Pylon Call

[CreepCreep2014]

If this happened at the 5 yard line, it would have been ruled a catch, fumble out of bounds, the catch would have stood, but the ball would have been moved back to the spot of the fumble because it went out of bounds. The difference is, this happened in the end zone. What is considered a catch in the end zone if different than at the 20. This is why it's so confusing, cause no one knows what a catch is in the end zone.

The way I look at it, he caught the ball, lost control of it (fumble), recovered the ball in the end zone but was out of bounds by the time he had complete controlled it, so therefore he fumbled that ball out of bounds in the end zone, that's a touch back. Remember on a TD you have to have clear control of the ball and not drop it. Anyone remember that Megatron catch in the back of the end zone? He caught it, fell to the ground after having control, then dropped it. They ruled it incomplete. Had ASJ recovered this at the 1 yard line, the play would have stood. The problem here, is that he landed in the end zone. If you take the player out of the picture and just follow the football, it might be easier.

 

[nefansince75]

If this happened at the 5 yard line, it would have been ruled a catch, fumble out of bounds, the catch would have stood, but the ball would have been moved back to the spot of the fumble because it went out of bounds. The difference is, this happened in the end zone. What is considered a catch in the end zone if different than at the 20. This is why it's so confusing, cause no one knows what a catch is in the end zone.

The way I look at it, he caught the ball, lost control of it (fumble), recovered the ball in the end zone but was out of bounds by the time he had complete controlled it, so therefore he fumbled that ball out of bounds in the end zone, that's a touch back. Remember on a TD you have to have clear control of the ball and not drop it. Anyone remember that Megatron catch in the back of the end zone? He caught it, fell to the ground after having control, then dropped it. They ruled it incomplete. Had ASJ recovered this at the 1 yard line, the play would have stood. The problem here, is that he landed in the end zone. If you take the player out of the picture and just follow the football, it might be easier.

The first thing established was the fumble occurred while the player was a runner. "Catch" and "what is considered a catch in the end zone" has nothing to do with the call. The fact that it was in the end zone and rules for what happens to the ball when a fumble goes out of bounds in the end zone vs the field of play is what matters here.

If he fumbled this while falling out of bounds on the field of play it would not even have been recognized because falling out of bounds and carrying a fumble out of bounds has the same result (offense retains the ball at the spot the ball went out of bounds). This is such a novel issue because it's a rare occurrence. Don't get me wrong, fumbles out of bounds in the end zone happen all the time, but the added elements of: establishing whether it was a fumble; and the runner recovering it the very moment it happened; while fumbling it a second time; while recovering that the very moment it was fumbled; while never completely establishing the mysterious football move does not occur often.

 

[Southieinnc]

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]

Ummm, but this photo isn't conclusive. In this photo the ball may be secured by the elbow and forearm to his midsection. I'm not saying it is, just that it isn't completely conclusive of a "floating ball". The Jets fans may have a gripe about how conclusive the replays were.

 

[cdumler7]

Ummm, but this photo isn't conclusive. In this photo the ball may be secured by the elbow and forearm to his midsection. I'm not saying it is, just that it isn't completely conclusive of a "floating ball". The Jets fans may have a gripe about how conclusive the replays were.

To me I don't exactly have an issue with the call. I have more of an issue with the fact that they called it a TD and I don't think there is conclusive evidence beyond a shadow of doubt that it should have been overturned. Even in the picture above there are other pictures that show him having control at different points after this point that make it look more like it should have just stayed the same of a TD. It is a close play for sure but one I didn't think they should have overturned just based on the information they had in front of them.

 

[BigKen]

As with every TD call, it's made in New York not at the site of the game. I could see him bobbling the ball on his back and I've got it on DVR and it hasn't changed. He finally got control of the ball when he was on his back across the line, out of bounds.

 

[nefansince75]

As with every TD call, it's made in New York not at the site of the game. I could see him bobbling the ball on his back and I've got it on DVR and it hasn't changed. He finally got control of the ball when he was on his back across the line, out of bounds.

Ken - you have 100% correct per the official who announced the call. Once the bobble happens it is not "recovered" until possession is established inbounds. This may have occurred but the second bobble on the ground happened at a point still considered part of the recovery, and full possession did not occur until after he was out of bounds. These are my words, but of course i have paraphrased.

Ony a very experienced official would nail this perfectly.