Milkman, I was one of the fools who came in here driving the Ebron bandwagon. The league that I owned him in ended up locking me out of the league and throwing away the key because of my mouth and sharp tongue so I don't own any shares of him. He looks like a fragile BUST. I just acquired ASJ off waivers last week in the redraft league I have been forced to play in since becoming a fantasy orphan. He is not the most athletic guy on the field but he looks a hell of a lot better than Ebron. In my opinion, he is done. It took me longer to realize it because I burned a first round pick on the bum. Excellent call but don't let it get to your head. And I agree, he got robbed of that second touchdown. Absolute GARBAGE call.I vaguely remember some guy on here claiming ASJ was better than Ebron and everybody was laughing at him. I wonder if anybody who ownd Ebron now would reject a ASJ for Ebron offer? Lolol
Austin Seferian-Jenkins reeled in eight-of-11 targets for 46 yards and a touchdown Sunday in the Jets’ Week 6 loss to the Patriots.
Seferian-Jenkins was a target hog once again, particularly in the first half when he saw seven of his 11 looks from Josh McCown. He put New York on the board first with a one-yard touchdown in the first quarter. That came on a play where he was able to create separation from Elandon Roberts. ASJ nearly had another touchdown in the fourth quarter but the play was changed to a touchback on review. The Jets have a right to be upset as Seferian-Jenkins lost possession briefly but recovered and should have been credited with the touchdown. That play would later be the difference in the game as New England won by a slim 24-17 margin. ASJ has scored in two straight games while seeing at least eight targets in each contest. He’ll be a back-end TE1 next week against Miami.
I've got both of them too. Everyone was surprised I waited on TE. Picked up ASJ 3 weeks ago. Bonus flex play.I love ASJ.
i punted on TE & ended up with Brate/Clay. I added ASJ in both leagues and some folks in my league mocked me for carrying 3 TEs.
clay went down, which sucked, but I feel like I’ve got a luxury - I’ll be starting a TE at flex through the BYEs. Brate & ASJ are friggin machines.
Gotta love the targets for ASJ. Anyone who picked him up has a legit double digit scoring weapon every week.
I agree the Jets were ripped off but I don't think the opponent was a factor at all and I hate the Patriots.az_prof said:ASJ and Jets were ripped off. Would this play have flipped for any other team other than NE? I really hate them. It feels like the league goes out of its way to grease the path for Patriots. The play on field was a TD and to overturn there must be overhwelming. Not only wasn't it, it looked clearly like a TD. Someone has some splaining to do.
I disagree with the notion that the IR didn't conclusively show anything. It was clear as day that ASJ did not have the ball in his hands before he crossed the goal line. You can see that from pretty much every angle available.I agree the Jets were ripped off but I don't think the opponent was a factor at all and I hate the Patriots.
The NFL's IR rules are ridiculous -- it should be to used to overturn blatant obvious blown calls and that's it. The video did not conclusively prove anything so they should have stayed with the call on the field. The NFL needs to remember this and stop micro-managing the game cause they're not very good at it.
I haven't been posting my opinion, I have been posting what THE ACTUAL HEAD REFEREE SAID about this exact play.Anarchy99 I have read your responses about this play and none of what you are saying about him having to re-establish himself has any relevance to this play. No one else possesed the ball and it never was deemed a fumble (if he had done that in the middle of the field it never would have been scored a fumble). Re-establishing yourself is only relevant after an actual fumble, not a bobble of the ball and then immediately regaining control. The only thing that matters in this instance is did ASJ have possession of the ball the instant he hit the pylon. He did have posession of it, or at worst the referees in no way could prove that he didn't have possession of it and since the initial call was a touchdown then it is a touchdown. The instant he hit the pylon the play was over. At that instant he either had posession and its a TD or they needed 100% indisputable proof that he did not have posession to overturn it. Since there is no camera angle showing him with anything but the ball being trapped against his body the instant his body touched the pylon then its a TD. The refs absolutely botched the call and you are trying to defend them using a rule that in no way can be applied to this play.
Or are you trying to argue that if that happened in the middle of the field that it would have been ruled a fumble and recovery by ASJ? Since it absolutely would not have then the re-establishing rule doesnt apply here.
