Maybe Worse Than the Jets Call

[2daBank]

You are wrong because you don't know the rules. The rest of your post is just irony at it's finest. Only on SBR can a guy think he knows the rule book better than NFL officials, call a guy retarded, go on an estrogen filled rant and be 100% wrong the entire time.

You sir have made trolls proud today with your performance.

Something tells me you struggle greatly with performance.

[Ryermkd]

Poor Jagwaaws

[Ryermkd]

Something tells me you struggle greatly with performance.

+emotionally unstable.

[The Kraken]

Something tells me you struggle greatly with performance.

checkmate

[shocka1212]

Scroll to the 5:30 mark...just terrible..

bad call.. I thought thats challengeable though. I think the rule is you can challenge and if theres an immediate recovery then they give it to you at that spot. idk if its worse than the jets though.

[funnyb25]

bad call.. I thought thats challengeable though. I think the rule is you can challenge and if theres an immediate recovery then they give it to you at that spot. idk if its worse than the jets though.

Jags did get the ball. It was a clear fumble...The refs ruled the play dead on an easy return for a touchdown. They are suppose to let it play out then reverse it if he was down. Jags got hosed. Lol

[shocka1212]

Jags did get the ball. It was a clear fumble...The refs ruled the play dead on an easy return for a touchdown. They are suppose to let it play out then reverse it if he was down. Jags got hosed. Lol

happens a lot more than you think... similar situation in the redskins game (no surprise, fed ex is home to rig jobs) with the Vernon Davis Fumble that had a video show that he was clearly down and the play was not overturned... awful call, makes you wonder.

[Renegades]

Once you lose possession which you agree he did, he cannot regain possession without getting his feet down in bounds, this part he did not do. He regained control, yes, but he never regained possession because he didn't come down in bounds after regaining control.

The matter is complicated by the fact it looked like a bad call, so guys can't get passed that. Second, generally when there is a fumble, guys jump on it inbounds and everything happens at once meaning a guy gets control of the ball, he's inbounds and is down at the same time. This wasn't the case this time.

It's fine that guys disagree but rules are rules. I wouldn't disagree that it's a bad rule but it can't be changed in the game, there's a process for that.

What about his right knee hitting in bounds. 1 knee equals two feet. No way that call should have been overturned. The call should have stayed with the call on the field either way. If they called a fumble then keep it a fumble. The simple fact that there are 50 people in this thread saying it should have stayed proves it wasnt indisputable to overturn..

[The Kraken]

What about his right knee hitting in bounds. 1 knee equals two feet. No way that call should have been overturned. The call should have stayed with the call on the field either way. If they called a fumble then keep it a fumble. The simple fact that there are 50 people in this thread saying it should have stayed proves it wasnt indisputable to overturn..

Two NFL officials disagree with you. With that said, I'm not sure this was ever the intention of video replay and like I said earlier, either way it's a bad, complex rule that needs to be simplified.

As far as what is indisputable, we know the player lost control of the ball while in the air. He has the ball in his left hand, the ball is slapped out, and when he lands and rolls over the ball is in his right hand. Beyond that, I think it's all disputable. His knee hits the ground (which would make him down in bounds) at almost the exact time his back and shoulder hit the pylon (which would make him out of bounds). He clearly has control of the ball by the time we see him roll over but whether he had complete control when he his the ground, I can't say for sure. Apparently the officials thought he didn't.

I don't know how to reconcile that. Thankfully my vote isn't what matters.

[Renegades]

Thats exactly it. This or that. Maybe down maybe not. Was it this or that. There was never indisputable evidence to overturn and whatever the call was on the field should have stood

[2daBank]

Kracker, I heard former head of officiating say no way should that call have been reversed. Is the former head of officials not qualified to make that call??

It just sets another ugly precedence where they turning far too many things that used to be black and white into "judgement calls" which lends itself to these clowns having far too much control of outcomes.. let's tell it like it is, the guy never lost the ball! Just because it was moving around doesn't mean he didn't have control of it, how you gonna tell me there a fumble when he always had it, got up and still had it, nobody else ever touched it. Yes it moved but so what? We not talking about completion of a catch. There simply no way anyone can honestly say that was ever not his ball. To change the game on that call is asinine.

Then there the not even talked about issue of pats players putting their hands all over the ref after the play. Since when is that acceptable? Guys now allowed to strongarm refs into calls?

[POOLSIDE]

part of game

breaks even out long term

Listen to coach on this one. Very wise man. Bet to win.

[gauchojake]

Funny you're better than this. Next game.

[MoneyLineDawg]

Two NFL officials disagree with you. With that said, I'm not sure this was ever the intention of video replay and like I said earlier, either way it's a bad, complex rule that needs to be simplified.

As far as what is indisputable, we know the player lost control of the ball while in the air. He has the ball in his left hand, the ball is slapped out, and when he lands and rolls over the ball is in his right hand. Beyond that, I think it's all disputable. His knee hits the ground (which would make him down in bounds) at almost the exact time his back and shoulder hit the pylon (which would make him out of bounds). He clearly has control of the ball by the time we see him roll over but whether he had complete control when he his the ground, I can't say for sure. Apparently the officials thought he didn't.

I don't know how to reconcile that. Thankfully my vote isn't what matters.

1. You're wrong about the pylon...that is IN BOUNDS when a runner lands on it into the end zone...And I agree about his knee landing in at the same time which would be in bounds, no issue there

2. The second part about if he regained full possession as he hit the ground is true...but that the being the case how the fukk can they OVERTURN the call on the field?

The burden of proof is on them to show us 100% that the call on the field is wrong, not the other way around.

2 former heads of NFL officiating agree with 99% of people on this one:

http://www.foxsports.com/nfl/video/1073851459773