Bad Officiating - Discuss (1 Viewer)

[davearm]

The officials said it was an obvious call. Per the rules, once the ball became loose, ASJ had to regain possession of the ball AND reesrablish himself on the field. Just like he was making a catch. He had to maintain control of the ball going to the ground. 

https://www.google.com/amp/patriotswire.usatoday.com/2017/10/15/referee-explains-controversial-confusing-touchback-in-patriots-win-over-jets/amp/

If people want to say there is no clear way to determine that on video, I won't say there is. Rather than give NE the ball, they should have fudged it and say he was out of bounds six inches short of the end zone if they had to say it was a fumble. 

The re-establish himself inbounds part is I think what folks are missing.

IMO it's unclear whether ASJ regained possession of the ball before making contact with the pylon.  It's super-close.  However it's beyond clear that he didn't touch down in bounds after re-possessing the ball.

As an aside, this outcome is precisely why I'm amazed that players dive so aggressively for the pylon.  If that ball slips even a little bit, it's a touchback the other way.

 

[GroveDiesel]

By ruling it a touchdown in the first place, the ref was saying that ASJ had possession when he hit the pylon. 

At this point, there is no clear visual evidence that he didn't regain possession. Yes, he bobbled the ball before that, but very well could have reestablished possession. And if he did, it is a TD. Unless there is clear visual evidence that he never regained possession, I don't see how they could overturn it.

The NFL stated that they saw an angle late in the replay that clearly showed ASJ lost control a second time going to the ground. If that is true, they really REALLY need to provide that view. 

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Can someone explain who is actually making the calls at the NFL front office?

Are they actual referees who are dedicated to watching a singular game they are in charge of?

Or are these essentially a handful of administrators who do not have referee experience and who are overseeing all the games at once?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Pretty sure that under the new system, NYC has the final call.

That's how I understand it too.

 

[NREC34]

Both. I believe the suits called it and the ref concurred. 

I still say it's a dumb rule, but it is pretty clear in the replays ASJ loses control of the ball before the goal line. At that point, there is nothing conclusive to show that he repossessed the ball and reestablished himself in the field of play (which is the rule). 

I think the issue with instant replay is what are the refs tasked to do when they see something on the replay that they didn't see live and the play continues. What burden of proof is there AFTER the wrong call has been identified. In this case, what is supposed to happen once they see ASJ lost control of the ball (when initially they were looking to see if he crossed the plane of the goal line).

The referee on the field said he did. If there is nothing conclusive on the replay you go with the original call, no?

 

[Anarchy99]

By ruling it a touchdown in the first place, the ref was saying that ASJ had possession when he hit the pylon. 

At this point, there is no clear visual evidence that he didn't regain possession. Yes, he bobbled the ball before that, but very well could have reestablished possession. And if he did, it is a TD. Unless there is clear visual evidence that he never regained possession, I don't see how they could overturn it.

The NFL stated that they saw an angle late in the replay that clearly showed ASJ lost control a second time going to the ground. If that is true, they really REALLY need to provide that view. 

Again, the issue most people have here is understanding the rule. Prior to reaching the goal line, ASJ can be seen with the ball in NEITHER hand as the ball is clearly fumbled. At that point, the play is treated like a pass play. To re-establish possession, a player needs to secure the football, get two feet or a knee in bounds, and maintain ball security throughout hitting the ground. That's the barometer for regaining possession of the ball after a fumble.

Just because he got his hands on the ball again DOES NOT mean he had secured possession of the football and reestablished himself in the field of play.

 

[Mookie]

It's the Tuck Rule all over again.

 

[Warrior]

make everything review-able.

I think this is a horrible idea.

There is literally a penalty on EVERY SINGLE PLAY. Some DB bumping a WR, some sort of minor hold by the linemen, etc. Making everything reviewable is a slippery slope towards 5mins of film review for every single play. That would be a horrible idea.

 

[GroveDiesel]

Can someone explain who is actually making the calls at the NFL front office?

Are they actual referees who are dedicated to watching a singular game they are in charge of?

