Patriots getting gifts

[Hollandhawk]

Patriots getting gifts. Anybody see that "reversal" of that touchdown. One of the worst rulings I've EVER seen.

 

[ivotuk]

Wow, what complete bullshit. "Fumbled the ball, regained control, then fumbled it in to the end zone. It's a touchback, New England ball."


What a crock.

 

[Sports Hernia]

Yeah, utter crap. "Legacy team" call.

 

[ivotuk]

The ball came loose in Austin Sefarian-Jenkins hands, but he regained control.

That was a touchdown.

 

[jhawk91]

Even if it was a fumble out of the end zone they would have needed sufficient evidence to overturn the original TD call, no way in hell they had that.

 

[pmedic920]

Worst call I’ve seen in a long time.

 

[SixSeahawk]

Terrible terrible call.

NE always benefits from these.

 

[RockinHawks]

Awful call...another affirmation that the Pats control the NFL and Kraft is the devil.

 

[Cyrus12]

Legacy team.. Legacy team...legacy team. No way they can have the pats at 3-3. Shit like this makes me want to turn the channel to something else on sundays. Same teams always get the benefit of the suspicious bs calls that results in a win

 

[Mindsink]

A fumble occurs when the ball carrier loses control of the ball. If the ball goes out of bounds in the endzone, then it's a touchback. This is not much different than the Gurley fumble last week.

 

[Ramfan128]

Hopefully the NFL looks at this. Defense should only get a touchback when they recover the ball in the end zone.

They could change the rule to force the offense to have 1st and goal from the 10 (or even the 20) when a ball is fumbled out of the endzone. Doesn't make too much sense for rewarding the defense in a situation where they don't recover the ball

 

[Popeyejones]

A fumble occurs when the ball carrier loses control of the ball. If the ball goes out of bounds in the endzone, then it's a touchback. This is not much different than the Gurley fumble last week.

Yep. Exactly.

If people have a problem with this they have a problem with the rule, not with the call.

That he regained possession of the ball while already out of bounds is neither here nor there.

That said, that the defense gets possession of a ball fumbled out of the endzone, is I think, a bad rule. They made it that way because of the intentional fumble through the endzone way, way back by the Raiders, I think. In any case, I don't see any reason why they don't at least try to approximate something closer to the regular fumble out of bounds rule, in which the fumbling teams retains possession. If you want to put THEM on the 20 fine, whatever, but giving the defense the ball when they never possessed it doesn't make a lick of sense to me.

Also, the 'legacy team' fluff is exhausting. Rodgers just got his collarbone broken on what could have been called a late hit (and after that what could have been called unnecessary roughness for driving after the tackle) and there was no call. That's the best QB in the league playing on the NFL's most historic legacy team which was also likely the best team in its division and there wasn't a call. To be clear I'm perfectly fine for the no-call on that play, but the 'legacy team' truthers don't want to talk about it because it's a knife to the heart for their conspiracy theory.

 

[ivotuk]

He didn't fumble the ball out of bounds, or anywhere. It came loose in his hands, and he regained control.

This is completely different from the Gurley call. Gurley fumbled the ball, completely.

Their interpretation of sufficient evidence, and the rule needs to be addressed.

That was NOT a late hit on Aaron Rodgers. A late hit is when the defender takes several steps after the ball has left the QBs hands. It's a poor argument that uses invalid facts.

What the LB should have been penalized for is driving Rodgers in to the ground, and he probably will be. But at game speed, it would hard to tell if that was driving him in to the ground. As fans, we have the benefit of several angles and slow motion. It took a couple of shots before I could determine if he drove him in to the ground, and it was borderline.

Not surprised that there was no penalty, but there should be a fine.

Legacy teams receiving benefits is true. Just look at Superbowel Movement *XL.

Look at the Brady rule. Lots of QBs have had their knee destroyed, (Carson Palmer when he was kicking Stealer butt in the playoffs), yet no rule change until it happens to Tom Brady.

Look at the Roy Williams (Dallas Cowboys)P rule. Horse collar was not a rule until it happened to a Cowboy.

