Barnwell said the fumble should have been a personal foul

[Salz]

"Let's go back to the final play of that Jets-Patriots game, because it shouldn't have been the final play at all. Mark Sanchez is sacked on his dropback and certainly fumbles the ball backward, a decision that was reviewed by the notably incompetent Jeff Triplette and confirmed before the game was officially brought to a halt.

What the referees didn't call at the time, though (and couldn't overturn on review), was a personal-foul penalty that should have kept the game going. The initial contact with Sanchez is made by Jermaine Cunningham (no. 96), who falls down at the line of scrimmage in front of Sanchez and crawls at Sanchez before diving at his ankles and knocking him down. Patriots fans will undoubtedly remember what I'm referring to: the Brady Rule.

After Brady's infamous injury at the hands of Bernard Pollard ended his 2008 season, the league protected quarterbacks from shots below the knees by players who were downed at their feet. The rule provides an exception for players who were blocked into the quarterback, but Cunningham is clearly no longer blocked when he crawls after Sanchez for several steps. The rule also notes that defenders are allowed to "swipe" at the quarterback, but Cunningham forcibly tries to take down Sanchez (somewhat successfully) by his ankles. That's a 15-yard penalty, one that should have extended the Jets' drive and the overtime session.

A missed call is one thing, but the league seems to be unofficially abandoning any enforcement of the Brady Rule. Only an hour earlier, I saw the Raiders take down Chad Henne with an even clearer Brady Rule hit. And several weeks ago, during the reign of replacement-referee terror, a Raiders player hit Ben Roethlisberger from the side with a diving shot into his ankle that left Roethlisberger visibly limping for the rest of the series. Neither of those plays was called, and neither of the hits today even merited as much as a mention from the announcers in its respective game.

We all know how this ends. If the Brady Rule isn't enforced, the league is going to see defenders diving at the ankles of quarterbacks for sacks until somebody gets seriously hurt. Then there's going to be an outcry to protect the league's quarterbacks, James Harrison will say something outlandish, and we'll be having this whole debate all over again. Let's not require somebody to undergo reconstructive surgery before that happens. The Brady Rule is on the books. It might have cost the Jets a win on Sunday, but even that is less important than keeping the league's stars healthy. It's a rule that needs to be enforced."

http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/...er-week-7-news

[fullblast]

Bottom line is that the refs are horrible, but it's something that every team has to overcome.

[nycuse]

The SCAB Refs were slower....but weren't much worse.

[Charlie Brown]

No they enforce that rule if its Brady or Manning... the NFL is a joke!!!!

[freestater]

serves us right for being the Jets.

[McGinley]

The replacements made some bad calls, but at least they weren't biased.

I posted on Facebook when the new deal with the RA was made that NE, GB, and NO were confirmed to win their respective divisions.

Refs putting my Fantasy Prediction team on their back!

[GuidoYaztremski]

I have two questions....

1) Who the hell is Bill Barnwell?
2) Doesn't he have a DVR of the game so he can look at the play before writing a POS article?

There were, as usual, both bad and blown calls on BOTH teams yesterday, but this wasn't one of them. For those of you with the game on DVR, replay that last play and freeze the action when you see Cunningham's knee first touch the ground. He's already got a hand on Sanchez's pant leg as Sanchez is retreating. He's allowed under the rules at that point to take him down. The author claims "(Cunningham) falls down at the line of scrimmage in front of Sanchez and crawls at Sanchez before diving at his ankles and knocking him down." That's blatantly incorrect, he was well past the line of scrimmage and already had a hand on Sanchez before he hits the ground. Watch the play.

[SMC]

Originally Posted by GuidoYaztremski

I have two questions....

1) Who the hell is Bill Barnwell?
2) Doesn't he have a DVR of the game so he can look at the play before writing a POS article?

There were, as usual, both bad and blown calls on BOTH teams yesterday, but this wasn't one of them. For those of you with the game on DVR, replay that last play and freeze the action when you see Cunningham's knee first touch the ground. He's already got a hand on Sanchez's pant leg as Sanchez is retreating. He's allowed under the rules at that point to take him down. The author claims "(Cunningham) falls down at the line of scrimmage in front of Sanchez and crawls at Sanchez before diving at his ankles and knocking him down." That's blatantly incorrect, he was well past the line of scrimmage and already had a hand on Sanchez before he hits the ground. Watch the play.