Or are these essentially a handful of administrators who do not have referee experience and who are overseeing all the games at once?

http://operations.nfl.com/the-officials/these-officials-are-really-good/nfl-instant-replay-process/

The vice president of officiating or designated senior members of the officiating department.

 

[davearm]

By ruling it a touchdown in the first place, the ref was saying that ASJ had possession when he hit the pylon. 

At this point, there is no clear visual evidence that he didn't regain possession. Yes, he bobbled the ball before that, but very well could have reestablished possession. And if he did, it is a TD. Unless there is clear visual evidence that he never regained possession, I don't see how they could overturn it.

The NFL stated that they saw an angle late in the replay that clearly showed ASJ lost control a second time going to the ground. If that is true, they really REALLY need to provide that view. 

Look up one post.

You're missing the requirement that he re-establish himself inbounds *after* regaining possession.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

I think this is a horrible idea.

There is literally a penalty on EVERY SINGLE PLAY. Some DB bumping a WR, some sort of minor hold by the linemen, etc. Making everything reviewable is a slippery slope towards 5mins of film review for every single play. That would be a horrible idea.

How exactly would the game be slowed down? They'd still only get a limited number of challenges. I don't see me saying coaches should get unlimited challenges.   

Pass interference and holding are clearly defined. Take the judgement calls out of the game. If a coach decides to use one of their 2 review challenges for that, why shouldn't they be able to do so?  

Please do explain how the game would be stopped "every single play" when the coaches would have the same # of reviews that they presently have? Seems that basic logic would indicate that the game wouldn't increase by a single second with my idea, but thank you for your ridiculous assertion. Your lack of critical thinking has been noted. 

 

[GroveDiesel]

Again, the issue most people have here is understanding the rule. Prior to reaching the goal line, ASJ can be seen with the ball in NEITHER hand as the ball is clearly fumbled. At that point, the play is treated like a pass play. To re-establish possession, a player needs to secure the football, get two feet or a knee in bounds, and maintain ball security throughout hitting the ground. That's the barometer for regaining possession of the ball after a fumble.

Just because he got his hands on the ball again DOES NOT mean he had secured possession of the football and reestablished himself in the field of play.

Again, the ref had already ruled that he did that by ruling it a touchdown in tbe first place. There is no video evidence showing that he didn't. Introducing an earlier variable doesn't change that in the slightest.

You're looking at it as if the play were being treated like it was seen exactly perfectly in real time. It isn't. The play has to be interpreted starting with the result and requiring indisputable visual evidence to overturn all the required parts.

If the original ruling had been that he bobbled it and didn't re-establish possession, I would say the video doesn't provide indisputable visual evidence to overturn it as well.

 

[Steeler]

Again, the issue most people have here is understanding the rule. Prior to reaching the goal line, ASJ can be seen with the ball in NEITHER hand as the ball is clearly fumbled. At that point, the play is treated like a pass play. To re-establish possession, a player needs to secure the football, get two feet or a knee in bounds, and maintain ball security throughout hitting the ground. That's the barometer for regaining possession of the ball after a fumble.

Just because he got his hands on the ball again DOES NOT mean he had secured possession of the football and reestablished himself in the field of play.

The original call was a TD so they needed evidence to overturn it - they needed proof that he was out of bounds without possession.  When they saw clear evidence of the fumble on replay they flipped the burden of proof and started looking for evidence that he reestablished himself in bounds - this was the mistake IMO.  When they saw the fumble they needed to see clear evidence that he DID NOT regain possession in order to overturn the call.  Remember, replay is looking for evidence that the original call was wrong.   

 

[GroveDiesel]

Look up one post.

You're missing the requirement that he re-establish himself inbounds *after* regaining possession.

The ref already ruled that he was established inbounds while having possession when he ruled it a touchdown. Please show me irrefutable evidence that he did not.

Pretty much everyone concedes that he MAY have reestablished possession while being inbounds. So if that's even a possibility, you can't overturn the original ruling on the field. The bobble doesn't reverse the burden of proof.

