An exact replica of the Austin Seferian-Jenkins play just occurred in the Penn State-Michigan St

[upstater1]

game.

I don't have a clip of it, but the ball was fumbled before the goalline. The player was able to corral it for a TD but the announcers both said that he got one foot in before stepping out of bounds (college rules are different) and both said that it he didn't get that foot down, it should have been ruled a touchback.

I'm starting to think that it was Fouts' idiocy that created all the controversy, the same way that Brunell's lack of understanding of what Brady said during his press conference (and Brunell's tears!!! fake tears!) colored the response to Deflategate.

If the commentator says something idiotic based on his own lack of understanding, that seems to carry the weight of public perception.

If the situation were reversed, Fouts wouldn't have made it so controversial. For the college commentators, it was totally normal.

 

[farn]

Since you bring it up, I've gotta say that years later I'm still blown away at Brunnell crying. What the hell was that ? Not even talking about tough guy vs non-tough guy. Just straight up : why ?

 

[drewskie]

Its the same as when Collinsworth said SEA should have ran the ball on 2nd down from the 1 yard line. The stats and logic don't necessarily support that stance, and because they'd have to throw on either 2nd or 3rd down it would have been better to use playaction to at least make the defense guess what play they were running. Throwing the ball in and of itself wasn't the wrong decision but they could have disguised it etc.

 

[Onedaful]

Since you bring it up, I've gotta say that years later I'm still blown away at Brunnell crying. What the hell was that ? Not even talking about tough guy vs non-tough guy. Just straight up : why ?

Extremely bizarre to say the least

 

[Jackson 2]

Since you bring it up, I've gotta say that years later I'm still blown away at Brunnell crying. What the hell was that ? Not even talking about tough guy vs non-tough guy. Just straight up : why ?

His diaper was full...

 

[JMC00]

I'm starting to think that it was Fouts' idiocy that created all the controversy, the same way that Brunell's lack of understanding of what Brady said during his press conference (and Brunell's tears!!! fake tears!) colored the response to Deflategate.

Also didn't help when you had Mike Perrera and Scumbag Blandino saying they wouldn't have overturned it.

 

[JMC00]

Since you bring it up, I've gotta say that years later I'm still blown away at Brunnell crying. What the hell was that ? Not even talking about tough guy vs non-tough guy. Just straight up : why ?

Most likely potential $

Remember this is the guy that had to file for bankruptcy because he lost $50m on failed investments.

 

[primetime]

I don't think any of the reporting after it said that it was the wrong call. I remember there was a Deadspin article with a clickbait article that was like "Jets got screwed out if a touchdown" but then the body of the article itself said it was the right call (I sympathize, writers rarely get to write their headlines especially nowadays in the era of SEO).

 

[primetime]

Most likely potential $

Remember this is the guy that had to file for bankruptcy because he lost $50m on failed investments.

God personally told him that Whataburger franchises were a great investment.

 

[Silver Blue&Red]

Since you bring it up, I've gotta say that years later I'm still blown away at Brunnell crying. What the hell was that ? Not even talking about tough guy vs non-tough guy. Just straight up : why ?

Bitterness, jealousy, attention....

basically a Pv$$y.

 

[Ring 6]

game.

I don't have a clip of it, but the ball was fumbled before the goalline. The player was able to corral it for a TD but the announcers both said that he got one foot in before stepping out of bounds (college rules are different) and both said that it he didn't get that foot down, it should have been ruled a touchback.

I'm starting to think that it was Fouts' idiocy that created all the controversy, the same way that Brunell's lack of understanding of what Brady said during his press conference (and Brunell's tears!!! fake tears!) colored the response to Deflategate.

If the commentator says something idiotic based on his own lack of understanding, that seems to carry the weight of public perception.

If the situation were reversed, Fouts wouldn't have made it so controversial. For the college commentators, it was totally normal.

It wasn’t about the feet with Jenkins. It was about not controlling the ball all the way to the ground and “surviving the ground”.

 

[Koma]

Since you bring it up, I've gotta say that years later I'm still blown away at Brunnell crying. What the hell was that ? Not even talking about tough guy vs non-tough guy. Just straight up : why ?

My opinion: He was encouraged to do it. To my knowledge, Brunell has never been moved to tears on that show before or after. Not by an injury, the retirement of a great player or a sad off-the-field story. He's not an emotional guy, like **** Vermeil, that he's known for crying under the right circumstances.

I think ESPN really wanted to drive home the narrative of how terrible and upsetting deflated footballs were. When they came back from the clip of Brady's press conference, they wanted someone on their panel to be choked up about it and Brunell was the guy that they chose or who volunteered to do it. In short, it was a work.

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

Yet another reason (not that any are needed) to gloat in corporate ESPN's misfortune.
Too bad that many off air families are losing their livelihoods though.

 

[upstater1]

It wasn’t about the feet with Jenkins. It was about not controlling the ball all the way to the ground and “surviving the ground”.

If you go back to the head ref's quote, it was actually both. He mentioned BOTH the out of bounds AND the second fumble.

