Basically what people have said on this board, they can't review possession on fumbles because then they'd be throwing red flags every time there was a scrum for a loose ball, that the initial perception was that Cotchery didn't have possession, and that all referees hate the Jets.
Maybe I am not interpreting it correctly yet, but it seems to me that it was a matter of how the refs called it on the field. The claim is that it wasn't clear that Cotchery had possession of the ball in the refs POV. I understand their explanation of what happened, but this wasn't a case of two or more players fighting for a ball. It was one player jumping on another and the ball squirting out. IMHO that play should have been reviewable.
The refs blew the call and they know it, Cotch had the ball and should have been called down by contact.
Yeah i don't agree with the call on the field, but Jones got momentum back to the Jets on the next drive and we couldn't take care of business after that
I wanted to get Pereira's opinion on whether Cotchery had the ball. Of course they avoided that part of the issue. The officials' opinions during the game was that Jerricho never had possession. Had they been able to look at video of it, I'm sure their opinion would have changed.
So the play is non-reviewable because of pile situations even though this clearly wasn't one. Figures.
The Jets always have plays like this that are so ridiculous and turn out to be non-reviewable. Remember Baker's "TD" against the Browns in '06 that was ruled incomplete even though it was clearly a force out.
After watching the early part of that video, from 27 seconds to about 32 seconds in several times, I can clearly see why the refs did not say cotch had possession. He did not even have his hands on the ball when the Denver player hit him. He has no controll and hence no possession. They did not blow the call at all, but made the right one IMO.
So true. Terrible call, but considering the way they initially rebounded from it, it's very hard to see how it made the difference in the game.
Pereira just spin-doctors off and defends whatever his refs do. Don't ever go into a segment with him and expect to hear anything but the steadfast towing of the company line.
You're right it's stupid. I've been saying this for years now, they are going about the replay system completely wrong in terms of determining what is and is not reviewable. By trying to be so granular in defining everything that can and cannot be reviewed they inevitably miss defining certain situations that should be reviewable. It's also silly to try and say that something is a "judgment call" imo. They're all judgment calls, every single one. What they should do is allow the refs to review any play from start to begining and make any obvious corrections to the play they want as if they were watching it in real time. They should be able to call a penalty, take away a penalty, change the spot of the ball, any combination of things so long as they are correcting an error. The coaches only get 2 challenges so it's not like it would extend the games any more. That said, this bad call didn't cost the Jets anything. There terrible performance did.
I agree. Rich Eisen has tried to argue with him on the principles of the tuck rule and Pereira always dances around the question, never really giving a clear answer. His ultimate response becomes something along the lines of "If the league wants the rule taken out, then tell them to change it". His response to the call on the field didn't surprise me at all.
I'm not saying that isn't true,but a play like that can really set the tone. it was the 1st points of the game,and i like our chances a lot more if the 1st points aren't off a play like that.
