumably no more downs/time doesn't intentionally try to fumble forward and score. I believe it derived from a raiders game in the 70s where it was infamously done. the idea is at end of game, if a player is stopped at the one, they can "fumble" forward and hope that there team recovers. they are no worse off than being down...same thing on 4th down, etc.

i guess it could be improved but im sure there's counter points to each
- only player that fumbles it can recover in end zone
- fumbled forward in last 2 minutes of half/game equals touchback (ehhhh) can be abused elsewhere
- fumble goes back to spot of fumble plus loss of down?

this ****s nothing new..
NFL will again revisit most unfair rule in the game

its the rule tho

A Defiant Goose said:

(click for zoom) His knee landed in bounds. Bad call. I change my mind. My entire premise was based on him landing out of bounds. Seeing his left knee in bounds changes that. Should've stood as called. But **** the Jets and I'm glad they got screwed out of it anyway

Click to expand...

You're ignoring the entire reason that the ref overturned it. He never questioned whether part of ASJ came down in bounds, the question was whether ASJ maintained possession throughout. In the ref's view, the ball moved after contact was made with the ground, so the process of the "recovery" wasn't completed until ASJ was out of bounds. If no bobble occurred, then it would have been a TD.

I'm not convinced there was a bobble, it looked like it may have been a transfer rather than a loss of control. Either way, though, whether the knee was in bounds is not relevant to the basis of the overturn.

bigballas said:

the rule has plenty of merit, and trying to simplify (or in turn make more complex) as a subjective call and put in the eyes of the ref will always leave someone unhappy

the reason is so that a player stopped short of the goalline with presumably no more downs/time doesn't intentionally try to fumble forward and score. I believe it derived from a raiders game in the 70s where it was infamously done. the idea is at end of game, if a player is stopped at the one, they can "fumble" forward and hope that there team recovers. they are no worse off than being down...same thing on 4th down, etc.

i guess it could be improved but im sure there's counter points to each
- only player that fumbles it can recover in end zone
- fumbled forward in last 2 minutes of half/game equals touchback (ehhhh) can be abused elsewhere
- fumble goes back to spot of fumble plus loss of down?

this ****s nothing new..
NFL will again revisit most unfair rule in the game

its the rule tho

Click to expand...

Pretty much agree on all points. There should probably be some more "nuance" to that rule. One of the great things about being a Pats fan is that Belichick and staff coaches so well to the rulebook and therefore a guy like Butler is hitting all angles out there on what was originally a busted play by our defense.

Oswlek said:

You're ignoring the entire reason that the ref overturned it. He never questioned whether part of ASJ came down in bounds, the question was whether ASJ maintained possession throughout. In the ref's view, the ball moved after contact was made with the ground, so the process of the "recovery" wasn't completed until ASJ was out of bounds. If no bobble occurred, then it would have been a TD.

I'm not convinced there was a bobble, it looked like it may have been a transfer rather than a loss of control. Either way, though, whether the knee was in bounds is not relevant to the basis of the overturn.

Click to expand...

This whole thread was one big brain storm for me. At first, I thought they made the right call by overturning it because I thought he landed out of bounds after fumbling regardless of possession. Then I changed my mind because I saw the knee down and no clear evidence he didn't regain possession of the ball (I didn't keep watching the replay beyond him hitting the ground). Then I changed my mind AGAIN because the ref said he bobbled it on the ground and I watched the replay further and agreed.

A Defiant Goose said:

This whole thread was one big brain storm for me. At first, I thought they made the right call by overturning it because I thought he landed out of bounds after fumbling regardless of possession. Then I changed my mind because I saw the knee down and no clear evidence he didn't regain possession of the ball (I didn't keep watching the replay beyond him hitting the ground). Then I changed my mind AGAIN because the ref said he bobbled it on the ground and I watched the replay further and agreed.

Click to expand...

IMO the best argument against the reversal is that the instant replay rules clearly state there must be conclusive evidence to overturn the call on the field. That said, if it had not been reversed, then the refs would have given the Jets a TD they clearly did not earn, which would have been even more egregious (if we're going to look at it that way).

reamer said:

Ah, yes, the collective wisdom of children learning to tie their shoes and wipe their noses -- an excellent place to start a discussion based on the correct interpretation of rules. Why doesn't the NFL just hire kids with common sense?

