Austin Seferian-Jenkins

[Caveman_Nick]

So, he clearly lost possession.  Those pics above prove that.  They ruled that he did not regain possession, which means the ball remained fumbled, and was then ruled to be OB in the end zone.

Note: for anyone that does not know, I am one of the die hard Pats homers on this site.

 

I see the above explanation as plausible, if that were actually what happened, and especially if it were close to what happens and were the call on the field.

More at issue for me here is the overturn than how the call was overturned.  The rules are the rules.  Maybe they are dumb, but I would rather see dumb rules applied evenly and then changed in the off-season.  IMO, thatbwas clearly a TD, as thebplyer was a runner and had his hands on the ball as it crossed the plain / touched the pylon.  I am sick of the refs not applying replay properly, which means clear and undisputable evidence of th call being wrong.

I remember seeing it in a game recently, where the refs changed a spot and awarded a first down in a critical situation, and clearly the camera angle did not supply indisputable evidence.  Perhaps not as aggregious as this call, but it affected the outcome of the game.  To quote a famous coach, Do Your Job!  Even though this went in my team’s favor, I have no interest in gift wins. Who knows how that game would have turned out....and that’s maddening to everyone!

Edited October 17, 2017 by Caveman_Nick

[Shaft]

2 hours ago, michaelredd9 said:

 

The ball is several inches from his hand and forearm and it moves from side to side.  It was a major bobble.  It was not a slight movement by any stretch of the imagination.  Mike Pereira, the ex-NFL VP, says it was the wrong call because he thinks that ASJ might have touched his knee inbounds after regaining possession.  Or he says that the replay video is inconclusive on this point so it shouldn't be overturned because their is no clear and obvious evidence that his knee didn't touch.  This is a situation where the call on the field should have stood either way it was called.  Here is Mike Pereira's thinking two days after it occurred: 

“One thing that is clear: He did lose the ball,” Pereira said. “You can see the ball come out of his hands. But then he does appear, it seems, (to get) it back. It seems that the left knee is the first thing that touches in-bounds, and it seems that he maintains control when he hits the ground. Once you do lose control like he did, now it almost becomes like a pass. When you hit the ground, you have to survive the ground – and if the ball comes out, then you do not have possession. But it didn’t happen. He rolled over with the ball. The ball (moving) is not loss of possession.

“Honestly, we tried all the way until noon today looking at the video again – Dean and I did – trying to say, ‘Where could they come up with this?’ And we don’t get it,” Pereira continued. “If replay is only supposed to change calls that are made on the field when the evidence to do so is clear and obvious, it doesn’t compute in this play.”

 

I was commenting on your comment about the ball moving, but it's irrelevant because I feel there was not enough evidence to overturn the call on the field which is where the real issue is. If we go frame by frame in any play we will find issues, which is why  I feel he was robbed because it almost seems they were looking for a reason. Now if the call was NO touchdown, I would still say there is not enough evidence to overturn the call. In short, whatever the call on the field, it should've stood in this situation.

[stevegrab]

Good pictures of the ball loose, had not seen those elsewhere.

 

I agree that there doesn't appear to be conclusive evidence to overturn.

[MTSuper7]

17 hours ago, Caveman_Nick said:

So, he clearly lost possession.  Those pics above prove that.  They ruled that he did not regain possession, which means the ball remained fumbled, and was then ruled to be OB in the end zone.

Note: for anyone that does not know, I am one of the die hard Pats homers on this site.

 

I see the above explanation as plausible, if that were actually what happened, and especially if it were close to what happens and were the call on the field.

More at issue for me here is the overturn than how the call was overturned.  The rules are the rules.  Maybe they are dumb, but I would rather see dumb rules applied evenly and then changed in the off-season.  IMO, thatbwas clearly a TD, as thebplyer was a runner and had his hands on the ball as it crossed the plain / touched the pylon.  I am sick of the refs not applying replay properly, which means clear and undisputable evidence of th call being wrong.

I remember seeing it in a game recently, where the refs changed a spot and awarded a first down in a critical situation, and clearly the camera angle did not supply indisputable evidence.  Perhaps not as aggregious as this call, but it affected the outcome of the game.  To quote a famous coach, Do Your Job!  Even though this went in my team’s favor, I have no interest in gift wins. Who knows how that game would have turned out....and that’s maddening to everyone!

 

This is the essence of what I was getting at in my post. Michaelredd9 asks fair questions about how the rules were applied to the situation. I'll grant that ASJ temporarily fumbled the ball for a split second. But was it crystal clear that he didn't have possession when he went out of bounds / hit the ground?

 

This sort of play is a perfect example of how attempting to define rules and apply them evenly through video review fails. Because there isn't objectivity in the phrase "indisputable evidence". Because people can interpret things differently. I'll bet if you had MLB using video review on balls and strikes, you'd get different interpretations from different umpires. The concerning thing here is that so many of these plays are so microscopically close that it sort of has to come down to a judgment call at times. Maybe some day we'll live in a sports world where there are sensors in the ball, on the field, on equipment, etc. so there is no judgment on when a player is down by contact, crosses the plane, etc. but until then, we are going to be subjected to slowed down games and judgment calls on video review. And sometimes it won't make any sense at all because common sense isn't built into the rules.

[stevegrab]

I'm wondeirng how long until we see some of that technology used, sensor in the ball and on the field, will get rid of lots of stuff.

[gilthorp]

Nice Photoshop program there.

[michaelredd9]

42 minutes ago, gilthorp said:

Nice Photoshop program there.

 

Yeah, that bottom one might be photoshopped, lol.  But the top photo is definitely real.