That's from Bill Simmons' Grantland site, a Patriots homer website.

[GuidoYaztremski]

Originally Posted by SMC

That's from Bill Simmons' Grantland site, a Patriots homer website.

So? He's still a moron.

[Ven0m]

Don't even try and defend that one chowd, that was a horrible non-call. One of the worst I've ever seen.

[Tinstar]

Originally Posted by Charlie Brown

No they enforce that rule if its Brady or Manning... the NFL is a joke!!!!

Yesterday in his presser,Rex was asked about the officiating and in perticular the pass interference call against Wilson. His response was : " I'll say this, It's all about the player(s).

There's no way that Ref should have called that penalty against Wilson. He reacted to the Patriots sidelines, when he was clearly too far away to make a legitamate call.

The Jets did enough to lose that game, but the Pats needed help to win it.

[freestater]

Originally Posted by GuidoYaztremski

So? He's still a moron.

TomAto... TomAHto.

[NYjets84]

Here's a question on the Hernandez fumble near the end zone, maybe you guys have the answer.

I didn't see Belichick throw the red flag, but the announcers said that a challenge flag was thrown. Isn't that now a penalty to throw a challenge flag when there is a turnover called on the field since it is automatically reviewed?

I remember reading a few weeks ago the same thing happening and Jeff Fisher not being given a penalty. It even mentioned that doing so may cause the play not to be reviewed.

Maybe it's different, I don't know but I thought that was now a rule.

I saw this from the following site: http://www.stltoday.com/sports/colum...a4bcf6878.html

This should never have happened. A coach is not allowed to challenge a play when a turnover is ruled on the field. It's an automatic 15-yard penalty. Also, depending on when the challenge flag came from St. Louis coach Jeff Fisher, the play likely shouldn't have been reviewed anyway. If Fisher threw the challenge flag before the replay official initiated the review, then a review is not allowable by rule. If the review is initiated first, before the challenge flag is thrown, it's still a 15-yard penalty, but you can review the play.

[GuidoYaztremski]

Originally Posted by Ven0m

Don't even try and defend that one chowd, that was a horrible non-call. One of the worst I've ever seen.

Then you should look at it again. It was a clean, legal take down. The replay shows it clearly. Cunningham had hold of Sanchez' leg before he hit the ground. End of story.

[heymangold]

just watched the replay of the sack. cunningham was grabbing at the knee of sanchez as he was falling, he wasn't down. i believe by rule, thats a penalty. god forbid the patsies get burned by the numerous rules they've brought into this game.

[SlickBri481]

When you aren't a good team, you're left hoping that the refs will bail you out of horrible plays. And they didn't.

[heymangold]

Originally Posted by GuidoYaztremski

I have two questions....

1) Who the hell is Bill Barnwell?
2) Doesn't he have a DVR of the game so he can look at the play before writing a POS article?

There were, as usual, both bad and blown calls on BOTH teams yesterday, but this wasn't one of them. For those of you with the game on DVR, replay that last play and freeze the action when you see Cunningham's knee first touch the ground. He's already got a hand on Sanchez's pant leg as Sanchez is retreating. He's allowed under the rules at that point to take him down. The author claims "(Cunningham) falls down at the line of scrimmage in front of Sanchez and crawls at Sanchez before diving at his ankles and knocking him down." That's blatantly incorrect, he was well past the line of scrimmage and already had a hand on Sanchez before he hits the ground. Watch the play.

i know this isn't an official link, but here it is. http://www.ehow.com/list_6730101_nfl...arterback.html
you're wrong in your post.

[Rob0729]

According to the Brady rule, it isn't a penalty if the defender is blocked to the ground. Looking at the replay, you can argue Moore blocked Cunningham to the ground. It is close, but I don't think it is clear cut either way from the plays I have seem. You can see it here at the 4:55 mark.

http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/201210...ghts&tab=recap

[Ven0m]

Originally Posted by GuidoYaztremski

Then you should look at it again. It was a clean, legal take down. The replay shows it clearly. Cunningham had hold of Sanchez' leg before he hit the ground. End of story.

Yes, he was.

That's a penalty. You can't dive at a QB's ankles. That's the Brady rule.

[GuidoYaztremski]

Originally Posted by Ven0m

Yes, he was.

That's a penalty. You can't dive at a QB's ankles. That's the Brady rule.

Except he didn't dive toward Sanchez' ankles. He was blocked to the ground. So, no penalty.