Did N'Keal Harry really muff the punt?

[Sicilian]

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.

I think it's more obvious than you want it to be that it did hit the facemask. I have ZERO problem with that call being made. If the roles had been reversed, I would have been pissed if they upheld the call.

 

[Rob0729]

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.

It's a bye. We have to fill time for the next two weeks somehow.

And if the Pats lost this game, this would be a far bigger deal than it is now because results of the play gifted the Bills seven points in a game where points are at a premium.

 

[Rob0729]

I think it's more obvious than you want it to be that it did hit the facemask. I have ZERO problem with that call being made. If the roles had been reversed, I would have been pissed if they upheld the call.

If it is so obvious, why does most people say they know it hit the face mask because the ball changed direction and not because they actually saw it hit the face mask. The ball changing direction is judgement call and based on league precedence set in 2015 by the league that they cannot use the changing direction of the ball as a way to overturn the call on the field.

 

[Sicilian]

It's a bye. We have to fill time for the next two weeks somehow.

I certainly won't argue with this! And despite my vehement disagreement with the end evaluation, don't count me among those who think the thread doesn't have merit. I think it's a worthy discussion, because the rules on "incontrovertible evidence" seem pretty nebulous in general. And there's value in the philosophy that replay should be used to reverse egregious bad calls, but if it's so close you shouldn't reverse them to discourage frivolous challenges. I just think in this case, from my view, it's a pretty obvious correct reversal.

 

[Simpelton]

I still think N'Keal didn't really do anything wrong. He's trying to avoid the ball but the bounce goes right into him. Once he realizes he tries to secure the ball but then realizes he isn't sure if the refs saw it hit him which is a weird situation. Coaching point would be, if you're in any doubt the ball might have hit you go get it, but that was a confusing situation.

 

[BTTA]

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.

"The ruling on the field is that the receiver did not touch the ball."
The refs on the field did not see a touch. They were going to give the ball to the Pats. They were told to change their view by League staff that was not on the field.

 

[venecol]

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.

I think you're a little confused here. The rules don't mention or care about what tv audiences see or feel happened. It's only what the booth officials located in the NY offices see that matters. They use technology not available to tv viewers. Our opinions don't matter. Again, this is a subjective matter, but one that only counts by 2 people in NY. To them, there was evidence of the ball hitting his helmet using the Hawkeye technology. But more to my point, they could literally make any call they want regardless of visual evidence and there would be nothing anyone can do about it. It's that simple. They're setting this up to be able to alter the outcome of games w/o question.

The linked article above talks more on the Hawkeye technology that syncs all the video angles.

 

[BTTA]

I certainly won't argue with this! And despite my vehement disagreement with the end evaluation, don't count me among those who think the thread doesn't have merit. I think it's a worthy discussion, because the rules on "incontrovertible evidence" seem pretty nebulous in general. And there's value in the philosophy that replay should be used to reverse egregious bad calls, but if it's so close you shouldn't reverse them to discourage frivolous challenges. I just think in this case, from my view, it's a pretty obvious correct reversal.

Yes, and once again, an NFL rule is being misused to the Pats disadvantage. If we can't get up in arms about that here, where will it happen!?!

 

[Kontradiction]

There’s really 5 pages on whether or not the ball hit Harry? It clearly did.

 

[Rob0729]

I certainly won't argue with this! And despite my vehement disagreement with the end evaluation, don't count me among those who think the thread doesn't have merit. I think it's a worthy discussion, because the rules on "incontrovertible evidence" seem pretty nebulous in general. And there's value in the philosophy that replay should be used to reverse egregious bad calls, but if it's so close you shouldn't reverse them to discourage frivolous challenges. I just think in this case, from my view, it's a pretty obvious correct reversal.

The way I look at it. If it was called a muff punt originally, my stance would be the same. There is no indisputable evidence to overturn the call. I am just saying from the league's standard and precedence on replay especially in similar circumstances, they shouldn't have overturned the call.

Personally, I think the league should let the refs use common sense and value judgements on calls like this. But that is not their standard.

 

[BTTA]

I think you're a little confused here. The rules don't mention or care about what tv audiences see or feel happened. It's only what the booth officials located in the NY offices see that matters. They use technology not available to tv viewers. Our opinions don't matter. Again, this is a subjective matter, but one that only counts by 2 people in NY. To them, there was evidence of the ball hitting his helmet using the Hawkeye technology. But more to my point, they could literally make any call they want regardless of visual evidence and there would be nothing anyone can do about it. It's that simple. They're setting this up to be able to alter the outcome of games w/o question.

The linked article above talks more on the Hawkeye technology that syncs all the video angles.

Of course I'm not saying that what people here think should matter in the call. I'm talking about the principle of indisputability. This conversation is a theoretical one about the use of rules, not a conversation about what actually happened on the field.

If we showed the hawkeye film to 100 random people, and explained the context with the wind, more than a handful are going to see uncertainty about what happened. The League staff overreached by initiating the use of the technology in this case to overrule the officials on the field. This was the League taking the initiative to question a call on the field, which they are only supposed to do in the most egregious and certain situations.

 

[Rob0729]

"The ruling on the field is that the receiver did not touch the ball."
The refs on the field did not see a touch. They were going to give the ball to the Pats. They were told to change their view by League staff that was not on the field.