 

[Anarchy99]

The original call was a TD so they needed evidence to overturn it - they needed proof that he was out of bounds without possession.  When they saw clear evidence of the fumble on replay they flipped the burden of proof and started looking for evidence that he reestablished himself in bounds - this was the mistake IMO.  When they saw the fumble they needed to see clear evidence that he DID NOT regain possession in order to overturn the call.  Remember, replay is looking for evidence that the original call was wrong.   

Which is what they did. They did not see the fumble in real time on the field. When they reviewed it, they determined he a) lost the football, and 2) never had possession of the ball over the goal line, and c) never re-established possession of the football.

It sounds like (read as: it is being treated as) that once the fumble was established, they treated it that the burden of proof then became incumbent on ASJ that there was something to show that he re-established himself with the ball in bounds and in the end zone. IMO, that is one area where things are a grey zone on this one.

 

[Steeler]

It sounds like (read as: it is being treated as) that once the fumble was established, they treated it that the burden of proof then became incumbent on ASJ that there was something to show that he re-established himself with the ball in bounds and in the end zone. 

I agree - and I think that was the mistake.

 

[zftcg]

Which is what they did. They did not see the fumble in real time on the field. When they reviewed it, they determined he a) lost the football, and 2) never had possession of the ball over the goal line, and c) never re-established possession of the football.

It sounds like (read as: it is being treated as) that once the fumble was established, they treated it that the burden of proof then became incumbent on ASJ that there was something to show that he re-established himself with the ball in bounds and in the end zone. IMO, that is one area where things are a grey zone on this one.

Yeah, that seems to be the crux of the issue: The exact meaning of "conclusive evidence". If we're breaking the play down to its components, there is conclusive evidence that he fumbled and there is not conclusive evidence that he re-established possession before going out of bounds. However, if we're reviewing the play in its totality, there is not conclusive evidence that the call on the field (TD) should be overturned.

Before yesterday, I would have thought that the latter was the standard. But it seems the NFL is operating under the former.

 

[davearm]

The ref already ruled that he was established inbounds while having possession when he ruled it a touchdown. Please show me irrefutable evidence that he did not.

Pretty much everyone concedes that he MAY have reestablished possession while being inbounds. So if that's even a possibility, you can't overturn the original ruling on the field. The bobble doesn't reverse the burden of proof.

ASJ was airborne when he lost the ball, and he landed completely out of bounds.

He may or may not have re-established possession (first requirement) while airborne, but he definitely did not get two feet or one other body part to touch inbounds thereafter (second requirement).

I'm convinced this play is only still being debated by folks that don't understand the second requirement, and are fixated on the first requirement.

 

[Anarchy99]

I remember a crazy play like 10 years ago. I think it involved the Chiefs. It was before they automatically reviewed all scores and turnovers. BOTH teams challenged. 

IIRC, one of the Chiefs backs was almost tackled in the backfield but broke free. He spun to the outside and then raced down the sideline. 

A safety hit him inside the five yard line and the runner went flying toward the pylon and the ball came out. Was he in the end zone? Out of bounds? Down on contact? Was it a fumble? A touchback? I think there was also a penalty on the tackle in there. 

They then determined the run actually stepped out of bounds at the 22 yard line so all the stuff after that never happened. The defense then challenged that the runner was down by contact in the  backfield. They checked and he wasn't, but they then determined he stepped OB at the 45 yard line before he was out at the 22. Then they had a big discussion about enforcing or not enforcing the 15 yard penalty on the tackle. I believe they threw out the penalty because the play was dead way earlier so the penalty never really happened. Then they debated which teams should or shouldn't be charged a timeout. It took FOREVER to sort it all out. 

Anyone else remember this play?

 

[davearm]

Yeah, that seems to be the crux of the issue: The exact meaning of "conclusive evidence". If we're breaking the play down to its components, there is conclusive evidence that he fumbled and there is not conclusive evidence that he re-established possession before going out of bounds. However, if we're reviewing the play in its totality, there is not conclusive evidence that the call on the field (TD) should be overturned.

Before yesterday, I would have thought that the latter was the standard. But it seems the NFL is operating under the former.

In my viewing...

There's conclusive evidence that he fumbled before reaching the goal line, and

There's also conclusive evidence that he did not re-establish possession while touching inbounds.

