Did N'Keal Harry really muff the punt?

[Betterthanmost]

Harry is going to make good plays for this team very soon. I

 

[TheBostonStraggler]

Did this hit Harry in the head too? There is plenty of video from last night to show that the wind could have changed the trajectory of the ball.

The standard is indisputable video proof to overturn the a call. Not "we need plausible evidence that the call made was correct".

You've got an argument not without plausibility. When it grazed his helmet (as was ruled by the review) the trajectory certainly didn't change substantially. In real time watching it, I wouldn't blame the refs for making the initial call they did.
But I understand your points:
The wind was causing the ball (and other things) to act oddly.
The call on the field requires conclusive evidence to be overturned.

But conclusive now becomes a relative term, a judgment call. To take it to the extreme, Harry had an extreme sneeze right at the time the ball was going by and changed the trajectory slightly. This ball's geometric shape, lacing and weight balance was off by 2% due to manufacture error just enough to cause an extreme rarity knuckleball effect.
Though these examples border on the absurd, these are probably not without actual possibility. They just are very very unlikely to be the case and couldn't/shouldn't be used as evidence of an inconclusive judgment. The wind changing the trajectory isn't as absurd as the examples I gave, however, the chances the wind caused the modest change in trajectory precisely at the time it was going by Harry's helmet? IMHO, that falls into the category of insufficient to provide evidence of it being "inconclusive"'.

 

[fnordcircle]

That's not what's happening in this thread. Rob is saying that the call overturn didn't meet the standard of proof required. People are "arguing" back that they think the ball hit Harry's helmet. That's irrelevant to Rob's point.

No, we're arguing that we see the ball hit the facemask.

 

[Rob0729]

No, we're arguing that we see the ball hit the facemask.

Actually, you are arguing that you see the ball change direction after it likely hit the facemask. You cannot see in any video it actually hit the facemask. That is the huge difference when it comes to replay.

 

[Rob0729]

You've got an argument not without plausibility. When it grazed his helmet (as was ruled by the review) the trajectory certainly didn't change substantially. In real time watching it, I wouldn't blame the refs for making the initial call they did.
But I understand your points:
The wind was causing the ball (and other things) to act oddly.
The call on the field requires conclusive evidence to be overturned.

But conclusive now becomes a relative term, a judgment call. To take it to the extreme, Harry had an extreme sneeze right at the time the ball was going by and changed the trajectory slightly. This ball's geometric shape, lacing and weight balance was off by 2% due to manufacture error just enough to cause an extreme rarity knuckleball effect.
Though these examples border on the absurd, these are probably not without actual possibility. They just are very very unlikely to be the case and couldn't/shouldn't be used as evidence of an inconclusive judgment. The wind changing the trajectory isn't as absurd as the examples I gave, however, the chances the wind caused the modest change in trajectory precisely at the time it was going by Harry's helmet? IMHO, that falls into the category of insufficient to provide evidence of it being "inconclusive"'.

The thing is the league has repeatedly said over the years, the refs are not allowed to make judgement calls on replays. If you are saying it is a judgement call that the ball hit Harry's helmet, you are arguing that the call on the field shouldn't have been overturned and it wasn't a muffed punt.

And Florio in his article points to case precedence by the league. Back in 2015, the refs refused to overturn a call that a muffed punt didn't hit the returner even though the ball changed direction after it hit his leg because there was no actual video evidence of the ball actually hitting the returner's leg.

You can argue that simple logic tells you that anyone can look at the ball and watch it change direction and make a judgement that the ball must have hit Harry's helmet even though it isn't clear that contact is made from the video, but the sky judge and the ref using the replay cannot make such a value judgement with replay. The league has said as much.

Heck, if you look at the 4th and inches that McDermott challenged, you make a strong argument that based on where Jones held the ball and the position of his body at the time the ref blew the whistle that there is no way that Jones got the first down. But there is no video showing the position of the ball at the end of the play. So, there is no way the ref could overturn the call. The ref could look at the replay and determine that there is no way that Jones made the first down, he couldn't overturn the call unless he can see video that the ball clearly didn't cross the first down marker.

 

[Family]

Didd

The fact that it was a mistake to have him returning punts is something that we all can agree is indisputable.

It was a good idea in principle but why they chose Harry for that role is beyond me.

Why even have Harry out there?

I get expanding his role and all, but returners can make or break you.

Could Bill have been trying to reward Harry by expanding his role or be trying to help Harry be more valuable to keep in the future because of his effectiveness as a blocker?

 

[Sicilian]

Actually, you are arguing that you see the ball change direction after it likely hit the facemask. You cannot see in any video it actually hit the facemask. That is the huge difference when it comes to replay.

I dunno man, I see it hit the facemask. Maybe I'm subconsciously extrapolating that because of the change of direction (which occurred precisely at the moment it would have contacted Harry if it did), but I don't think it's outrageous that a ref would see the same thing looking at that replay. This just feels like a weird gripe to harp on this much. It was 99% that that was the right call.

