Referee Tony Corrente Says Overturning S-Jenkins’ TD Was ‘Obvious’ Call
- Thread starter gmf1369
- Start date
Which is why you have to go with the ruling on the field.
but did he get it back when he was out of bounds.....that is the key
he lost the ball prior to crossing the line... agreed...
he regained the full control in the end zone... agreed...
but the rule states when the ball is not in possession crossing the line to a touchdown it will be ruled a touchback...
since Jenkins lost the ball prior to the line, and then didn't gain full control until the ball passed the line it is rule a touchback...
some angles show Jenkins gaining full control before entering the end zone as some show after the ball crossed he regained possession of the ball, because of that there is no definitive evidence to over turn the call on the field that was a touchdown...
no matter what the interpretation is a problem because against certain teams certain calls will go against like that one for us...
agreed but that is not the rule...sad to say they have replay
I think the rule calls for indisputable visual evidence being required in order to be able to overturn a call on the field. Unless there is a shot showing, simultaneously, contact with the pylon and the ball not in control, then there is no such evidence.
Technically, this would make any pass thrown into the end zone a touchback, as it is not possessed as it crosses the goal line. That is by a strict interpretation of that rule.
Green Jets & Ham;n150280 said:
I bet ya do care!
Pereira and Blandino even said that hitting the pylon does not make one out of bounds. For someone to be out of bounds, they have to be on the ground off the field of play.
So in that case, there would have to be evidence showing that ASJ did not have control of the ball at any point after he first lost control of that. And the officials already stated that that was not the case, as they said he regained possession in the end zone and then lost control a second time.
If anything, their explanation of why it was so obviously a fumble justifies why it was not a fumble.
I am just stating what the rule is, but clear interpretation there was no definitive evidence to over turn the call on the field of a touchdown... it was the interpretation of the Corrente that decided he was going to yet again screw the pooch and the Jets...
Oh, I know. And my comment wasn't about you, but rather that the rule itself could be interpreted to negate all TD passes which cross the end zone in the air. It could also be used to negate all TDs on fumbles that are unpossessed and cross the goal line.
Are you sure there is a rule that states that? In addition to the thrown TD mentioned by Sack, how about a team running the ball out of their own endzone, fumbles in the field of play, ball rolls back into the endzone and a defender jumps on it. That's a touchback???
My view is Riveron (who made the call in NFL offices) was just showboating his knowledge of a unique call even though there wasn't conclusive evidence to overturn it. I've watched it 20 times and still can't say conclusively he completely lost possession after the first slight juggle when he was heading to and past the pylon. NO ONE would have given him crap (even the cry baby Pats) if he did nothing.
With regards to this rule itself it has to be reviewed for next year. Why should a team get a monumental turnover when a player juggles a ball but retains it out of bounds just past the goal line (BTW I'm not saying that's what happened). How is that in any way a fair result. I can see if it pops out of a players hands and squirts through the end zone out of bounds. In that case the player completely losses possession of the ball. This was a slight juggle and never lost possession. Penalty here seems too severe. Worst case it should be marked at the 1.
With regards to this rule itself it has to be reviewed for next year. Why should a team get a monumental turnover when a player juggles a ball but retains it out of bounds just past the goal line (BTW I'm not saying that's what happened). How is that in any way a fair result. I can see if it pops out of a players hands and squirts through the end zone out of bounds. In that case the player completely losses possession of the ball. This was a slight juggle and never lost possession. Penalty here seems too severe. Worst case it should be marked at the 1.
there is a rule on this particular play...
last season, there was a couple of dumb show boating players: that didn't cross the line and defender came from behind and batted the ball into the endzone even tho the initial ball carrier recovered it was ruled a touch back...
it isn't as clear as what happened to Jenkins but the president is the same, they stated where he jostled the ball was before the line then he didn't secure it until the ball passed over the line which is the same as the example I gave...
This is the best post here but as i know the rule that was the right call. (Did i just say that) I hate it & it should be changed but it is the rule
& the Cardinals last week
This opens the door for a replay official to add anything he may see on the field as part of his ruling... (say there is a holding penalty that was not called?) complete and utter bullshit
Yup and mimicked "whiny Jets fans".
It's only the rule if there is indisputable visual evidence that the ball was not secure until after passing the pylon. Is there a shot that shows that? Don't think so. The issue is, what do the replays really show?