And frankly neither are that difficult to see.  The ball's definitely moving.  The body definitely lands OOB.

 

[GroveDiesel]

ASJ was airborne when he lost the ball, and he landed completely out of bounds.

He may or may not have re-established possession (first requirement) while airborne, but he definitely did not get two feet or one other body part to touch inbounds thereafter (second requirement).

I'm convinced this play is only still being debated by folks that don't understand the second requirement, and are fixated on the first requirement.

Two former heads of NFL officiating disagree with you. I guess they don't understand it either.

https://twitter.com/NFLonFOX/status/919681204772749314

 

[Anarchy99]

Two former heads of NFL officiating disagree with you. I guess they don't understand it either.

https://twitter.com/NFLonFOX/status/919681204772749314

They may have been high ranking, but IMO their guesses on ruling son the field have been wrong more often than they have been right in the times I have seen them chime in during games.

 

[davearm]

Two former heads of NFL officiating disagree with you. I guess they don't understand it either.

https://twitter.com/NFLonFOX/status/919681204772749314

As Blandino explains in your link, once the ball is loose, it's just like the catch rule -- meaning, the runner has to gain possession and get two feet (or one body part) in bounds, and maintain possession going to the ground.  Pretty much exactly what Anarchy and I have been saying.

What body part did you see touch in bounds after ASJ re-established possession?

 

[GroveDiesel]

As Blandino explains in your link, once the ball is loose, it's just like the catch rule -- meaning, the runner has to gain possession and get two feet (or one body part) in bounds, and maintain possession going to the ground.  Pretty much exactly what Anarchy and I have been saying.

What body part did you see touch in bounds after ASJ re-established possession?

Left knee looks like it might have. Can you show a view showing it clearly not inbounds?

 

[davearm]

Left knee looks like it might have. Can you show a view showing it clearly not inbounds?

It seemed clear in all the angles I have seen

 

[Ilov80s]

Replay needs to go. It takes the fun and spontaneity out of the game while not actually improving the correctness of the calls Every week we have several calls that went to replay that at least half the media/fans don't agree with. It's fast paced sport played by humans filled with subjective calls and tough to interpret rules. Let the refs call the game as best they can instead of this "We have an amazing TD in OT but don't get excited because we have to go to slow-mo review it from 5 angles 15 times and parse through 11 different rules with 2 different officiating experts (that don't agree on the call) to see if it counts". Or then we got the fiasco that are fumbles
 

1. Ref thinks the runner is down so he calls the play dead

2. But that means we can't review it, bad job ref. Now let's err on the side of a live ball so we can review it.

3. Ref thinks the runner is down but he is supposed to err on the side of a live ball so he calls it a fumble.

4. Now when that fumble is reviewed, it is tougher to overturn because the call on the field was a fumble even though the ref thought the runner was down. 

It's madness. 

 

[lod001]

I think this is a horrible idea.

There is literally a penalty on EVERY SINGLE PLAY. Some DB bumping a WR, some sort of minor hold by the linemen, etc. Making everything reviewable is a slippery slope towards 5mins of film review for every single play. That would be a horrible idea.

Once we get robots refs that can process info a bazillion times faster that these old geezers, everyone will have to obey the rules. They will catch every infraction. Of course, K-Stink is trying to destroy the NFL before we get to robot refs. We may never get there.

 

[parrot]

The NFL stated that they saw an angle late in the replay that clearly showed ASJ lost control a second time going to the ground. If that is true, they really REALLY need to provide that view. 

I don't know if this is the angle being referred to, but IMO he is pretty clearly still jostling the ball after contacting the ground and does not have it in "complete control" or a "firm grip" through the ground, inbounds, which are required to reestablish possession.  

https://streamable.com/qrsrb

 

[Anarchy99]

I don't know if this is the angle being referred to, but IMO he is pretty clearly still jostling the ball after contacting the ground and does not have it in "complete control" or a "firm grip" through the ground, inbounds, which are required to reestablish possession.  

https://streamable.com/qrsrb

The ball is moving and not tucked away pretty much from the time Butler jars it free. You can see ASJ already on the turf and the ball slides from one arm to the other. Our opinions don't matter. The refs and NFL HQ considered that as not having possession.

