Week 6: New England Patriots (3-2) @ New York Jets (3-2)

[mestevo]

Quote: Originally Posted by Sportsforever

The pylon is the end zone...that is what he landed on. He hit that before he ever was out of bounds. He had control before he hit the pylon...thus he landed in the end zone/in bounds.

But he lost control of the ball, so he had to land to regain possession.

[Sportsforever]

Quote: Originally Posted by mestevo

But he lost control of the ball, so he had to land to regain possession.

Can you honestly say you KNOW that he didn't regain possession before he started going down? It absolutely looked to me like he had regained possession before he ever started to go down...and it was called that way on the field. There was not enough evidence in the replays, IMO, to overturn it. It was an awful call...and the fact that there is a rule in writing that makes it "right" makes it that much worse, IMO.

[mestevo]

Quote: Originally Posted by Sportsforever

Can you honestly say you KNOW that he didn't regain possession before he started going down? It absolutely looked to me like he had regained possession before he ever started to go down...and it was called that way on the field. There was not enough evidence in the replays, IMO, to overturn it. It was an awful call...and the fact that there is a rule in writing that makes it "right" makes it that much worse, IMO.

What do you mean?

He's in the air when he clearly lost possession, he's on his way down at this point and has to reestablish possession in the end zone to score:

f7p5twMr.jpg

Clearly landed out of bounds which is when possession would have been reestablished:

out.png

[kehlis]

Do you have a picture showing indisputably that he didn't have possession before hitting the pylon?

I have yet to see anything to overturn the call on the field.

These pictures your showing aren't showing anything we haven't already seen.

[mestevo]

Quote: Originally Posted by kehlis

Do you have a picture showing indisputably that he didn't have possession before hitting the pylon? I have yet to see anything to overturn the call on the field. These pictures your showing aren't showing anything we haven't already seen.

What are you wanting to see? He lost possession, he never got it back because he touched out of bounds when he landed, making it an offensive fumble out of the endzone and a touchback.

The first picture in my last post shows he doesn't have possession.

[kehlis]

Quote: Originally Posted by mestevo

What are you wanting to see? He lost possession, he never got it back because he touched out of bounds when he landed, making it an offensive fumble out of the endzone and a touchback. The first picture in my last post shows he doesn't have possession.

Okay, I'll try again.

Yes, I acknowledge he doesn't have possession in the picture you shared above.

Do you have a picture as he's hitting the pylon that proves he didn't regain possession by then? Your picture is from before he got to the pylon.


Edit: Nevermind, just saw a great angle showing he clearly had possession before hitting the pylon. I've seen what I need to see. What an awful call.

[Sportsforever]

Quote: Originally Posted by mestevo

What are you wanting to see? He lost possession, he never got it back because he touched out of bounds when he landed, making it an offensive fumble out of the endzone and a touchback. The first picture in my last post shows he doesn't have possession.

I've watched it several different times from all the angles...I just can't find anything to conclusively show that he landed "out of bounds". It looks to me like his left knee was in bounds and he hit the pylon. At that moment, he has possession, he is in bounds...the rest of it doesn't matter at all.

[NYJets]

Just lol at the NFL's arrogance saying it was a "pretty obvious call"

Maybe if 99% of the people watching it thought it was pretty obvious the other way, then you're the one doing something wrong.