What about the Tony Romo rule? The kicker ball? After Seattle beat the Cowboys because Romo fumbled a new, slick abll, the rules were changed.

The rule changes made for Legacy Teams are endless.

Have you ever seen a rule change because of something negative that happened to the Seahawks?

 

[Mindsink]

He didn't fumble the ball out of bounds, or anywhere. It came loose in his hands, and he regained control.

Loss of ball control is literally the definition of a fumble. It doesn't need to touch the ground. Regaining control of the ball after he loses it simply means he recovered his own fumble. And in this case, recovered out of bounds in the side of the endzone.

 

[kidhawk]

I didn't see this live, but I have seen replays of it, and I have come to the conclusion that I hate the rule, but not the ruling. I think they, by rule, got the call right, and that is really all I ever ask of the replay system. I do think they need to look at this in the off season though, because I really think that by the eye test, this really should be a TD. As long as the rule stays as is though, I would want them to continue to call it the same as they just did.

 

[renofox]

He didn't fumble the ball out of bounds, or anywhere. It came loose in his hands, and he regained control.

Loss of ball control is literally the definition of a fumble. It doesn't need to touch the ground. Regaining control of the ball after he loses it simply means he recovered his own fumble. And in this case, recovered out of bounds in the side of the endzone.

I've looked and the only angle I've seen is the one from the back corner of the end zone. From this angle, the ball is not visible from shortly after he loses possession until well after he hits out of bounds. The first sighting of the ball after hitting out of bound shows clear possession, but what happened with the ball during the half-second/full-yard of inbounds travel is not seen anywhere on film.

Is there "incontravertible evidence" that he did not regain possession prior to being out of bounds?

I have not seen any such evidence.

The touchdown call should not have been overturned according to NFL rules.

 

[evergreen]

Yes we have benefited from that rule! Earl both time plus Kam and megatron. Remember kaperinik throwing a pick six and the dang defender goes to the end one and Kaep tackles him and he fumbles out of endzone so 49 ers get ball right back o the 20 like nothing's ever happened. That's bs to overturn that td call tho.

 

[XxXdragonXxX]

My problem with this overturn is that you cant clearly see that he didnt regain posession. You can clearly see he lost control of the ball, but the appears to have possibly regained control. The video evidence is not indisputable, therefore the original call should stand.

 

[JimmyG]

That said, that the defense gets possession of a ball fumbled out of the endzone, is I think, a bad rule. They made it that way because of the intentional fumble through the endzone way, way back by the Raiders, I think. In any case, I don't see any reason why they don't at least try to approximate something closer to the regular fumble out of bounds rule, in which the fumbling teams retains possession. If you want to put THEM on the 20 fine, whatever, but giving the defense the ball when they never possessed it doesn't make a lick of sense to me.

This has to be the dumbest rule in existence. I cannot stand it.

 

[NINEster]

That said, that the defense gets possession of a ball fumbled out of the endzone, is I think, a bad rule. They made it that way because of the intentional fumble through the endzone way, way back by the Raiders, I think. In any case, I don't see any reason why they don't at least try to approximate something closer to the regular fumble out of bounds rule, in which the fumbling teams retains possession. If you want to put THEM on the 20 fine, whatever, but giving the defense the ball when they never possessed it doesn't make a lick of sense to me.

This has to be the dumbest rule in existence. I cannot stand it.

Go back to January 1987, Meadowlands, NJ....49ers @ Giants NFC Divisional Playoff Game...

First drive of the game, second or third play.....Montana finds Rice on a slant. Rice takes the slant and is going to get a touchdown for sure until he mysteriously fumbles the ball and it goes out of the end zone....touchback.

What could have been 7-0 SF, eventually became 49-3 NYG.

Now, not a guarantee SF wins the game or anything, but talk about a huge break.

Ball IMO should be brought back to the point of fumble, just like it would be if you merely fumbled it out of bounds with the ball rolling forwards.

If *anything*......only compromise for it being a touchback is if the defense forced the fumble. Rewarding the defense for something they did not contribute to seems asinine.