I still think the best option was to say the ball was poked out prior to ASJ hitting the goal line, his foot touched out of bounds while he touched the ball, and NY would have been awarded the ball at the 6 inch line.

 

[Bossman]

This call makes me wonder why the ball goes to the defense if the offensive player fumbles thru the end zone?

What logic is this? Just makes no sense to me. What was the reasoning the NFL instituted this rule?

Was this rule designed to deter Some kind of offensive strategy back in the 1950's?

.... any other place on the field and a ball fumbled forward, out of bounds, gets brought back to where the ball was last possessed / fumbled.

Hopefully they change this in the off-season to the ball is marked at the spot of the fumble.

 

[Insein]

I still don't understand how it's a fumble. It never touched the ground. He made the catch and established possession. After that, it never hits the ground. If he did that at the 5 yard line. They rule him down with the ball at the 5. If he does it just before the goaline, he should get the ball at the goaline at worst. The ref on the field felt he had it enough to be a TD though. I don't understand how the ball never touches the ground and it's ruled a fumble.

 

[NE_REVIVAL]

Gronk gets that call all day. 

Hahaaa, you obviously don;t watch too many NE games. Because of Gronks size and talent (period, only reason(s)) he gets absurd OPI calls against regularly, it is laughable and in contrast DBs get away with murder against him just like yesterday, yes they called the first mugging against the db  but then let the second mugging (which was worse) go.

FWIW, I thought the ASJ play was a td and the rule is stupid, think tuck or similar to the 10 sec runoff against det a couple weeks back; severe death penalty type punishment for the alleged crime doesn't fit.

 

[Tool]

“At what point he touched the pylon, it was during the process of trying to recover the ball,’’ Corrente said. “Even though he may have had the ball in his hands the second time, that control does not mean possession until he comes to the ground and shows firm control of the ball at that point.

“When he lost the ball short of the goal line, when he lost the ball, he re-gained control but that doesn’t mean he possesses the ball. He doesn’t possess the ball until he’s completed going to the ground now and re-controlling the ball, which he did not survive the ground, which is why it wasn’t a touchdown. Had he never lost control of the ball in the first place, you would have a touchdown. But because he lost the ball and now has to re-establish control of the ball, that was the period of time.’’

Riveron said on Monday that the rule was properly applied.

“We might not agree with the rule, but that is the rule, so the rule was enforced correctly,’’ he said.

 

[The Duff Man]

It is surprising this does not happen more. 

To overturn this call they had to "see" something NOT happen. 

Some are obvious.

But there are instances where one person might "see" that something didn't happen, and another might "see" that he is not sure if it happened or not. 

There might not be much difference other than the opinion of the person. I would say generally they err on the side of keeping the original call, but I can see how the person reviewing said, "Yes, I can see he didn't re-establish control" which would result in an overturn. 

 

[The Duff Man]

Back on the original topic. I have enjoyed the game a lot more since realizing that the best teams don't necessarily win. 

The number and timing of penalties, that can be called (or not) at any time impact the game by at least 40%, as proven by using many examples of bad calls from recent years and the simulation tool that shows historical win % of teams in different situations. 

 

[Godsbrother]

I still don't understand how it's a fumble. It never touched the ground. He made the catch and established possession. After that, it never hits the ground. If he did that at the 5 yard line. They rule him down with the ball at the 5. If he does it just before the goaline, he should get the ball at the goaline at worst. The ref on the field felt he had it enough to be a TD though. I don't understand how the ball never touches the ground and it's ruled a fumble.

The explanation is that he momentarily lost possession of the ball and did not reestablish before hitting the pylon.  It's in the rules but up until this play it rarely if ever came up because it involved the pylon/endzone.

If this play had occurred anywhere else on the field the Jets would have retained possession of ball and no one would have cared whether or it was a ruled a fumble.  And that is where the problem lies:  fans that have been watching football all their lives have never seen that be called a fumble so they call BS.

My issue is with the IR review.  The NFL is saying there is no doubt that ASJ did not reestablish possession and to me it looks like he regains it while in the air and his left knee was down inside the 1 yard line.  In addition it looks like the left shoulder is in the corner of the endzone when he hits the ground and pylon.   I just didn't see enough to overturn the call on the field which was TD.

