Did N'Keal Harry really muff the punt?

[venecol]

Yes, I absolutely believe he did. It's really hard to see on the slow motion, but at full speed it seems as clear as day to me.

That said, I don't blame him. I blame whoever put him in that situation when we had Gunner perfectly fine and ready to be out there. Belichick took the blame as of course a leader does, but who knows if that's the truth or not?

It's obviously not Bill's fault since he doesn't make mistakes. He's taking the hit but we all know the real culprit is being forced to clean the toilets right after Trent Brown and the rest of the Bigs use them.

 

[fourhour]

Buffalo already had a means of challenging it with their challenge flag. Bad calls happen…challenging is part of risk/reward decisions.

They therefore saved Buffalo a challenge. They had already wasted a timeout challenge earlier on the Mac Jones sneak. Funny is I remember clearly the official saying that Buffalo had lost their FIRST challenge and a timeout. Maybe the officials are out to get the Pats!

 

[pazrul72]

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.

View attachment 38505

Now this is interesting and a phrase I have not heard before. I think I am ok with the call being clear and obvious just not indisputable. Indisputable in my mind means 100% we have clear photographic evidence that this did happen. Clear and obvious being like we are 90% sure this happened is a lower bar and one I would agree the muff clears.

 

[burtgummer]

It's not rocket science,and doesn't matter how much experience a guy has returning punts.If it's bouncing around get away from it.It's on Harry

 

[Jlaff]

Don't worry. If someone else started this thread, he would have been fine with it. It is he is just trying to bait me.

But if they initially called it a muffed punt, there would be no discussion because there is no indisputable evidence that shows it didn't hit him in the head. There just isn't indisputable evidence (at least in my mind) that shows it did hit him in the head. Which means the call shouldn't be overturned.

Hey, I got crucified worse for questioning an obvious non-catch after the game. The audacity of me to start such a thread on a football forum.

I'm looking at this thread and thinking, if I was Rob0729 I'd be taken more seriously.

Maybe Belichick was expecting this putting Harry on punt returns, but maybe they should have tried this out against the Falcons rather than the Bills in a hurricane like winds.

Blind side blocks not a thing in college? Wow.

 

[Rob0729]

Hey, I got crucified worse for questioning an obvious non-catch after the game. The audacity of me to start such a thread on a football forum.

I'm looking at this thread and thinking, if I was Rob0729 I'd be taken more seriously.


Blind side blocks not a thing in college? Wow.

I don't get attacking anyone for trying to make a legitimate discussion on the rules. As long as you are not claiming the refs are out to get the Pats or another irrational argument or displaying some agenda, then people should either just state why they disagree with you without attacking or ignore your post. This isn't the board most people come to trash talk or looking for conflict. There are boards out there that people go there to shot talk and fight with people. I don't think I have seen the posts you are talking about, but the attacks sound like it says more about the people who attacked you than what you posted.

And yeah, in the NFL, that would have been a flag and the return team would have the ball on the one yard line.

 

[Froob]

Perhaps there was a second muffer?

 

[Froob]

Exactly. The only thing I might take issue with is that, as others have alluded to, there’s no consistency when it comes to the sky judge. So while it was the right call in the end, Buffalo already had a means of challenging it with their challenge flag. Bad calls happen…challenging is part of risk/reward decisions.

These calls actually bother me less than the 15 yard “procedural“ penalties like late hit, roughing the passer, etc., where the call is totally irrelevant to the outcome of the play but often changes the game. Those are the calls where the sky judge should be able to overrule.

Is there a sky judge now? I think I've heard it mentioned but didn't know it was official.

 

[Kontradiction]

Is there a sky judge now? I think I've heard it mentioned but didn't know it was official.

There are three sky judges - the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

 

[1960Pats]

I've said it before, but I really can't blame N'Keal too much for that one. They weren't even really trusting Gunner to return punts in that wind, most of the time he was just waving everyone off. To me it would be like if they had called a trick play so Kendrick Bourne could throw a pass on a night when they didn't even want Mac to throw more than 3. There's just no good reason for him to have been put in that position in those conditions when he hasn't returned a punt all year. They set him up to fail (unintentionally).

That's a different discussion than whether or not Harry touched the ball, which he obviously did.

 

[BTTA]

Here's the rule on consulting with game officials. The standard is clear and obvious.

This is helpful, thanks for the contribution.

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.

This just sullies you and the board.

 

[BTTA]

99% of the people in this thread agree that it appears that the ball hit the facemask.

The value in this thread is the clarification of NFL rules:

1. the standard being "clear and obvious" rather than "indisputable"
2. the officials in the box have the role of intervening with the field officials anytime they think they can add value to a ruling on the field. They initiate this on their own.

Both have huge implications for how NFL games are conducted. I was unaware of both until now.

 

[Rob0729]

99% of the people in this thread agree that it appears that the ball hit the facemask.

The value in this thread is the clarification of NFL rules:

1. the standard being "clear and obvious" rather than "indisputable"
2. the officials in the box have the role of intervening with the field officials anytime they think they can add value to a ruling on the field. They initiate this on their own.

Both have huge implications for how NFL games are conducted. I was unaware of both until now.

Clear and obvious and indisputable seem to be a distinction without a difference. The examples given by the league for clear and obvious are the same as indisputable. Like stepping out of bounds. Either they see a part of the foot go out of bounds or they didn't. It isn't that sky judge is going to overturn a play where they give a receiver a TD but the sky judge claimed he went out of bounds before he crossed the end zone because the grass by his foot moved in a certain direction. No. It is because he has visual evidence of the receiver's foot going out of bounds.

