Page 7 of 8 FirstFirst ... 5678 LastLast
Results 121 to 140 of 141

Thread: The camera never showed the ball hitting the ground, should've been called a TD...

  1. #121
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Electric Avenue
    Posts
    26,639
    Quote Originally Posted by FF2 View Post
    look at he wording...it says "evidence"...a picture may not show the ball on the ground, but can provide the evidence that it did hit the ground
    What you're describing is circumstantial evidence.

    Circumstantial evidence cannot, by definition, be irrefutable.

    Next?

  2. #122
    Quote Originally Posted by FF2 View Post
    look at he wording...it says "evidence"...a picture may not show the ball on the ground, but can provide the evidence that it did hit the ground
    Right on.
    At work right now, gotta rewatch it when I get home. Though I don't remember seeing it that way, I'll keep objective.

    I have a feeling though that my next post in this thread will be either

    GFY

    or

    GFY


  3. #123
    "Circumstantial Evidence"

    Hmm... Why does it seem like I've heard Pasts* fans talk about this so much before?

    Seems familiar

  4. #124
    Quote Originally Posted by Guy Incognito View Post
    Right on.
    At work right now, gotta rewatch it when I get home. Though I don't remember seeing it that way, I'll keep objective.

    I have a feeling though that my next post in this thread will be either

    GFY

    or

    GFY

    Check out the pic on Larry Brown sports.com

    what do you do for work?

  5. #125
    Quote Originally Posted by gaffneycatch View Post
    bingo. the whole idea of replay was that the refs were not meant to use to INTERPRET what probably happened...they were meant to use it to overturn calls when there is visual proof that the call is wrong. what FF2 describes aint proof. Plus, it's a misrepresentation -- I've watched that replay a bunch of times, and while it seems LIKELY the ball hit the ground, it could easily have bounced off an elbow or arm as the two players roled on the ground. in fact, the MOST likely possibility seems to be it ended up in the lap of the defender, and that Gates then dove in there to wrestle him for it. Probably was an INT...but again, in this case, without any proof, the call on the field should stand.
    This is exactly how I saw it.
    Watching the game I thought they may even call it an INT then downed by contact.
    Anyone with half a brain would say it probably hit the ground, but probably doesn't cut it.

  6. #126
    Quote Originally Posted by Jordy View Post
    What you're describing is circumstantial evidence.

    Circumstantial evidence cannot, by definition, be irrefutable.

    Next?
    Yor out of order.

  7. #127
    Quote Originally Posted by FF2 View Post
    Check out the pic on Larry Brown sports.com

    what do you do for work?
    RN- ER, now Recovery


    Now are you serious guy? Is this honestly where you're making your claim from???

    It shows nothing- the ball could be on its way up, down, spinning in mid air, sandwiched between the two, doing yoga, practicing tai-chi...
    Also, I don't remember this being one of the video camera angles, unless it's a screen grab...

    I'll still rewatch, but this is a joke if it's what you're basing your opinion on.


    http://larrybrownsports.com/category/football/page/3
    Last edited by Guy Incognito; 09-15-2013 at 10:08 PM.

  8. #128
    Quote Originally Posted by Guy Incognito View Post
    RN- ER, now Recovery


    Now are you serious guy? Is this honestly where you're making your claim from???

    It shows nothing- the ball could be on its way up, down, spinning in mid air, sandwiched between the two, doing yoga, practicing tai-chi...

    I'll still rewatch, but this is a joke if it's what you're basing your opinion on.


    http://larrybrownsports.com/category/football/page/3
    It could also be frozen in time if you believe that.

    That ball is headed for the ground....now go help some patients!

  9. #129
    Hall of Fame
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    Atlanta via NJ
    Posts
    8,261
    Originally Posted by FF2
    OK, you seem reasonable so I will run this by you. The wording is very important. They don't have to have a picture that's shows the ball on the ground. I repeat this because its key,,,,they don't need a picture of the ball on the ground, just evidence that its DID hit the ground. if you look at the pictures out there you will see the ball in the air a few inches above the turf, with neither player remotely in a position to get under the ball. Gates body in on top of his arms and Mayos hands are underneath Gates. take a look at the pic and ask yourself what happened next? There is only one possibility. neither player could have possibly caught it and the ball didnt go UP in the air.