 

[Insein]

The explanation is that he momentarily lost possession of the ball and did not reestablish before hitting the pylon.  It's in the rules but up until this play it rarely if ever came up because it involved the pylon/endzone.

If this play had occurred anywhere else on the field the Jets would have retained possession of ball and no one would have cared whether or it was a ruled a fumble.  And that is where the problem lies:  fans that have been watching football all their lives have never seen that be called a fumble so they call BS.

My issue is with the IR review.  The NFL is saying there is no doubt that ASJ did not reestablish possession and to me it looks like he regains it while in the air and his left knee was down inside the 1 yard line.  In addition it looks like the left shoulder is in the corner of the endzone when he hits the ground and pylon.   I just didn't see enough to overturn the call on the field which was TD.

That's my issue too. If he lost it in mid air, he shouldn't need to "land" to re-establish possession. Once he touches it again, it should be his as if nothing changed. 

 

[DropKick]

The original call was a TD so they needed evidence to overturn it - they needed proof that he was out of bounds without possession.  When they saw clear evidence of the fumble on replay they flipped the burden of proof and started looking for evidence that he reestablished himself in bounds - this was the mistake IMO.  When they saw the fumble they needed to see clear evidence that he DID NOT regain possession in order to overturn the call.  Remember, replay is looking for evidence that the original call was wrong.   

Posted this in the other thread but I'll repeat it here...  I don't think all replay is created equal.

This wasn't a "challenge" situation.  They review EVERY score with the objective of confirming the score.  This subtlety may very well change the "burden of proof" as you describe.   Once they saw the fumble, they needed evidence he scored (possession in the end zone).

Really tough call to against someone but I can see the logic.

 

[DropKick]

I remember a crazy play like 10 years ago. I think it involved the Chiefs. It was before they automatically reviewed all scores and turnovers. BOTH teams challenged. 

IIRC, one of the Chiefs backs was almost tackled in the backfield but broke free. He spun to the outside and then raced down the sideline. 

A safety hit him inside the five yard line and the runner went flying toward the pylon and the ball came out. Was he in the end zone? Out of bounds? Down on contact? Was it a fumble? A touchback? I think there was also a penalty on the tackle in there. 

They then determined the run actually stepped out of bounds at the 22 yard line so all the stuff after that never happened. The defense then challenged that the runner was down by contact in the  backfield. They checked and he wasn't, but they then determined he stepped OB at the 45 yard line before he was out at the 22. Then they had a big discussion about enforcing or not enforcing the 15 yard penalty on the tackle. I believe they threw out the penalty because the play was dead way earlier so the penalty never really happened. Then they debated which teams should or shouldn't be charged a timeout. It took FOREVER to sort it all out. 

Anyone else remember this play?

I do.... Your recollection of the details is commendable.

 

[DropKick]

This call makes me wonder why the ball goes to the defense if the offensive player fumbles thru the end zone?

What logic is this? Just makes no sense to me. What was the reasoning the NFL instituted this rule?

Was this rule designed to deter Some kind of offensive strategy back in the 1950's?

.... any other place on the field and a ball fumbled forward, out of bounds, gets brought back to where the ball was last possessed / fumbled.

Hopefully they change this in the off-season to the ball is marked at the spot of the fumble.

This makes sense to me...

What I can't understand is how a batter can run to first on a dropped 3rd strike...  Where did that rule come from?

 

[Short Corner]

This makes sense to me...

What I can't understand is how a batter can run to first on a dropped 3rd strike...  Where did that rule come from?

It's a conspiracy to inflate the fielding percentage for catchers.