The examples given by the league doesn't include the sky judge making judgement calls. In fact, the standard for replay is also clear and obvious.

This is a news release from the NFL for the 2019 NFL rules changes for pass interference. The standard in replay for overturning a pass interfence call is also "clear and obvious".

• Clear and Obvious Visual Evidence: A pass interference ruling (called or not called on the field) will be changed in replay only when there is clear and obvious visual evidence that the on-field ruling was incorrect. This standard (“clear and obvious visual evidence”) is consistently applied to all replay reviews.

Competition Committee Finalizes Replay Rule for 2019 Season | NFL Football Operations

operations.nfl.com

So here is proof that the sky judge is held to the same standard as a replay. More proof the call on the field shouldn't be oveturned. The poster you are responding to just doesn't understand the NFL rules for replay and thought he found a difference with the sky judge that doesn't exist.

 

[Rob0729]

Now this is interesting and a phrase I have not heard before. I think I am ok with the call being clear and obvious just not indisputable. Indisputable in my mind means 100% we have clear photographic evidence that this did happen. Clear and obvious being like we are 90% sure this happened is a lower bar and one I would agree the muff clears.

Clear and obvious is just the NFL terminology for indisputable evidence (see my last post). Clear and obvious is the standard for all replays. If you think indisputable is 100% proof, then you think clear and obvious is also 100% proof.

 

[venecol]

Odds are that it hit his mask. But by the rules, there has to be indisputable evidence that the ball hit Harry. And from my standpoint, there is no such evidence.

Who cares what the odds are? Can you say based on the video that it definitely hit his helmet and the there is no way the wind could have taken it or the spin of the ball changed? That is the standard for the sky judge to overturn the call.

Rob arguing with himself again. Lol

Rob began this thread stating the standard was "indisputable evidence." Despite him claiming to be an expert in NFL rules, that's incorrect. The "clear and obvious" standard is something that honestly I'm not even sure what it means since it's not defined anywhere (probably on purpose), but common sense tells you the use of the word obvious makes it more of a subjective matter (what is obvious to you may not be so obvious to me). IOW, if the ball gets really really close to the helmet and you can see that it changes direction right after being that close, it's clear and obvious that it hit the helmet and that's what created the deflection of the ball (hitting a hard object a micron away from it). The wind argument is just hot air.

Of course, Rob will never concede this point because once he takes a position, as ridiculous as it is, he's like worms that burrow through dead wood.

 

[venecol]

Clear and obvious is just the NFL terminology for indisputable evidence (see my last post). Clear and obvious is the standard for all replays. If you think indisputable is 100% proof, then you think clear and obvious is also 100% proof.

Now you're just desperate and turning to lies to defend your indefensible position. It's just sad.

 

[Bfanlc]

One thing that bothered me about last night that every replay I saw of the muffed punted, I never saw the ball actually touch Harry's helmet. I saw the ball change direction a bit when it came close to his helmet, but there is no real visual evidence that I saw of actual contact. In fact the video broadcasted it looks to me that it missed him. Since the call on the field was that there was no contact, the sky judge should have never overruled it because there is no clear evidence that he actually touched it other than the ball slightly changing direction which could have been been caused by the wind.

To give him credit. Eli Manning said the same thing during the Manningcast.

Here is the video and tell me there is clear evidence Harry made contact with the ball. In fact from the angles I have seen, it doesn't look like the ball actually made contact despite the ball slightly changing direction.

It changed direction, the only way it does that is if it hit his helmet. The real problem is the fact that he didn't go in the opposite direction after he failed to catch it. After screwing up the recovery he then made a half hearted attempt to again go after the ball which led to the ball contacting his helmet.

 

[Rob0729]

It changed direction, the only way it doesn't that is if it hit his helmet. The real problem is the fact that he didn't go in the opposite direction after he failed to catch it. After screwing up the recovery he then made a half hearted attempt to again go after the ball which led to the ball contacting his helmet.

I understand that base on logic and physics the odds are overwhelming that it hit his helmet. But the NFL standard and precedence says that it isn't enough. You actually need to see the ball make contact with his helmet.

Harry should have never gone after the ball unless he thought the ball already hit him when he missed catching the ball. If he didn't, I don't care if the ball bounced in the wrong direction because he should have been running in the opposite direction of the ball the second he missed catching the ball.

 

[Palm Beach Pats Fan]

I think saying that the "odds are overwhelming that it hit his helmet" is the same thing as saying that it is "clear and obvious".

You don't overturn a call that's 50-50 based on replay. But this was somthing more like 95-5 (or higher, TBH).

 

[Rob0729]

I think saying that the "odds are overwhelming that it hit his helmet" is the same thing as saying that it is "clear and obvious".

You don't overturn a call that's 50-50 based on replay. But this was somthing more like 95-5 (or higher, TBH).

That has never been the standard for replay. If that was, far more challenges would be won. There are plenty of times we see challenges where you say the call was definitely wrong, but there isn't visual evidence to overturn it.

The standards for replay have been the same forever. They haven't changed them. Someone on this board saw the standard as "clear and obvious" and decided to rewrite the rules. The standard is indisputable evidence whether you call it indisputable or clear and obvious. The league is admament that they do not the refs making judgement calls. The evidence has to prove it to overturn or they can't. That hasn't changed. And no one has shown any evidence that it has.

In 2015, the league specifically said in an exact same instance like this that you absolutely need to see contact between the player and the ball and changing direction of the ball is not enough to overturn it. We are dealing with the same replay standards today as they were in 2015.