Pylon Call

nefansince75 · Oct 15, 2017

This call is a controversy because nobody really knows the rules...

The pylon itself is out of bounds. The moment a player strikes the pylon he is out of bounds too. It's fairly clear he lost complete control before he crossed the goal line. Two questions remain: did the ball cross the goal line before either the player hit the pylon or touched the ground out of bounds; and did he regain possession before he either hit the pylon or touched the ground out of bounds.

I have to assume replay officials saw what they needed. They have way more angles and the ability to stitch multiple angles together to view frame by frame simultaneously.

As for why a touchdown is ruled when the ball strikes the pylon even though the pylon is out of bounds? It's almost impossible to hit without part of the ball being inbounds. It's a rule to remove judgement calls. It's a rule that by it's nature is a contradictory exception.

TP76 · Oct 15, 2017

I didn't really see a good angle but evidently NY did, and reversed the call. As a runner, if he was bobbling it when it hit the pylon it's OB in the endzone.

Whatever... The Jets had two full drives after that call and could muster only 3 points. End-o-story/game. Meanwhile the Patriots were in "burn clock" mode.

It's really not a controversy except for the tin foil hat wearing crowd who didn't see the game and believe in conspiracies. Where were these conspiracy theorists after the Carolina game, when every crucial third down stop on defense was getting converted by the refs?

Bottom line:

Calls eventually even out
Good teams overcome penalties that go against them more often than not
Mediocre/bad teams succumb to calls that don't go their way more often than not

YankeeRebel · Oct 16, 2017

TP76 said:
I didn't really see a good angle but evidently NY did, and reversed the call. As a runner, if he was bobbling it when it hit the pylon it's OB in the endzone.

Whatever... The Jets had two full drives after that call and could muster only 3 points. End-o-story/game. Meanwhile the Patriots were in "burn clock" mode.

It's really not a controversy except for the tin foil hat wearing crowd who didn't see the game and believe in conspiracies. Where were these conspiracy theorists after the Carolina game, when every crucial third down stop on defense was getting converted by the refs?

Bottom line:

Calls eventually even out

Good teams overcome penalties that go against them more often than not

Mediocre/bad teams succumb to calls that don't go their way more often than not

Well he regained control before he hit the Pylon that much is for sure, the bobble was well after he caught and maintained control of the ball. It was a call that still baffles me. As to the Whatever comment, if the Jets get that TD that is a huge momentum switch you can't just dismiss it with a Whatever. I am not saying the refs got this wrong as I said I am still baffled with this call. What I am sure of is this is not a SB caliber team.

nefansince75 · Oct 16, 2017

I don't think the "whatever" is referring to what might have happened, but instead toward what good teams do in spite of bad things happening. It's near impossible to not be baffled without the exact evidence used for the call. As far as you being "sure", that's not possible without all the evidence. The ref indicated he lost control a second time after initially regaining control.

I can't say I know. I can say they should publish the findings of all challenges. The game has enough conspiracy theories and more transparency can only eliminate some of it.

redseat · Oct 16, 2017

nefansince75 said:
This call is a controversy because nobody really knows the rules...

The pylon itself is out of bounds. The moment a player strikes the pylon he is out of bounds too. It's fairly clear he lost complete control before he crossed the goal line. Two questions remain: did the ball cross the goal line before either the player hit the pylon or touched the ground out of bounds; and did he regain possession before he either hit the pylon or touched the ground out of bounds.

I have to assume replay officials saw what they needed. They have way more angles and the ability to stitch multiple angles together to view frame by frame simultaneously.

As for why a touchdown is ruled when the ball strikes the pylon even though the pylon is out of bounds? It's almost impossible to hit without part of the ball being inbounds. It's a rule to remove judgement calls. It's a rule that by it's nature is a contradictory exception.

which is odd because i've seen td's called simply because the ball hit the pylon.

Yankee Traveler · Oct 16, 2017

Tony Corrente explains controversial touchdown reversal Gallery Slides

Clears it up a little...

All I can say is Another heads up play by Butler.
I'm glad he didn't get tossed for touching the ref.

YankeeRebel · Oct 16, 2017

I wonder what name this play will assigned, Pylongate?

BigKen · Oct 16, 2017

Every Patriot hater will say that the league always favors the Patriots. Very few people have seen the photo that shows the ball totally floating free as he crossed the goal line. He never actually regained control until he was on his back out of bounds. The NY media and Jets fans don't care, they saw an official raise his arms indicating a TD and that's all they need. Of course, if the replay was inconclusive, it would have been one the of the greatest catches ever..........

nefansince75 · Oct 16, 2017

redseat said:
which is odd because i've seen td's called simply because the ball hit the pylon.

I thought I answered that exact observation with

"As for why a touchdown is ruled when the ball strikes the pylon even though the pylon is out of bounds? It's almost impossible to hit without part of the ball being inbounds. It's a rule to remove judgement calls. It's a rule that by it's nature is a contradictory exception."

nefansince75 · Oct 16, 2017

Yankee Traveler said:
Tony Corrente explains controversial touchdown reversal Gallery Slides

Clears it up a little...