 

[renesauz]

Replay needs to go. It takes the fun and spontaneity out of the game while not actually improving the correctness of the calls Every week we have several calls that went to replay that at least half the media/fans don't agree with. It's fast paced sport played by humans filled with subjective calls and tough to interpret rules. Let the refs call the game as best they can instead of this "We have an amazing TD in OT but don't get excited because we have to go to slow-mo review it from 5 angles 15 times and parse through 11 different rules with 2 different officiating experts (that don't agree on the call) to see if it counts". Or then we got the fiasco that are fumbles
 

1. Ref thinks the runner is down so he calls the play dead

2. But that means we can't review it, bad job ref. Now let's err on the side of a live ball so we can review it.

3. Ref thinks the runner is down but he is supposed to err on the side of a live ball so he calls it a fumble.

4. Now when that fumble is reviewed, it is tougher to overturn because the call on the field was a fumble even though the ref thought the runner was down. 

It's madness. 

disagree. Replay correctly reverses 5 or 6 changes of poisession a week. Game changing fumbles that are or aren't fumbles...EVERY WEEK.

As much as we all hate the ASJ call, replay has greatly improved this year...the stoppages seem shorter, and generally more consistent.

 

[Bossman]

After much pondering of the ASJ endzone fumble ... this is the only reason I can think this "ball fumbled thru the end zone touchback" rule comes from:

Back in the day, a fumble forward that went out of bounds would have the ball marked where it went out of bounds.

A desperate team would "accidentally" fumble the ball forward and out of bounds while being tackled, to gain an extra yard or three, to gain a first down.

I believe the "endzone fumble touchback" rule was put in place to deter teams from purposely fumbling into the endzone in the hopes a teammate would fall on it for the TD.

The rule was changed to avoid the purposeful fumbling.  

Now the offense can not advance the ball with a fumble forward out of bounds  ... or, after a 2 min warning, a forward fumble recovered by an offensive player (other than the player that fumbled it) ...  the ball is dead at the spot it was fumbled. Now there is nothing to be gained by fumbling.

So purposeful fumbling no longer exists.

What the league forgot is changing the rule that was in place to deter purposeful fumbling into the endzone.

The rule needs to be changed to be the same as what it is for a ball fumbled on any other part of the field. Ball fumbled forward out of bounds (including out of the endzone) is dead at the spot of the fumble.

Had this rule been corrected previously, NYJ would have kept the ball at the 1/2 yard line instead of losing the ball ... which makes a heck of a lot more sense.

 

[Ilov80s]

disagree. Replay correctly reverses 5 or 6 changes of poisession a week. Game changing fumbles that are or aren't fumbles...EVERY WEEK.

As much as we all hate the ASJ call, replay has greatly improved this year...the stoppages seem shorter, and generally more consistent.

Refs were great tonight. I love how the entire end of the game is all replay and penalties. O fcourse those penalties can't be reviewed. CROCK OF SHIZ

 

[Bojang0301]

Throwing a flag on Ted Ginns muffed punt. About as reactionary and stupid of a call as I’ve seen all year.

Edit to add: it’s a spot foul, so not that bad. I understand the rule the way Blandino explained it was called correctly on the field. I think it’s a bad rule but I’ll say I was wrong and they got it right. Punt returners shouldn’t be granted bobbling rights on a fair catch.

 

[flapgreen]

Keeps getting worse with no end in sight. They don't really care either. 

 

[GroveDiesel]

Couple of fun ones from the Bills game today:

-Bills get called for OPI when the defender very obviously just slips and falls on his own: https://www.buffalorumblings.com/2017/10/29/16567272/watch-awful-penalty-robs-bills-of-scoring-opportunity

-No offsides call despite the defender being very obviously offsides (first offensive snap for the Bills): https://twitter.com/darwal8817/status/924692953389502466

 

[JIMGET]

Keeps getting worse with no end in sight. They don't really care either. 

So why was Millers "catch" in the end zone not a catch?  No one has explained this.

 

[Max Power]

I'm very confused by the Miller call.  I only saw it from three angles, but I didn't see the ball clearly hit the ground or him lose possession.  He has it in his hands when he rolls over.  NFL owes a major explanation here.

Get Well Soon Zach. 

 

[Steeler]

I'm very confused by the Miller call.  I only saw it from three angles, but I didn't see the ball clearly hit the ground or him lose possession.  He has it in his hands when he rolls over.  NFL owes a major explanation here.

Get Well Soon Zach. 

They should have given him the TD based on the gruesome looking knee injury he got on that play.