    Again, they don't need a picture of the ball on the ground, just proof that it hit the ground.


    ...

    Incorrect bro ... Your omission is in this line

    they don't need a picture of the ball on the ground, just evidence that its DID hit the ground.
    Here is the actual rule

    http://static.nfl.com/static/content...and_Duties.pdf

    And the important part

    A decision will be reversed only when the Referee has indisputable visual evidence
    available to him that warrants the change.



    Fact is they need indisputable visual evidence ... That means - YES THEY DO need a picture of the ball on the ground.

    Again, thanks for being willing to put your name to it ... Unfortunately you are wrong.

  10. #130
    Quote Originally Posted by FF2 View Post
    It could also be frozen in time if you believe that.

    That ball is headed for the ground....now go help some patients!
    A. Whoa.

    B. Weekends in recovery = no scheduled cases, only emergencies....

    Easy money!

  11. #131
    Quote Originally Posted by Slikmojet View Post
    We got jobbed on that call, the play was called a TD on the field with no irrefutable evidence to overturn, but the refs were in top form last night, the Edelman fumble was also a terrible call.
    Its fine though, The refs instituted a new rule for the game where if there is no conclusive evidence to overturn the play on the field as called, then you still overturn it anyway!

  12. #132
    Quote Originally Posted by FF2 View Post
    It could also be frozen in time if you believe that.

    That ball is headed for the ground....now go help some patients!
    It is frozen in time buddy. You cant assume anything. If the replay doesnt explicitly show the ball hitting the ground then you cant overturn it,even if it goes against common sense of what you think will happen next. Thats what the rules of replay are.

  13. #133
    Quote Originally Posted by RMJK View Post
    I don't know. Take that Milliner tackle and strip. The WR was running with the ball and it gets stripped. On replays both announcers say it is definitely a turnover. What's the call...Incomplete pass.

    On Clyde Gates TD , it was called a TD on the field and no replayed showed it touching the ground. How do you overturn that call without inconclusive evidence?

    On the the first plays of the game Pace sacks Brady and over throws the WR which was uncatchable. What's the call, a micky mouse holding on Cromartie.

    The Refs are slanted to NE. We don't get those calls at Metlife.

    I don't get this mentality. If you believe that, then rooting for the Jets is about as logical is rooting for the villain in pro wrestling. What's the point? You know you're going to get screwed. Unless you go into every game simply hoping your team can overcome built-in disadvantages... which again, seems like a waste of time. It's like rooting against the house in blackjack.

    If you truly believe your team is starting on an uneven playing field, then you're an idiot for devoting significant personal time and emotion to hoping this disadvantage gets overcome often enough to make the rooting effort worthwhile.

  14. #134
    I went back and watched it all....this is what happened:

    Gates did not control the ball and it went up in the air......The Pats defender rolled over and the ball hit and rested on his body (NEVER hitting the ground).......HOWEVER, the Pats defender did not have any control of the ball that was lying on top of his chest because he was too slow to react.....Gates than wrapped up the ball at around the 1 yard line, while the ball was still resting on the Pats defender......NOT ONCE did the ball hit the ground

    The correct call was Jets ball, 1st down, from the 1 yard line!!

    It's unreal how they can call that incomplete.....Just because it wasn't a clean TD, does not automatically make it an incomplete pass.....Complete chickensh1t call

    I also have a huge problem with overturning the Pats fumble....There is supposed to be indisputable evidence to overturn the call on the field.....NOT the other way around

  15. #135
    Quote Originally Posted by King Koopa View Post
    I went back and watched it all....this is what happened:

    Gates did not control the ball and it went up in the air......The Pats defender rolled over and the ball hit and rested on his body (NEVER hitting the ground).......HOWEVER, the Pats defender did not have any control of the ball that was lying on top of his chest because he was too slow to react.....Gates than wrapped up the ball at around the 1 yard line, while the ball was still resting on the Pats defender......NOT ONCE did the ball hit the ground

    The correct call was Jets ball, 1st down, from the 1 yard line!!

    It's unreal how they can call that incomplete.....Just because it wasn't a clean TD, does not automatically make it an incomplete pass.....Complete chickensh1t call

    I also have a huge problem with overturning the Pats fumble....There is supposed to be indisputable evidence to overturn the call on the field.....NOT the other way around
    100% correct. It was a horrible call by the refs

  16. #136
    I thought it was a bad call, but it wasn't as bad as the ref saying "the 2nd foot came down then the ball came lose, so it's an incomplete pass". His description of the call was a fumble and yet her overturned the call. They made me wish we had the replacement refs back.