Click to expand...

if the NFL had hopes of ever becoming a competent, well run organization again then it would probably help.

Its not about the correct interpretation of rules, its about eliminating the need for interpretation. You completely missed the point.

Bartmac36 said:

Its not about the correct interpretation of rules, its about eliminating the need for interpretation. You completely missed the point.

Click to expand...

Is that realistic? Eliminating the need for interpretation of rules in a game like American football?

Antdawg said:

Is that realistic? Eliminating the need for interpretation of rules in a game like American football?

Click to expand...

Maybe not eliminating completely, but theres no reason you cant minimize it. We shouldnt have to break down plays seemingly obvious plahs like the zapruder film in order to come to a conclusion

Bartmac36 said:

if the NFL had hopes of ever becoming a competent, well run organization again then it would probably help.

Its not about the correct interpretation of rules, its about eliminating the need for interpretation. You completely missed the point.

Click to expand...

I'm not missing the point. I'm making fun of you.

You're the only one who is struggling with the interpretation of the rules. The play in question is quite clear. You don't like the rule -- and that's fine; I'm not fond of it, either -- but it's open and shut. There's no need for convoluted interpretation.

Also: the NFL is never going to be a competent, well-run organization. Officiating is the least of our worries while Goodell and his cronies run rampant.

Oswlek said:

I'm not convinced there was a bobble, it looked like it may have been a transfer rather than a loss of control.

Click to expand...

For me the loss of control (bobble) is the least contentious aspect. The ball is clearly out in the pic.

The remaining issue is whether he regains control and maintains it through contact with the ground inbounds.

reamer said:

I'm not missing the point. I'm making fun of you.

You're the only one who is struggling with the interpretation of the rules. The play in question is quite clear. You don't like the rule -- and that's fine; I'm not fond of it, either -- but it's open and shut. There's no need for convoluted interpretation.

Also: the NFL is never going to be a competent, well-run organization. Officiating is the least of our worries while Goodell and his cronies run rampant.

Click to expand...

TRYING to make fun of me, not succeeding.

the fact that these rules exist IS the convoluted intepretation, thats the part you arent getting. The only purpose something like the tuck rule served was to make a fumble much more complicated than it has any purpose being. I do however agree with the last part of your response

BaconGrundleCandy said:

Prob already posted.

Click to expand...

Everyone who needed to improve or see more snaps did.... I like it!

Even Branch had his best game of the season thus far...and can still improve

Is Dwayne Allen a lost cause at this point?

NG Pats Fan said:

So how do you explain a league worst 27 points per game the patriots give up?

And if not for a lucky rule that was still questionable, the patriots give up at least 20 + yesterday to the worst NFL in the league

Click to expand...

A win is tough to come by this season you should be happy we won that game. Just because a rule was enforced doesn't decrease the value of a win.

A win is a win but this team still isn't very good. The defense was better as the game went on but anyone and everyone is throwing for 300 plus yards a game which is problematic.

This D is what it is at this point which dead last in yards per game, passing yards per game, 20th in stopping the run, and 30th in pointd allowed.

They want to win the offense is going to have to do a majority of the work.

bigballas said:

the rule has plenty of merit, and trying to simplify (or in turn make more complex) as a subjective call and put in the eyes of the ref will always leave someone unhappy

the reason is so that a player stopped short of the goalline with presumably no more downs/time doesn't intentionally try to fumble forward and score. I believe it derived from a raiders game in the 70s where it was infamously done. the idea is at end of game, if a player is stopped at the one, they can "fumble" forward and hope that there team recovers. they are no worse off than being down...same thing on 4th down, etc.

Click to expand...

The "fumble thru EZ" rule has no merit, and your scenario has nothing to do with it, especially because there already is a rule on the books (for several decades) to stop what you're talking about.

Because of the infamous "Holy Roller" play, a fumble cannot be advanced by the offense on any 4th down play and any play at all in the last two minutes of a half unless the fumbler recovers it himself.

So in a covered situation if offensive player X fumbles it forward and offensive player Y recovers it, the ball goes back to where X fumbled it. Only if X recovers it himself will the ball be spotted at the point of the recovery.

Angelpats said:

A win is tough to come by this season you should be happy we won that game. Just because a rule was enforced doesn't decrease the value of a win.

Click to expand...

Depends on what you mean by value