If he caught the ball and then lost control of it that should be considered a TD. He recovers his own fumble and then advances the ball over the TD line.
If they are saying he never caught the ball (had possession) then it is no catch, which is how they ruled it (I guess?).
Similar thing with Montgomery in the Vikings game. I thought Montgomery scored a TD, but they ruled that he didn't complete the catch because he was bobbling it and didn't establish possession.
From watching the replay I think it is very clear that he caught the ball and had possession of it. He takes at least two steps forward with the ball secured in the crook of his arm. The ball does come loose just before he crosses the goal line. That should be considered a fumble (he never loses it though) not saying that he didn't catch the ball.
Ay Caramba.Except I, and anyone that actually knows rules of football, are arguing that he got the call wrong. The play was dead as soon as he hit the pylon. This is not a reception. Once he hit the pylon then possession must be determined at that exact moment, not at some arbitrary time after because the play is over then. Corrente got the call wrong. As to your argument about re-establishing himself in the field of play he never says that. He talks about him controlling the ball after he hits the ground out of bounds, which when going by NFL or just plain football rules is completely irrelevant. They applied a rule as if it were a reception and the ball needed to be controlled through the end of the catch but the catch was never in doubt. Possession was supposed to be determined at the instant he hit the pylon. Unless the NFL created a rule different about this exact situation that differs from basic football rules then Corrente got it wrong. If there is a rule about this exact situation then you or Corrente would need to provide that rule because it differs from the normal rules of football. The NFL did create such a rule in regards to completing the catch once you're in the end zone but that is the only rule that I know of where the play isnt dead as soon as the ball crosses the goal line.
Yes. There are three really stupid rules at play:We agree its a pretty dumb rule.
Yes it was, and since he hadn't re-established possession, the call was correct.Except I, and anyone that actually knows rules of football, are arguing that he got the call wrong. The play was dead as soon as he hit the pylon. This is not a reception. Once he hit the pylon then posession must be determined at that exact moment, not at some arbitrary time after because the play is over then. Corrente got the call wrong. As to your argument about re-establishing himself in the field of play he never says that. He talks about him controlling the ball after he hits the ground out of bounds, which when going by NFL or just plain football rules is completely irrelevant. They applied a rule as if it were a reception and the ball needed to be controlled through the end of the catch but the catch was never in doubt. Possession was supposed to be determined at the instant he hit the pylon. Unless the NFL created a rule different about this exact situation that differs from basic football rules then Corrente got it wrong. If there is a rule about this exact situation then you or Corrente would need to provide that rule because it differs from the normal rules of football. The NFL did create such a rule in regards to completing the catch once you're in the end zone but that is the only rule that I know of where the play isnt dead as soon as the ball crosses the goal line.
I agree with your interpretation that the play was over the moment the player was in simultaneous contact with the loose ball and the pylon/sideline.Anarchy99 I have read your responses about this play and none of what you are saying about him having to re-establish himself has any relevance to this play. No one else possesed the ball and it never was deemed a fumble (if he had done that in the middle of the field it never would have been scored a fumble). Re-establishing yourself is only relevant after an actual fumble, not a bobble of the ball and then immediately regaining control. The only thing that matters in this instance is did ASJ have possession of the ball the instant he hit the pylon. He did have posession of it, or at worst the referees in no way could prove that he didn't have possession of it and since the initial call was a touchdown then it is a touchdown. The instant he hit the pylon the play was over. At that instant he either had posession and its a TD or they needed 100% indisputable proof that he did not have posession to overturn it. Since there is no camera angle showing him with anything but the ball being trapped against his body the instant his body touched the pylon then its a TD. The refs absolutely botched the call and you are trying to defend them using a rule that in no way can be applied to this play.
Or are you trying to argue that if that happened in the middle of the field that it would have been ruled a fumble and recovery by ASJ? Since it absolutely would not have then the re-establishing rule doesnt apply here.
1) What alternative is there? If you lose control, you gotta be required to regain control, no? You can't just give it to the next guy that touches it.Yes. There are three really stupid rules at play:
1) having to go through the process of making a catch to be considered in possession of the football.
2) giving the other team the ball as a touch back for fumbling out of the end zone.
3) the refs being able to remap / reconsider the play on instant replay from the point it was determined the ball came loose.