Personally, I didn't see the second fumble, but he sure as heck was out bounds.

I do think the NFL's ref stepped on the ruling by not differentiating between the two ways that it could have been a touchback. It would have been called a TB correctly if either of these were true: 2nd fumble, or landed out of bounds to start with. But he mixed the two up in his report to the media.

Regardless, it's the latter of these that the college announcers clearly understood.

 

[cmasspatsfan]

Also didn't help when you had Mike Perrera and Scumbag Blandino saying they wouldn't have overturned it.

It was ironic since Blandino always backed the refs when he was chief no matter how blatantly bad the call was. In this case the call was right and he says he wouldn't have overtured it.

 

[Ring 6]

If you go back to the head ref's quote, it was actually both. He mentioned BOTH the out of bounds AND the second fumble.

Personally, I didn't see the second fumble, but he sure as heck was out bounds.

I do think the NFL's ref stepped on the ruling by not differentiating between the two ways that it could have been a touchback. It would have been called a TB correctly if either of these were true: 2nd fumble, or landed out of bounds to start with. But he mixed the two up in his report to the media.

Regardless, it's the latter of these that the college announcers clearly understood.

It’s not a “second fumble”. It’s that the process of recovering the first fumble requires you to survive the ground, which he certainly did not.
Out of bounds is only pertinent because after he finally gains control after not surviving the ground he is out of bounds. If he landed in bounds in the end zone, didn’t survive the ground, and ended up with the ball, in bounds, it’s a TD.

 

[Joker]

Brunnell cried because he's in the mid stages of CTE...what is it, eight confirmed concussions in his career? Read this excerpt, a quote from Brunnell about his buddy Brett Favre...this guy ain't right in the membrane...

"My favorite Brett Favre story is a hunting story from when he was a kid. He and a buddy or a couple buddies who were out trespassing on some property somewhere and they had a .22 rifle. They were just messing around and they see a deer. You’re trespassing, you shouldn’t be there to begin with, and the last thing you should do is take your gun and shoot at a deer. So they do it, and I think they hit it a few times and knock it down. After a couple shots ring off, they realize somebody could discover them and find out they’re trespassing. They’re frantic, they don’t know what to do, and they’ve got this deer and it’s flopping all over the woods. So, they figured out the only way to kill this deer without shooting at it is to drown it. So they drag it over to a puddle, a stream, a small pond, I don’t know what it was, but they basically held this deer underwater until the bubbles stopped coming out of its nose. Listen, I’ll probably get in trouble for telling this story, but it’s one of the funniest stories I’ve ever heard. And the way he told that story, we were crying laughing. It was gut-ache type laughing."

This guy is marching to his own drums....in some parallel universe

 

[upstater1]

It’s not a “second fumble”. It’s that the process of recovering the first fumble requires you to survive the ground, which he certainly did not.
Out of bounds is only pertinent because after he finally gains control after not surviving the ground he is out of bounds. If he landed in bounds in the end zone, didn’t survive the ground, and ended up with the ball, in bounds, it’s a TD.

You're not getting me.

It's a touchback if either happens.

If he doesn't survive the ground, it's a touchback.

If he doesn't land in bounds, it's a touchback.

The NFL ref explaining it to the media conflated the two.

My take is that he landed out of bounds while he was in possession and never bobbled it again.

 

[Ring 6]

You're not getting me.

It's a touchback if either happens.

If he doesn't survive the ground, it's a touchback.

If he doesn't land in bounds, it's a touchback.

The NFL ref explaining it to the media conflated the two.

My take is that he landed out of bounds while he was in possession and never bobbled it again.

What nfl ref are you referring to? The one that made the call was crystal clear that it was because he did not survive the ground.
One he lost possession of the ball, and attempted to recover while going to the ground he must maintain control all the way to the ground. He did not. The ball moved meaning he did not maintain control. That’s what the reg called. Technically he ruled that he was in bounds because if he were not, then surviving the ground would have been irrelevant it already would have been a touchback.
That’s why the ref specifically and clearly referred to surviving the ground as the reason for his call.

 

[Ring 6]

You're not getting me.

It's a touchback if either happens.

If he doesn't survive the ground, it's a touchback.

If he doesn't land in bounds, it's a touchback.

The NFL ref explaining it to the media conflated the two.

My take is that he landed out of bounds while he was in possession and never bobbled it again.

Here are corrente’s comments

The only reference to out of bounds was that by the time he fully secured the ball he was OOB

Can you just take me through the play as you saw it?

“The final shot that we saw was from the end zone that showed the New York Jets’ runner, we’ll call him a runner at that point, with the football starting to go toward the ground. He lost the ball. It came out of his control as he was almost to the ground. Now he re-grasps the ball and by rule, now he has to complete the process of a recovery which means he has to survive the ground again. So in recovering it, he recovered, hit the knee, started to roll and the ball came out a second time. So the ball started to move in his hands this way…he’s now out of bounds in the end zone, which now created a touchback. So he didn’t survive the recovery and didn’t survive the ground during the recovery is what happened here.”