I don't have a problem per sea with the sky judge overturning the ruling on the field. I actually like that they added the sky judge. My only problem is that the sky judge is only supposed to do that with indisputable evidence. I don't think it is there in this case.

 

[denverpatsfan]

If Harper wasn't on the field they win that game. I still have nightmares. I was there. Shameful coaching. Shameful decision.

 

[venecol]

There’s really 5 pages on whether or not the ball hit Harry? It clearly did.

There's 5 pages because Rob's mind decided there wasn't incontrovertible evidence despite him not having access to the synced multiple video angles they have in the booth that "to them" showed there was evidence. Like you say, even regular tv viewers saw it deflect off his helmet. But hey, Rob's mind you know.

 

[pazrul72]

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 is a shot where you have the ball and face mask touching in a freeze frame. There is no such picture you are making a judgement that because the ball changed path it must have hit his face mask. A reasonable judgement? Absolutely. However NFL refs by rule are not allowed to make those. Now the Pats benefited from this as well. That 4th down Mac picked up I don’t think he got it. Based on where the pile was and where it looks like Mac went down he was short by a couple inches. Replay has no view of the ball or hell even the player so the ruling on the field has to stand. It’s the same rule and the same standards should apply.

 

[Family]

The thread title should be changed because the issue is procedure, and not just this one play.

This has been posted before, but clearly addresses.

N'Keal Harry ruling was changed by new partial sky judge procedure, but was it the right call? - ProFootballTalk

The NFL has begun using the modified sky judge procedure this year, with the replay official and the league office now permitted to consult with the game officials on several specific, objective dynamics of rule application and game administration. That process was utilized last night to reverse...

profootballtalk.nbcsports.com

The ball definitely moved. However, a similar situation happened in 2015, during a game between the Bears and the Seahawks. During a punt, replay review explored whether the ball struck the leg of a Seattle player. In a weekly video, then-V.P. of officiating Dean Blandino explained that, to overturn the ruling on the field, there must be clear and obvious evidence that the ball actually touched the player.

“Does this ball really jump that far to the right where we think the ball clearly hit his leg?” Blandino said at the time. “It’s reasonable to assume that it hit his leg. But, again, we cannot make a decision based on the ball changing direction. We have to see clear evidence that the ball absolutely touched his leg.”

 

[Kontradiction]

There's 5 pages because Rob's mind decided there wasn't incontrovertible evidence despite him not having access to the synced multiple video angles they have in the booth that "to them" showed there was evidence. Like you say, even regular tv viewers saw it deflect off his helmet. But hey, Rob's mind you know.

Have we covered the possibility of telekinesis yet? Was Mr. Mxyzptlk seen in the crowd?

 

[Rob0729]

Indisputable evidence is a shot where you have the ball and face mask touching in a freeze frame. There is no such picture you are making a judgement that because the ball changed path it must have hit his face mask. A reasonable judgement? Absolutely. However NFL refs by rule are not allowed to make those. Now the Pats benefited from this as well. That 4th down Mac picked up I don’t think he got it. Based on where the pile was and where it looks like Mac went down he was short by a couple inches. Replay has no view of the ball or hell even the player so the ruling on the field has to stand. It’s the same rule and the same standards should apply.

It pretty clear to me that Jones didn't make the first down either. That is why I never mocked McDermott for calling the challenge, but I knew it was never going to get overturned because there was no way you could see the ball from any of the camera angles.

I certainly wouldn't have a problem if the league allowed refs to make judgement calls when all the evidence clearly points to the fact the ruling on the field was the incorrect call. In fact, I think they should give the refs that ability. But the league doesn't. The rule is that the replay official actually has to see the ball actually hit Harry's helmet to overturn the call and not that the ball changes trajectory because the ball seems to clearly hit his helmet.

 

[Hcelizondo]

You don't think 55 MPH wind gusts couldn't have changed the ball direction? Did you see some of the punts, passes, and Bills' field goal attempt?

come on man.... it clearly touched Nkeal's helmet.. Physics.... In the first replay when I saw he didn't touch it with his hands i was relieved... then the replay continues like in a horro movie just to see the clear change of the ball direction which is 1000% caused by the contact.... let's not be them.... However that atrocious roughing the passer call... and I',m pretty sure there was a clear holding from the OL that nobody even mentioned or replayed as every body focused only on the Roughing the passer call

 

[Rob0729]

come on man.... it clearly touched Nkeal's helmet.. Physics.... In the first replay when I saw he didn't touch it with his hands i was relieved... then the replay continues like in a horro movie just to see the clear change of the ball direction which is 1000% caused by the contact.... let's not be them.... However that atrocious roughing the passer call... and I',m pretty sure there was a clear holding from the OL that nobody even mentioned or replayed as every body focused only on the Roughing the passer call

Again, physics is irrelevant. The league has said that changing of the direction of the ball is not enough to overturn a call on the field. You need visual evidence that the ball actually touched the player. And I mean a still frame where you can see clearly that the ball and player making contact.

And yes, the roughing the passer call was bogus. But even Griese, Levy, and Riddick during the game (along with the John Parry the rules analyst) during the broadcast stated it was a bad call. There is no discussion. Everyone is in agreement that it was a bad call. But it wasn't roughing the passer since Allen was actually running with the ball past the line of scrimmage. It was a personal foul of hitting a player out of bounds.