The bolded is not true on regular receptions, so no reason why it should be true after a fumble either.I agree with your interpretation that the play was over the moment the player was in simultaneous contact with the loose ball and the pylon/sideline.
At that instant, to have a valid fumble recovery, ASJ had to have re-established possession of the ball with two feet (or one body part) inbounds.
The issue in Item 1 is that momentarily having the ball come out and immediately grabbing it DOES NOT = re-establishing possession, which is where people are having issues involving this play. ASJ was airborne when he lost the ball and still airborne when he got his hand on it again and hit the pylon. To many people in these ASJ threads, that means he had possession and then hit the pylon = automatic touchdown, end of story.1) What alternative is there? If you lose control, you gotta be required to regain control, no? You can't just give it to the next guy that touches it.
2) That one's pretty awful. Take it back to the 1 and the team keeps possession. They do that on every other fumble forward.
3) That's like the entire purpose of replay though. If you look at something and see something that's wrong, you correct it. Even if that wasn't incorrectly called originally. They do this frequently - if there were 12 men on the field, that can be called on a play that it wasn't initially called on. If the QB makes a throw on the sideline and the WR catches a TD, you gotta correct the call if the QB's foot was out of bounds before he threw it.
This is RGIII completing a run. How do you think this play was called?Except I, and anyone that actually knows rules of football, are arguing that he got the call wrong. The play was dead as soon as he hit the pylon. This is not a reception. Once he hit the pylon then posession must be determined at that exact moment, not at some arbitrary time after because the play is over then. Corrente got the call wrong. As to your argument about re-establishing himself in the field of play he never says that. He talks about him controlling the ball after he hits the ground out of bounds, which when going by NFL or just plain football rules is completely irrelevant. They applied a rule as if it were a reception and the ball needed to be controlled through the end of the catch but the catch was never in doubt. Possession was supposed to be determined at the instant he hit the pylon. Unless the NFL created a rule different about this exact situation that differs from basic football rules then Corrente got it wrong. If there is a rule about this exact situation then you or Corrente would need to provide that rule because it differs from the normal rules of football. The NFL did create such a rule in regards to completing the catch once you're in the end zone but that is the only rule that I know of where the play isnt dead as soon as the ball crosses the goal line.
You are right. I wasn't clear.The bolded is not true on regular receptions, so no reason why it should be true after a fumble either.
Imagine a player diving for a reception...he grabs the ball out of the air, dives for and hits the pylon, then as he lands on the ground, the ball is knocked from his hands.
This would be ruled "incomplete, because the receiver did not maintain control through the process." Even though he was at some instant in contact with the pylon while going to the ground.
We can think it a dumb rule, but we have seen it called that way for years.
We mostly agree then. We have seen players "recover" balls while out of bounds...it is ruled the same as if the ball simply went out of bounds at that spot:You are right. I wasn't clear.
What I meant to convey is that ASJ's opportunity to re-establish possession ended when he touched the pylon/sideline.
Loose ball touching a player that is OOB puts the ball OOB.We mostly agree then. We have seen players "recover" balls while out of bounds...it is ruled the same as if the ball simply went out of bounds at that spot:
1) Offensive player fumbles, defender recovers but is ruled to have been out of bounds. Ball goes back to the offense at that spot, or at the point of the fumble, depending on time remaing (can't advance an offensive fumble in the last x min).
2) player recovers a kickoff with the ball in bounds, but while standing on the line. Flag for kickoff out of bounds.
So if ASJ was not controlling the fumble till he was out of bounds, the call would be correct. He doesn't have to reestablish to affect whether or not the ball is in or out of bounds. He would have to reestablish to earn a recovery TD. He didn't.
I realize that, but it sounded like you were agreeing that's a dumb rule. I don't see any other way to do it. If he loses possession he must re-establish it just like any other player on the field must. If he had done that and the defender got his hands on the ball while having a foot out of bounds would those people expect the defense to be awarded the ball? That would make no sense.The issue in Item 1 is that momentarily having the ball come out and immediately grabbing it DOES NOT = re-establishing possession, which is where people are having issues involving this play. ASJ was airborne when he lost the ball and still airborne when he got his hand on it again and hit the pylon. To many people in these ASJ threads, that means he had possession and then hit the pylon = automatic touchdown, end of story.
