The ASJ Fumble

[BradytoMosstoGronk]

I believe Earl Thomas did this to Gurley last week, and the same result; the only difference here is the ball was more concealed than Gurley’s outstretched arm. It’s not like the rule just came out from nowhere, though. Certainly debatable, but it was applied correctly.

I was wrong about the outcome of the game, but this isn't a good football team right now.

They’re definitely a work in progress, but your posting during a game thread is a much bigger work in progress.

 

[sambam94]

After there was conclusive evidence that Jenkins fumbled prior to crossing the goal line, the onus was then on there needing to be conclusive evidence that he regained it before touching out of bounds.

The people saying "you can't overturn that" seem to be ignoring that there was conclusive evidence he lost control before crossing the goal line. So why should the call stand? The call of a TD should then be predicated on if there was conclusive evidence he regained it before going out of bounds

good point....I believe many saying bad call have not taken the time to look at the replay frame by frame

 

[Jackson 2]

Rodney Harrison just said it was a bad call...

And?

 

[Ring 6]

Was that why Butler was so pissed when the play was over?

Butler actually put his hands on the ref. He got lucky.

 

[Pats1989]

Lol honestly name me good teams right now. I swear everyone has kinda sucked this year. Even KC just dropped one.

Denver, KC, Seattle.

 

[Ring 6]

After there was conclusive evidence that Jenkins fumbled prior to crossing the goal line, the onus was then on there needing to be conclusive evidence that he regained it before touching out of bounds.

The people saying "you can't overturn that" seem to be ignoring that there was conclusive evidence he lost control before crossing the goal line. So why should the call stand? The call of a TD should then be predicated on if there was conclusive evidence he regained it before going out of bounds

Essentially Jenkins dropped the ball in bounds through the side of the end zone, bobbled it and then recovered it after he and the ball were out of bounds.

 

[A Defiant Goose]

I thought it was the right call because I thought he fumbled it mid air and then landed out of bounds. After further review, it wasn't conclusive he landed out of bounds (knee) or if he had control before he landed out of bounds. This is honestly a classic case of "stick with the ruling on the field." The honest truth is nobody knows if it's the right call or not because we don't have good angles to see the ball during the fumble and recovery/non recovery

 

[Joey007]

Butler actually put his hands on the ref. He got lucky.

Aha, so we were lucky!

 

[bormio]

After there was conclusive evidence that Jenkins fumbled prior to crossing the goal line, the onus was then on there needing to be conclusive evidence that he regained it before touching out of bounds.

The people saying "you can't overturn that" seem to be ignoring that there was conclusive evidence he lost control before crossing the goal line. So why should the call stand? The call of a TD should then be predicated on if there was conclusive evidence he regained it before going out of bounds

The official who made the original call did not see any fumble! Corrente confirmed this.

 

[Joker]

"I'm a Pats fan BUT...that call was weel weel baddddddddddddd!".

Just STFU you goddamnned morons. The Patriots didn't do anything WRONG!! Take your "hot take!" and shove it down your silent pieholes as Brady was VICIOUSLY EXCORIATED ,BESMIRCHED AND WRONGED by the Deflategate sham. Sick of you ****in' bigmouth surrender monkey turds and outright trolls always bashing this team. Take a flying leap and take your "hot takes" with you.

Here's the news, idiots...Patriots won. They are 4-2. You don't like it? Too frickinj' bad...screw beat it and don't come back here.[/I]

 

[Joey007]

Denver, KC, Seattle.

Seattle's O line still sucks. And I need to see how Denver plays on the road. They've only played one so far, and looked lousy when they did vs. Buffalo.

 

[Ring 6]

I thought it was the right call because I thought he fumbled it mid air and then landed out of bounds. After further review, it wasn't conclusive he landed out of bounds (knee) or if he had control before he landed out of bounds. This is honestly a classic case of "stick with the ruling on the field." The honest truth is nobody knows if it's the right call or not because we don't have good angles to see the ball during the fumble and recovery/non recovery

None of that really was what the call was about.
The call was about needing to "survive the ground" and he clearly didn't.
There is one angle that shows him fully out of bounds with the ballmin his right hand reaching with his left to secure it from falling out of his right.
This is a textbook case of not maintaining control and surviving the ground.

It's tough because there are other elements of the play that are close and debatable but this part is what the call was about and it's clear.

 

[A Defiant Goose]

None of that really was what the call was about.
The call was about needing to "survive the ground" and he clearly didn't.
There is one angle that shows him fully out of bounds with the ballmin his right hand reaching with his left to secure it from falling out of his right.
This is a textbook case of not maintaining control and surviving the ground.

It's tough because there are other elements of the play that are close and debatable but this part is what the call was about and it's clear.

Yea I've heard that survive the ground thing now and will need to re watch the whole thing with that in mind and judge for myself

 

[Jackson 2]

There's a part of me that giggles at the thought that it was a bad call. If we were on the other end of that call, I'd be BS, too. With that said, f### the NFL, f### the Jets, f### their fans, f### Fouts, f### Rodney Harrison and f### the world. They can all kiss my ass and call me 4-2 and in first place. If the Patriots were on the receiving end of that call, the overall, general reaction would be "tough ****." That's my reaction to what happened today.

 

[bormio]

Corrente said it was obvious - not a close call. Did not take long. I suspect that they used freeze frame better than CBS - he knew exactly what he was looking for - unlike the idiot announcers.

 

[A Defiant Goose]

None of that really was what the call was about.
The call was about needing to "survive the ground" and he clearly didn't.
There is one angle that shows him fully out of bounds with the ballmin his right hand reaching with his left to secure it from falling out of his right.
This is a textbook case of not maintaining control and surviving the ground.

It's tough because there are other elements of the play that are close and debatable but this part is what the call was about and it's clear.

Ok I re watched it again for the millionth time and change my mind again. You can see it bobble around in his hand at the very end of the play so he never had control of the ball again. Good call

 

[cmasspatsfan]

Essentially Jenkins dropped the ball in bounds through the side of the end zone, bobbled it and then recovered it after he and the ball were out of bounds.

It's that simple, not sure why everyone's making it so complicated.

 

[scott99]

Dbag steeler fan texted me : 'what a sh** call'.
I responded: gotta be more specific... are you talking about the missed obvious pi on Gronk or the missed obvious pi on Dorsett which combined took away at least 10 points from NE and let an int stand?

Agreed, the INT Brady threw was clear interference against Skrine that should’ve been called. Pulled Dorsett’s arm down and intercepted the ball. It was so obvious. But of course according to Fouts, it was a great defensive play.

 

[yukon cornelius]

there was indisputable evidence that he lost possession.....no evidence that he regained it, and the ball still moved when he went to the ground


this is way, way more obvious than people want to believe

kind of hard to disagree with any of that, as it was supported by the video.....

 

[archstanton543]

NFL saw “clear and obvious” evidence of Seferian-Jenkins fumble, failure to recover

So – we have another “Tuck Rule” moment in the NFL

No we don't. The Tuck Rule was a crappy rule. This isn't. Fumbling through the endzone should result in what then? A safety? The ball on the 1 with the fumbling team retaining possession? Or the other team getting possession?