The Austin Seferian-Jenkins Fumble/Touchback

[kramxel]

That looks like the correct call.

It's freaky as hell, I'll give you that, and one could argue about the rule itself being unfair.

 

[Hunter2_1]

So, we have some sickened posters that can't understand how this has happened, and some who think it's probably the right call.

Just like every other major officiating incident. 

[everlong]

3 hours ago, NorthCountryEvo said:

The argument people are making towards you is not about the outcome of the game, what team may have gotten a bad call, etc. the point is that the thread is a discussion about the ruling overall, and to debate whether or not it was a bad call. It doesn't matter that it was the Jets, it doesn't matter that it was a team playing vs the Patriots, it doesn't matter what happened before or after the play, it doesn't matter if it was the first play of the game, or the last. It's just a discussion about the validity of the call. No one is arguing that bad calls happen, or that some teams can overcome them. 

 

1 hour ago, 11sanchez11 said:

I'm gonna be honest, when I saw the play on the Redzone channel I saw the potential for the outcome that happened and I just figured since they were playing the Patriots that was going to be the call. That's 100% what went through my mind when I saw it live.

Uh huh

[Kip Smithers]

8 hours ago, everlong said:

Making threads about bad calls are pointless since they happen in literally every game.

I very rarely rip refs because you're right bad calls happen and you can overcome them. This was a judgement call that you have a split second to decide. They have a rule in place on play reviews which are outs for the officials to relieve pressure which is to only turn when it can be conclusively proved otherwise. And they overturned something which you cannot conclusively prove. You don't see calls like that. 

[tom cody]

The rule needs some major tweaking but as things stand right now the right call was made on the field.

[mse326]

I was more on board with the call until the explanation.

Originally I thought it went like this. When he loses control of the ball it is a fumble. Just like any fumble it has to be recovered in bounds. He regains control while in the air but comming down hits the pylon before the ground. Hitting the pylon has always been considered out of bounds. So ultimately he didn't recover it in bounds. Since the pylon also indicates the endzone the ball went out inside the end zone so a touchback. That makes 100% sense to me and to me is the right call.

Now he's putting in this coming loose a 2nd a time so not completeing the process and I don't see that.

So I think maybe they got the right call for the wrong reason.

[mse326]

6 hours ago, KingOfTheDot said:

Here's what confused me. 

The call on the field is TOUCHDOWN, the review is to determine whether or not it was a TOUCHDOWN. Not a FUMBLE or TOUCHBACK. 

Not only did we lose 6 points, we lost the possession and field position.

That's not how replay works. You review the whole play.

[warfelg]

I've watched it so many times and here's the thing I have an issue with:

You can't say for 100% sure that he recovered it inside the endzone to create the touchback.  I also think they misapplied the "re-recover" or 2nd time thing.  You can shift the ball while recovering to have a better hold of the ball in the process.  

[Rockice_8]

12 hours ago, everlong said:

You can discuss it all you want, but it doesn't hide the fact the Jets had an opportunity to tie the game and ultimately failed to do so.

So because they had a chance to tie the game it's ok?  Doesn't matter what the outcome of the game or what other chances they.  The call was among the worst I've ever seen and the term "indisputable evidence" which apparently is what it takes to change a call on the field now has new meaning.  

[Rockice_8]

1 hour ago, tom cody said:

The rule needs some major tweaking but as things stand right now the right call was made on the field.

Only if you're a Pats fan it was.  

[childofpudding]

Like others have said, if the original call was a touchback, I could understand it being upheld. The way it stood, I don't think there was indisputable evidence that allowed them to overturn it. Should have been a TD.

Also, why is a fumble into the endzone a touchback at all? At any other place in the field, if the player fumbles it out of bounds, his team gets the ball back where he fumbled it. Why is it different when it's the endzone? Should be Jets' ball at the 1 there. Dumb rule.

[Jetfan66]

13 hours ago, everlong said:

Am I in a cornfield? What's with all the strawmen?

Bad calls like this aren't unprecedented. They're part of the game and the Jets had an opportunity to overcome it and they failed to do so. The refs didn't make the Jets get outscored 24-3 after being up 14-0.

The refs did make the Jets get outscored 24-3. They should have only been outscored 24-10.

[Apparition]

2 hours ago, warfelg said:

I've watched it so many times and here's the thing I have an issue with:

You can't say for 100% sure that he recovered it inside the endzone to create the touchback.  I also think they misapplied the "re-recover" or 2nd time thing.  You can shift the ball while recovering to have a better hold of the ball in the process.  

Yeah, I think this is the big problem with the whole thing. How do you define a recovery in a situation like that? 

[NJerseypaint]

1 hour ago, childofpudding said:

Like others have said, if the original call was a touchback, I could understand it being upheld. The way it stood, I don't think there was indisputable evidence that allowed them to overturn it. Should have been a TD.

Also, why is a fumble into the endzone a touchback at all? At any other place in the field, if the player fumbles it out of bounds, his team gets the ball back where he fumbled it. Why is it different when it's the endzone? Should be Jets' ball at the 1 there. Dumb rule.

This is my problem with the call. The TD should have stood because it didn't seem like anyone had a clear explanation for why it should be turned over and none of the angles confirmed that ASJ didn't regain control of the ball.

[mse326]

3 hours ago, mse326 said:

I was more on board with the call until the explanation.

Originally I thought it went like this. When he loses control of the ball it is a fumble. Just like any fumble it has to be recovered in bounds. He regains control while in the air but comming down hits the pylon before the ground. Hitting the pylon has always been considered out of bounds. So ultimately he didn't recover it in bounds. Since the pylon also indicates the endzone the ball went out inside the end zone so a touchback. That makes 100% sense to me and to me is the right call.

Now he's putting in this coming loose a 2nd a time so not completeing the process and I don't see that.

So I think maybe they got the right call for the wrong reason.

Does anyone have an answer regarding why I think it was right? My first paragraph.

Because it seems pretty clear to me that all of that happened.