The ball seems to be moving around and not firmly tucked away when ASJ hits the ground, and it shifts from one arm to the other arm across his chest with his back on the ground out of bounds. Whether that should be considered reestablishing possession will vary from person to person, I guess.
As for Item 3, it seems like the refs on video review get to determine the outcome of the play from the point of where the mistake was made until the end of the play, and whatever the call on the field was becomes irrelevant. In this case, it seems like the irrefutable evidence had to show ASJ had reestablished himself on the field of play (as opposed to video that proved he never did).
Except that if the ball goes out of bounds IN the end zone it is a touchback. See Gurley a week ago for a less controversial example.Loose ball touching a player that is OOB puts the ball OOB.
If this ASJ had happened away from the end zone, they wouldn't rule ASJ made a valid recovery, they'd rule that the ball went OOB before anyone made a valid recovery, putting the ball back with the offense.
Exactly. The only ignorant thing in play here is that a ball fumbled out of the endzone goes to the other team.Loose ball touching a player that is OOB puts the ball OOB.
If this ASJ had happened away from the end zone, they wouldn't rule ASJ made a valid recovery, they'd rule that the ball went OOB before anyone made a valid recovery, putting the ball back with the offense.
That was considered IN the end zone because it hit the plyon. It's the exact same thing. The moment the ball/player hit the plyon it's OB, and since it's not possessed it's a TB to the other team (which is awful).Except that if the ball goes out of bounds IN the end zone it is a touchback. See Gurley a week ago for a less controversial example.
Of course.Except that if the ball goes out of bounds IN the end zone it is a touchback. See Gurley a week ago for a less controversial example.
Top 6 on a PPG already.Arguably one of the Top 3-5 waiver wire pickups of the season. Cost nothing in all probability and already a Top 10 TE option with Top 5 upside in PPR. Yards are the only negative because he runs so many shallow routes but he's dominating targets, getting RZ work and has become McCown's favorite option in the passing game. He's always had the talent but it looks like he has his head on straight. Combine that with a great situation and it's all been coming together.
And yeah, the replay call was pure bullchit.
http://www.rotoworld.com/articles/nfl/75173/409/roundtable-tight-end-talkOne tight end I’m bullish on in PPR leagues is Austin Seferian-Jenkins. Since returning from his two-game suspension to start the year, ASJ has averaged 12 points per game which is tied for fifth among tight ends. As Rich mentioned, his yardage output has been pretty poor, but he’s tied for first on the Jets in target share at 23 percent. Josh McCown’s affinity for tight ends seems to have carried over to the Jets, making ASJ a usable TE1 ROS.
http://www.rotoworld.com/articles/nfl/75119/478/the-nfl-week-7-worksheet?pg=2Since returning from suspension, Austin Seferian-Jenkins has the second-most targets (29) and the most receptions (23) of all tight ends, but ranks 10th in receiving yardage as his 6.6 yards per catch is ahead of only Ben Watson (5.3 yards) over that span.
Opposing teams are targeting their tight ends 27.7 percent of the time versus the Dolphins, the third highest rate in the league.
We cannot say he’s matchup proof until he actually has a tough matchup & then produces.Shouldn’t the biggest issue with this dude be fragility? Seems he’s almost matchup proof otherwise, with the TEs this year.
That's about 77 years. I'm actually ok if he has A drink for his 80th birthday.We cannot say he’s matchup proof until he actually has a tough matchup & then produces.
He’s been sober for 281 days, which he says was his biggest issue. I believe him, and hope he has 28,100 more.
Starting R Anderson over him at flex. Starting Derby over ASJ and Reed. Hunter on bye.WHAT are people doing with him tonight? Buff is a tough defense but apparently their one weakness in the passing game is vs the TE. But it’s not a crazy weakness and they’ve only allowed 6 passing scores all season.
Is he riding the pine for you tonight or starting? And over who?
Buffalo would look a lot worse against TE's but they just have not faced anyone good. Brate is best one they faced. They got Olsen but that was game he got hurt.WHAT are people doing with him tonight? Buff is a tough defense but apparently their one weakness in the passing game is vs the TE. But it’s not a crazy weakness and they’ve only allowed 6 passing scores all season.
Is he riding the pine for you tonight or starting? And over who?