  17. #137
    Those two calls were horrible. We didn't play good enough to win the game, but we definitely got jobbed on the Gates TD. There was no evidence whatsoever to overturn that call. The overturn of the fumble made no sense either, he caught the ball, landed both feet down and turned to run upfield, and they reverse the call. Absolute crap call. Again, neither team played well enough to win that game, it was going to be one of those "ugly wins" for either team, but those two calls really held us back.

  18. #138
    Quote Originally Posted by lamont_jordan_rules View Post
    Originally Posted by FF2
    OK, you seem reasonable so I will run this by you. The wording is very important. They don't have to have a picture that's shows the ball on the ground. I repeat this because its key,,,,they don't need a picture of the ball on the ground, just evidence that its DID hit the ground. if you look at the pictures out there you will see the ball in the air a few inches above the turf, with neither player remotely in a position to get under the ball. Gates body in on top of his arms and Mayos hands are underneath Gates. take a look at the pic and ask yourself what happened next? There is only one possibility. neither player could have possibly caught it and the ball didnt go UP in the air.

    Again, they don't need a picture of the ball on the ground, just proof that it hit the ground.


    ...

    Incorrect bro ... Your omission is in this line



    Here is the actual rule

    http://static.nfl.com/static/content...and_Duties.pdf

    And the important part

    A decision will be reversed only when the Referee has indisputable visual evidence
    available to him that warrants the change.



    Fact is they need indisputable visual evidence ... That means - YES THEY DO need a picture of the ball on the ground.

    Again, thanks for being willing to put your name to it ... Unfortunately you are wrong.
    Disagree, it does say they need to see it. The picture can show evidence that the ball hit the ground.

    If I have a picture of the defendent firing a gun at the victim but the bullet is an inch from the victims face...but hasn't enterd the victims face...is that enough evidence?

  19. #139
    Quote Originally Posted by King Koopa View Post
    I went back and watched it all....this is what happened:

    Gates did not control the ball and it went up in the air......The Pats defender rolled over and the ball hit and rested on his body (NEVER hitting the ground).......HOWEVER, the Pats defender did not have any control of the ball that was lying on top of his chest because he was too slow to react.....Gates than wrapped up the ball at around the 1 yard line, while the ball was still resting on the Pats defender......NOT ONCE did the ball hit the ground

    The correct call was Jets ball, 1st down, from the 1 yard line!!

    It's unreal how they can call that incomplete.....Just because it wasn't a clean TD, does not automatically make it an incomplete pass.....Complete chickensh1t call

    I also have a huge problem with overturning the Pats fumble....There is supposed to be indisputable evidence to overturn the call on the field.....NOT the other way around
    That was the right call. Because Edelman bobbled the ball, he didn't have control until what at full speed you'd call getting his second foot down - but given the bobble, became his first foot. The ball then came out as he was taking his third step - which, because of the bobble, was the "second foot" he needed to make it a catch.

    In other words, he never got 2 feet down after controlling the ball and before the ball came out = incomplete pass.

  20. #140
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Manalapan, NJ
    Posts
    2,456
    Quote Originally Posted by doggin94it View Post
    That was the right call. Because Edelman bobbled the ball, he didn't have control until what at full speed you'd call getting his second foot down - but given the bobble, became his first foot. The ball then came out as he was taking his third step - which, because of the bobble, was the "second foot" he needed to make it a catch.

    In other words, he never got 2 feet down after controlling the ball and before the ball came out = incomplete pass.
    What??? There was no bobble. The ref never said that and I certainly did not see that in the 15x I watched the replay. The ref said the ball came loose as his 2nd foot hit the ground. The funny thing about that is I saw what you saw in terms of steps: he was mid stride in his 3rd step when the ball came out not as any foot hit the ground.

    As one poster mentioned in a thread: funny how the only owner on the officiating committee is bob craft.

    And to the "bullet heading to the face" poster - are you kidding me? A ball that is moving between 2 bodies and a bullet inches away from someone's face is a poor analogy in the kindest of words.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us