All I can say is Another heads up play by Butler.
I'm glad he didn't get tossed for touching the ref.

That's a great explanation. It makes most of my initial explanation not valid relative to this play, at least that part where him striking the pylon creating the out of bounds situation.

redseat · Oct 16, 2017

nefansince75 said:
I thought I answered that exact observation with

"As for why a touchdown is ruled when the ball strikes the pylon even though the pylon is out of bounds? It's almost impossible to hit without part of the ball being inbounds. It's a rule to remove judgement calls. It's a rule that by it's nature is a contradictory exception."

sorry missed that part

sharkymcwrath · Oct 16, 2017

It's payback for the non PI call in the endzone when the defender was hugging Gronk. We shoulda had a touchdown too.

nefansince75 · Oct 16, 2017

sharkymcwrath said:
It's payback for the non PI call in the endzone when the defender was hugging Gronk. We shoulda had a touchdown too.

We already counted a recouped karma with McClown throwing the pick before half leading to the TD. If we scored the TD after the Gronk PI the likelihood of the interception and TD are nil.

NWPATSFAN · Oct 16, 2017

sharkymcwrath said:
It's payback for the non PI call in the endzone when the defender was hugging Gronk. We shoulda had a touchdown too.

Those don't count it's too subjective :rolleyes2:

Haters will claim NE gets ball on the one yard line it's not a guarenteed TD.

Shoeshine Boy · Oct 16, 2017

Hadn't seen this over here yet. Found in the jets sub-best angle showing a fumble • r/Patriots

CreepCreep2014 · Oct 17, 2017

I thought they fucked up, but seeing the replays an now Showshine Boy link, it was the right call...

nefansince75 · Oct 17, 2017

I'm starting to question whether the right call was made or not. There's clear evidence that the ball came loose, not just once but twice. Does the degree that the ball came loose constitute loss of control? In many opinions it does, and many it does not. I think that has become the issue of this call.

What exactly constitutes loss of control? On a pass the ball needs to be absolutely secured to begin control. But, is that the standard to maintain control? Does a player loosely shifting the ball between hands constitute a "mini-fumble"?

Of course relevance matters. If you have a series of "mini-fumbles" but no result changes (i.e. possession, down, distance, etc) would anyone bother judging for the sole purpose of a statistic? On the other hand, as in the goal line situation, when a minor distinction in a play can result in a major impact. The exactness of when to use the rules to a perfect literal level absolutely matters.

I think we all know exactly what constitutes gaining possession. But, does gaining initial possession differ from maintaining possession? Is maintaining possession supposed to mean always having the ball completely secured?

BigKen · Oct 17, 2017

nefansince75 said:
What exactly constitutes loss of control? On a pass the ball needs to be absolutely secured to begin control. But, is that the standard to maintain control? Does a player loosely shifting the ball between hands constitute a "mini-fumble"?

By rule, when a ball is not firmly held against a players' body or in both hands, it is considered "not under control".

This is not hard to understand. If a ball is floating in the air, it is under zero control with the exception of gravity which will pull to the earth. Such the ruling, when a ball touches the ground it is no longer in control of the player.

You can argue this shit ad nauseum. The rule is there in black and white. You can argue the rule needs to be changed or updated, but you can't argue the rule.

Think of it this way........Taking an 81 mg aspirin once a day will help control clotting of the blood and thus reduce the risk of heart attack. For 'you' it may not be an advantage because you already have a thinner blood and your blood does not clot easily. BUT you may have arterial hardening and the plaque is restricting blood flow. So taking an 81 mg aspirin might delay a heart attack by thinning the blood just enough to get through the restricted arteries. SO.............should you take the aspirin?? OR get a bypass or two or three, or four or five??

nefansince75 · Oct 17, 2017

BigKen said:
By rule, when a ball is not firmly held against a players' body or in both hands, it is considered "not under control".

This is not hard to understand. If a ball is floating in the air, it is under zero control with the exception of gravity which will pull to the earth. Such the ruling, when a ball touches the ground it is no longer in control of the player.

You can argue this shit ad nauseum. The rule is there in black and white. You can argue the rule needs to be changed or updated, but you can't argue the rule.

Think of it this way........Taking an 81 mg aspirin once a day will help control clotting of the blood and thus reduce the risk of heart attack. For 'you' it may not be an advantage because you already have a thinner blood and your blood does not clot easily. BUT you may have arterial hardening and the plaque is restricting blood flow. So taking an 81 mg aspirin might delay a heart attack by thinning the blood just enough to get through the restricted arteries. SO.............should you take the aspirin?? OR get a bypass or two or three, or four or five??

Were you trying to simplify this or send me to the doctor? Haha!

YankeeRebel · Oct 17, 2017

We won so I am happy with the call as bad a rule as it may be

Pylon Call

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Day to Day

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Humble & Lovable

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Day to Day

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads