Luck come a helping the Jets again

[JETSJETSJETS]

In other words, it was a lucky break. :)

I shouldn't be, but I'm kind of surprised that you think that the Branch play should have been overturned. It was the right call.

Pause it on the 1:08 mark:

[video=youtube;OBt9qgZmFPw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OBt9qgZmFPw[/video]

Well the announcers don't agree with you and neither do I. Branch was switching the ball from one hand to another, so he could not have been down since the ball was moving when touched, but knowing you, its worthless arguing with u.

 

[The New Guy]

Well the announcers don't agree with you and neither do I. Branch was switching the ball from one hand to another, so he could not have been down since the ball was moving when touched, but knowing you, its worthless arguing with u.

You are the same guy that thinks Suggs should have been called for a late hit when Sanchez threw that int, so I would not expect you to agree. What announcers are you talking about? The ones in the highlight do agree. Regardless of what the announcers say, the officials agree with me. They called it a fumble originally, and needed indisputable evidence to overturn it. You can see on the 1:08 mark Branch has both hands on the ball with a knee down, and the defender is touching him.

 

[nyjunc]

In other words, it was a lucky break. :)

I shouldn't be, but I'm kind of surprised that you think that the Branch play should have been overturned. It was the right call.

Pause it on the 1:08 mark:

[video=youtube;OBt9qgZmFPw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OBt9qgZmFPw[/video]

It was not the right call. He fumbled it, I went frame by frame and the ball was coming loose when he was touched down so it was a fumble, it was very close but at worst the ref cannot overturn it b/c the original call was a fumble. There was not any evidence to overturn that call. It was a terrible call just a week after they screwed us in Baltimore BUT that's not why we lost either game. Good teams find ways to overcome, we aren't good right now(but we will be).

 

[The New Guy]

It was not the right call. He fumbled it, I went frame by frame and the ball was coming loose when he was touched down so it was a fumble, it was very close but at worst the ref cannot overturn it b/c the original call was a fumble. There was not any evidence to overturn that call. It was a terrible call just a week after they screwed us in Baltimore BUT that's not why we lost either game. Good teams find ways to overcome, we aren't good right now(but we will be).

You must have missed the frame where Branch has both hands on the ball with his knee down when the defender is touching him. Other than what I have seen for myself, I'll go with the official who who looked at it frame by frame with a much better look at it than what you and I have.

 

[nyjunc]

You must have missed the frame where Branch has both hands on the ball with his knee down when the defender is touching him. Other than what I have seen for myself, I'll go with the official who who looked at it frame by frame with a much better look at it than what you and I have.

watch it again, watch on a big screen HD TV. He's on his knee and the ball moves before he is touched so when he is touched and supposedly down the ball is already moving around meaning it was a fumble.

 

[The New Guy]

watch it again, watch on a big screen HD TV. He's on his knee and the ball moves before he is touched so when he is touched and supposedly down the ball is already moving around meaning it was a fumble.

I watched it on my 56" HDTV several times. The ball does move around before he is touched, but he regains possession with both hands when his knee is on the ground and the defender is touching him. At that point, the play is dead and it does not matter what happens after that.

 

[JETSJETSJETS]

I thought that the Ngata hit could have easily been called roughing, but they didn't call it. The other play was a fumble. I have no idea what you consider to be a late hit, but that is not even close. Sanchez barely got the ball out before he was hit by Suggs. Most Jets fans will even tell you that. Just ask junc. I'm fairly certain he would tell you. The refs cost the Jets 7 points, not 21. The Jets were not the only team to get bad calls that night. The refs cost the Ravens 11 points from the no calls on the block in the back on the Jets return, and the pass interference in the endzone.

Not sure how that adds up to 11 points, but the block on the return was a shoulder to shoulder block. I don't even know which EZ PI you are talking about.

As for the Suggs hit, check the link below. The pass was made at the 17 second mark (replay) when Suggs got his hands on Sanchez. The initial hit is just fine. But he slams Sanchez down to the ground after that. The jerk on Sanchez's jersey comes exactly as the defender catches the int, which tells u how late it was. Look at it at 24 seconds. U don't see the jerk as the camera moves away, but u can tell when he pulled Sanchez down. To me, that's late. It was a two-step knockdown. First step was the hit, which was fine. The second step was the jerk on the jersey to slam Sanchez down, which was about two seconds late.

http://www.nfl.com/videos/auto/09000d5d822c850a/WeeK-4-Can-t-Miss-Play-Ravens-love-defense

 

[nyjunc]

I watched it on my 56" HDTV several times. The ball does move around before he is touched, but he regains possession with both hands when his knee is on the ground and the defender is touching him. At that point, the play is dead and it does not matter what happens after that.

He doesn't regain possession, it was clearly moving before he was touched. Again, worst case scenario they think it inconclusive and since it was ruled a fumble the call should not have been overturned.

 

[Phin-o-rama]

He doesn't regain possession, it was clearly moving before he was touched. Again, worst case scenario they think it inconclusive and since it was ruled a fumble the call should not have been overturned.

Nah you wrong...deal with it



Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk

 

[The New Guy]

Not sure how that adds up to 11 points, but the block on the return was a shoulder to shoulder block. I don't even know which EZ PI you are talking about.

As for the Suggs hit, check the link below. The pass was made at the 17 second mark (replay) when Suggs got his hands on Sanchez. The initial hit is just fine. But he slams Sanchez down to the ground after that. The jerk on Sanchez's jersey comes exactly as the defender catches the int, which tells u how late it was. Look at it at 24 seconds. U don't see the jerk as the camera moves away, but u can tell when he pulled Sanchez down. To me, that's late. It was a two-step knockdown. First step was the hit, which was fine. The second step was the jerk on the jersey to slam Sanchez down, which was about two seconds late.

http://www.nfl.com/videos/auto/09000d5d822c850a/WeeK-4-Can-t-Miss-Play-Ravens-love-defense

To me, that's football. Suggs was trying to get a sack, and hit him just as the ball was being released. Yes, he pulled his jersey bringing Sanchez to the ground, but he was just following through on the play. I don't see how you can expect a defender to let up at that point. For all he knew Sanchez still had the ball. Roughing is when the QB gets rid of the ball, and the defender see it and has enough time to let up before going through with the hit.

I don't remember exactly when the PI took place, but I believe it was in the first half, and Bal scored a FG out of it. Had it been called, it would have been 1st and goal on the 1. Judging by the way Bal was running the ball, I think they could have punched it in. That is where I came up with the 4 points. They ended up kicking a FG on that drive so they got the 3, but it would have been 7. I don't have the tape anymore and I can't find it anywhere online to show you.

I don't think we are looking at the same guy on the kick return. It was a block in the back by NYJ #88 on #51. You can see him coming in towards the top / middle of the screen at the 30 second mark.

[video=youtube;Sfro7ixqXPc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sfro7ixqXPc[/video]

He doesn't regain possession, it was clearly moving before he was touched. Again, worst case scenario they think it inconclusive and since it was ruled a fumble the call should not have been overturned.

I don't know what you are seeing, but you can clearly see it on the video in my earlier post. Pause it on 1:08 mark. If you can't see that Branch has both hands on the ball with his knee down and the defender touching him, I don't have anything else to say. I don't think the Refs were biased against the Jets, and they looked at it and made the right call.

 

[nyjunc]

To me, that's football. Suggs was trying to get a sack, and hit him just as the ball was being released. Yes, he pulled his jersey bringing Sanchez to the ground, but he was just following through on the play. I don't see how you can expect a defender to let up at that point. For all he knew Sanchez still had the ball. Roughing is when the QB gets rid of the ball, and the defender see it and has enough time to let up before going through with the hit.

I don't remember exactly when the PI took place, but I believe it was in the first half, and Bal scored a FG out of it. Had it been called, it would have been 1st and goal on the 1. Judging by the way Bal was running the ball, I think they could have punched it in. That is where I came up with the 4 points. They ended up kicking a FG on that drive so they got the 3, but it would have been 7. I don't have the tape anymore and I can't find it anywhere online to show you.

I don't think we are looking at the same guy on the kick return. It was a block in the back by NYJ #88 on #51. You can see it at the 30 second mark.

[video=youtube;Sfro7ixqXPc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sfro7ixqXPc[/video]



I don't know what you are seeing, but you can clearly see it on the video in my earlier post. Pause it on 1:08 mark. If you can't see that Branch has both hands on the ball with his knee down and the defender touching him, I don't have anything else to say. I don't think the Refs were biased against the Jets, and they looked at it and made the right call.

I can't see the video, I saw better video yesterday where the ball clearly begins moving before he is touched.

 

[The New Guy]

I can't see the video, I saw better video yesterday where the ball clearly begins moving before he is touched.

Again, it does move before he is touched, but he clearly has possession once he is touched.

 

[nyjunc]

Again, it does move before he is touched, but he clearly has possession once he is touched.

how does he clearly have possession as a split second later he loses the ball?

 

[The New Guy]

how does he clearly have possession as a split second later he loses the ball?

His knee was already down. It only takes a split second for him to get both hands on the ball while being touched. Maybe someone will post a photo showing you what everyone else has already seen.

 

[nyjunc]

His knee was already down. It only takes a split second for him to get both hands on the ball while being touched. Maybe someone will post a photo showing you what everyone else has already seen.

His knee was down but he was not down, he was trying to get up then started to lose the ball THEN was touched while the ball was moving and he was losing possession. It was called a fumble on the field, there has to be conclusive evidence for the play to be overturned. There wasn't, worst case it should not have been overturned for that. It was a bad call. It didn't cost us the game as good teams can overturn, we still had chances but it certainly didn't help us.