 

[Family]

I dunno man, I see it hit the facemask. Maybe I'm subconsciously extrapolating that because of the change of direction (which occurred precisely at the moment it would have contacted Harry if it did), but I don't think it's outrageous that a ref would see the same thing looking at that replay. This just feels like a weird gripe to harp on this much. It was 99% that that was the right call.

I agree, but it's a question of procedure.

Is the standard 100%, 99%, 51% right???

I saw this as likely, but not definitive. If the standard is 99% or 51%, I'm good.

This overturn felt inconsistent to how replays have been called.

I just want a consistent league.

 

[Simpelton]

honestly it looked like Harry was trying to get out of the way and the wind pushed the ball toward him. Not his fault.

I still wonder why the heck he was even out there.

 

[Simpelton]

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

Last I checked the player has no say in whether they go out on the field.

 

[archstanton543]

This overturn felt inconsistent to how replays have been called.

I just want a consistent league.

Lol, wut?

The call was no muff. The replay showed that it was. It was overturned. That's going to get overturned virtually every single time. There's no controversy here. The push out of bounds play for unnecessary roughness was a more egregious call that this one.

The ball hit his facemask and became a live ball which was recovered by the Bills. End of story.

 

[Family]

Lol, wut?

The call was no muff. The replay showed that it was. It was overturned. That's going to get overturned virtually every single time. There's no controversy here. The push out of bounds play for unnecessary roughness was a more egregious call that this one.

The ball hit his facemask and became a live ball which was recovered by the Bills. End of story.

I watched the play in slow mo 10 times. IMO the evidence was not indisputable. That's supposed to be the standard.

Yes the roughness call was far worse. But replay procedure was not in play. Did you even read my post?

 

[BTTA]

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.

No, we're arguing that we see the ball hit the facemask.

The post from Rob above is what started the current string of responses, and shapes the current conversation.

The fact that some people see it as hitting his helmet clearly, and others question whether it did, means that by rule there isn't incontrovertible evidence and the League should not have overruled the call on the field. The fact that the wind was blowing that hard and inconsistently means that it is possible that the wind pushed the ball. That possibility means there's no over rule. When it gets into Zapruder film territory, they have to leave it alone.

 

[archstanton543]

I watched the play in slow mo 10 times. IMO the evidence was not indisputable. That's supposed to be the standard.

Yes the roughness call was far worse. But replay procedure was not in play. Did you even read my post?

There is indisputable evidence. The ball changes direction when it hits his facemask.

It wasn't the wind or a ghost or a miniature black hole that changed gravity at that exact spot in the universe at that exact time that made the ball change direction.

 

[archstanton543]

This has to be one of the dumbest threads here. It's going on my ignore list.

I should have done that ages ago.

 

[pazrul72]

I actually agree with Rob live and having watched the slow mo replays. Is it 90% likely that it touched his face mask? Yeah, it’s easily the most simple explanation for why it changed trajectory by 2% and KISS standard I would be fine with the call. Indisputable is not 90% likely though and at no point do you have a clear shot of ball on face mask. I think it’s a fair question to ask, especially with the NFL’s partnering with betting sites, if the eye in the sky is held to the same standard. I don’t know this for a fact but it would not surprise me in the least if too much money came in on the pats and the casino wanted the Bills to win.

 

[BTTA]

There is indisputable evidence. The ball changes direction when it hits his facemask.

It wasn't the wind or a ghost or a miniature black hole that changed gravity at that exact spot in the universe at that exact time that made the ball change direction.

You, and others, see it that way.
Others see it differently.
A hung jury by definition means it isn't indisputable.
I'm saying that without taking a position on whether it did or didn't. I'm talking about League procedure, not my belief about what happened on the field.

 

[venecol]

Interesting article on sky judge, personnel changes in NY officiating office and who's making these calls. An ex-Giants, Panthers, Bills coach is in there making the calls along w/ Walt Anderson. This doesn't bode well for the Pats imo. The 6th familia of the Cosa Nostra making changes to help out the other 5 in sports betting outcomes of games.

The NFL’s 3 changes under the hood of replay that could have mixed results

There are several changes in the replay area which are going to have a profound impact on the 2021 season.

www.footballzebras.com

 

[Sicilian]

You, and others, see it that way.
Others see it differently.
A hung jury by definition means it isn't indisputable.
I'm saying that without taking a position on whether it did or didn't. I'm talking about League procedure, not my belief about what happened on the field.

That's fine, but clearly the refs saw it the way we do. So, in their eyes, there WAS conclusive evidence, and for those of us who do see it, it's not really a question. The ball hit his facemask. To me, that is definitive. Just because a minority of people (and I do think that's the case here) can think of reasons why that didn't happen, doesn't mean a standard of proof was not met.

 

[Rob0729]

There is indisputable evidence. The ball changes direction when it hits his facemask.

It wasn't the wind or a ghost or a miniature black hole that changed gravity at that exact spot in the universe at that exact time that made the ball change direction.

Indisputable evidence would be a clear shot of it hitting the facemask. You are making a judgement call based on supporting evidence. You have that luxury. The replay officials are not supposed to have the luxury. They are supposed to look at the video and either see the ball hit the player or not turn over the call. That is the NFL standard.