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

[Jackson 2]

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.

If that's true, then he's an even bigger ***hole than I thought. If it was genuine, then he's just an overly pious, moralistic Jesus freak that I'd at least admire for his honesty no matter how misplaced. If it was an act, then he's a hypocritical fraud. My money's on the latter. Either way, he's a douchebag...

 

[upstater1]

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.”

What's disputable to me is whether the "ball came out a second time," as Corrente said. But he muddles the point because whether the ball came out a second time is totally irrelevant if he hits out of bounds before that even happens.

 

[upstater1]

If that's true, then he's an even bigger ***hole than I thought. If it was genuine, then he's just an overly pious, moralistic Jesus freak that I'd at least admire for his honesty no matter how misplaced. If it was an act, then he's a hypocritical fraud. My money's on the latter. Either way, he's a douchebag...

The whole reason I brought it up in this thread is that he is addled and didn't hear what Brady said. Brady said that during the game he only has the ball for 2 seconds and wouldn't have noticed a 1 PSI drop in the football. But when asked if he could tell the difference normally (as in pre-game) he said of course. In fact, he was ridiculed for saying 12.5 PSI, that's how I like my balls.

Brunell came out and cried and claimed Brady said he couldn't tell the difference between an underinflated ball and an overinflated. Brady went through great pains to say that he could.

 

[convertedpatsfan]

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

Neither was lying. Neither would have the balls to make the correct call against a home team.

I've heard Blandino weasel his way out of plenty of things (like the FG penalty against the Jets) that I'm not too worried about any **** that falls out of his mouth whenever he opens it.

 

[Ring 6]

What's disputable to me is whether the "ball came out a second time," as Corrente said. But he muddles the point because whether the ball came out a second time is totally irrelevant if he hits out of bounds before that even happens.

It didn’t come out a second time, the control wasn’t complete until after he landed out of bounds because the ball was moving as he went to the ground. I don’t understand how he is muddling the point. He is very clear, the possession didn’t survive the ground. That is definitive that the ball moved when he went to the ground. It is equally irrelevant whether he was in bounds prior if he doesn’t survive the ground.
Look at it like a catch ( which is the same role) if your second foot is close but you bobble the ball when you hit the ground that second foot becomes irrelevant.

Either BOTH he was out of bounds before AND he lost control going to the ground or simply he lost control and would have been in if he hadn’t.

If you are saying surviving the ground is disputable watch again, the ball clearly moves, and even moves from one hand to the other. That’s textbook “not surviving the ground”

 

[upstater1]

It didn’t come out a second time, the control wasn’t complete until after he landed out of bounds because the ball was moving as he went to the ground. I don’t understand how he is muddling the point. He is very clear, the possession didn’t survive the ground. That is definitive that the ball moved when he went to the ground. It is equally irrelevant whether he was in bounds prior if he doesn’t survive the ground.
Look at it like a catch ( which is the same role) if your second foot is close but you bobble the ball when you hit the ground that second foot becomes irrelevant.

Either BOTH he was out of bounds before AND he lost control going to the ground or simply he lost control and would have been in if he hadn’t.

If you are saying surviving the ground is disputable watch again, the ball clearly moves, and even moves from one hand to the other. That’s textbook “not surviving the ground”

LOL, Riveron said "the ball was coming out a second time."

Not me.

Those are his words.

You see, we now agree that his explanation was muddled!!!

 

[Ring 6]

LOL, Riveron said "the ball was coming out a second time."

Not me.

Those are his words.

You see, we now agree that his explanation was muddled!!!

It’s semantics.
He fumbled and while gaining possession went to the ground and lost control. Whether you call that losing it a second time is semantics because while he did possess the ball, he did not have full possession by rule.
Just like you could correctly call a bobble losing the ball once or multiple times depending on whether you are talking about full possession and control or just a general concept of possession.

But what is clear is that he did lose the ball while going to the ground and did not survive the ground.

 

[convertedpatsfan]

 

[brdmaverick]

I don't mean to high jack this thread but I really am curious about 'surviving the ground' and other players intervening.

What I mean is this............

Let's go back to Lance Moore's successful two point conversion in the Super Bowl against the Saints.

I'm of the belief that he caught the pass, had possession, and scored the TD by the time the ball was knocked out by the defender. (which is how it was ruled, but...)

My question is.........

Let's say that the receiver lost the ball at the exact same time he did in the real play except that it wasn't because of a defender it was because he just dropped it while reaching for the goal line.

Would that still be a TD/2 Pt conversion?

If the answer is 'no' because he didn't 'survive the ground' then it is interesting because in an odd way the defender may have HELPED Moore as moore didn't have to continue to maintain possession as he's still rolling over.

Just an interesting thought.

 

[TheFlyingWedge]

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 ?

They bring out to blubber in front of the camera like a baby. Its pathetic, but thats how he is forever typecast.

 

[QuantumMechanic]

Let's say that the receiver lost the ball at the exact same time he did in the real play except that it wasn't because of a defender it was because he just dropped it while reaching for the goal line.

Would that still be a TD/2 Pt conversion?

What I see in that replay is:
1) A clear catch and possession
2) A bobble as he lands on the ground (though not as bad as ASJ's bobble where both hands completely came off the ball).
3) Regrip and recontrol after the bobble, in bounds.
4) He even had enough control to continue to reach the ball forward.
5) Finally, the defender came along and knocked it out of his hands.

My ruling is that it would have been a score even if there was no defender. Once he re-established control, in bounds, it was a completed catch in the EZ. At that moment it's a dead ball and a score and nothing that happens afterwards matters.

Likewise, if the defender had knocked it out a bit earlier -- say immediately after the bobble -- it would not have been a score. And if there was no defender but the receiver lost the ball on his own at that point, still not a score.