Can't argue with the DC in B'more but it's a bit early to call him a great HC and this year is proving that.
Not to me. We have had one of the best defenses in the league the pst 2 years but neither D has been great.
Okay, If you're saying "one of the best" because they made it to the AFCCG twice I can't argue. But I think you guys are starting to see and will see over the next few years that Rex "isn't all that". There is a world of difference between being a great DC and being a head coach. The Jet's are talented at key spots but are failing as a group and his rah-rah crap about Sanchez is downright comical.
@ mikeSLTJ23 post 142, 145, and 148 (sorry i can't seem to be able to quote other posts as perhaps I don't have authorization yet as I am new to this board, so will just have to do it by hand) . . . for me the Branch fumble is pretty much start forward, football is one of the few sports that has most of its rules cut and dry, and for the most part deal with things chronologically . . . for example "ground can't cause a fumble" when a player is touched by a defender and goes to the ground and he fumbles the ball, it doesn't matter as play is instantaneoulsy dead at the time a body part other than the hand or foot hits the turf . . .most time the balls comes out well after he hits the ground, sometime balls comes out as he hits the ground, like a runner's forearm hitting the ground, and even tho the ball comes out 1/500th of a second after contact with the ground, it doesn't matter it play is dead 1/500th second before the ball came out, again gang it is one of following the play chronologically . . . the play is equally dead when a player touches out of bounds or the ball crosses the goal line . . . it doesn't matter what happens 1/1000th of a second or three seconds after the play is dead . . . with the above in mind (and I assume agreed to by all) lets look at the Branch possession First, Branch had possession of the ball . . . as most have argued that he fumble the ball (and a WR cant fumble the ball unless he first has possession lest it be an incomplete pass), Branch had possession of the ball . . . so there should be no argument that Branch did not have possession of the ball as he got up off the turf . . . Second, we have Branch getting up and the Jet defender coming towards him . . . play still active with Branch having possession . . . Third (scenario #1, and what i saw on TV), as Branch gets up and starts to move the ball, he is touched, knee is on ground, play dead, and like the points above, what happens after this point, doesn't matter, the fact that the balls continues accross Branch's body is not relevant, the play is dead . . . so its is VERY clear that he is down, regardless how one looks at it . . . Third (scenario #2), Branch begins to move the ball from his right hand to his left hand and as the ball is being moved, he is touched by the defender . . . this is where the NFL rule book comes into play (as reference in an earlier thread and confirmed by BB on the radio yesterday, BB indicated that when one is in the process of transferring the ball from one hand to the other it is consisted possession during the transfer) . . . so as Branch was moving the ball from hand to hand (regardless of how "clean" it was) he was still in "possession" of the ball . . . so bottom line is, even in this scenario, you have possession plus contact with knee on the ground equals play is dead . . . overall you have the following possession + being down by contact = play dead in either scenario on part 3 above, Branch has not loss possession, and as we know the NFL follows things chronologicall, you have possession plus contact plus body part on ground, play is dead and you stop the film . . . The fact that the NFL deems a player still in possession of the ball during the transfer makes common sense as it is a voluintary act by the ball carrier, many times a ball carry will shift the ball from hand to hand and it is not clean, and oft times the ball came be for a split moment in time "in the air" between the two hands , , , and so has he lost possession?, no of coarse not, the eaiest to simply deem that he maintains possession for the purposes of the nfl rules throuhout the transfer . . . now of coarse what we have in this situation is a very very very unique set of circumstances . . . 99/100 when a player looses the ball during the transfer, by his own fault or due to a defender, he is not down and the ball pops out and is a fumble. Indeed had Branch been off the ground by a half an inch, it is a fumble . . . under the normal 99 out of the 100 times its a fumble and the fact that it does not technically occur under the ball falls off his left forearm is really not an issue becuase 99 out of 100 times the playersis not down during the transfer and the play is not dead . . . but since he was down prior to the ball hitting and falling off his left forearm, he is down with possession and the play is dead, again we need to follow it chronologically . . . i know it can be frustrating, but when you look at the play and set teh point in time that Branch "loss" possession at the moment hit his left arm (earliest point) you will see that he was touched before that point in time . . . just as a runner has not fumbled the ball when his forearm hits the ground the ball pops out 1/500 th second later, Branch has not fumbled as he was touched before the transfer was completed . . . EDIT: now the Hernandez PI call was really bogus . . . and not to mention the fact that it had a major change in field position, from the pats punting from their own end zone as opposed to first and ten at mid field . . i hope the competition committee looks into these types of plays, as some point we need to give deference to defenders and entitle them to their position on the field . . . true he did kind of cut off hernandez's route, so kind of like blocking in basketball, but hernandez was not getting to the ball and you really cant call that on third and long . . .
2 years ago we lost 5 of 6 last year we lost 3 of 4 in dec including a 45-3 game in the biggest reg season game of the year. I think it's a little premature to bury us.
One way to tell if it's fan imagination or reality is by gauging how much attention it gets in the national media. NFL officiating is all the rage right now with all the national media puppets scrutinizing it ad nauseam and I haven't much of anything about this game. I did see the Burress catch reversal and that was pretty clear.
Very constructive post. Thanks for contributing to the conversation you ham and egger. Go back to your steeler board and stay there. Pipe down.
I think you should watch it again. Or maybe I should. Pretty sure the order of events was ball moving then touched down.
If true, then I'm arguing more against the way the rule is worded than the officiating. It also should have been clarified when Boger announced the reversal. A shoddy transfer shouldn't automatically mean control in my opinion. Control is control. If a ball comes out that easily, I don't see how that can be classified as control. I'm not arguing with what you're saying, but the rules have to be clear. They've been muddied up so badly that they just don't make sense anymore. This is one of those times. The biggest issue with this is the difference between catching a pass and being a rusher. When running the ball, apparently you can do whatever you want with it in your hand, transfer it a million times, etc. You are always "in control". As soon as the nose of the ball even catches a hint of the goal line, it's a touchdown. For a pass, you have to take 10 steps in bounds and do the electric slide before giving the ball to the ref. Maybe the ruling was correct, but it shouldn't have been. A shoddy transfer to me would mean no control. In that respect, he could have juggled the ball to his other hand, gotten hit, and it's not a fumble because he was transferring the ball while on the ground? I don't buy it. Maybe the way the rules are worded, it makes sense. But then they're poorly worded. While I'm arguing that the rules don't make a lick of sense anymore and complaining about the way the refs handle it, I'm starting to realize that maybe it's not the refs, maybe it's these rules that need to be fixed. Maybe the rules need to be rewritten in a way to give referees more judgment over the game. Rather than trying to figure out which rule applies and how well it does, maybe we need to put discretion back in the hands of the refs like the old days. We have HD video evidence and people still can't agree what's right. Isn't that really the problem??
Deion Branch Fumble I know the game is over and everything. While watching the replay of that play, it didn't look like he had possession as he was switching from holding the ball in his right hand to his left hand but he was down because he was touched as he was down right? Now I know this is a long time ago, but anyone remember the play in 2008 where the Jets played the Broncos. Jerricho Cotchery recovered a fumble on the ground and got hit on the ground then fumbled it? How is that different?
I still don't get how they overturned the call. at least call it incomplete. seems like the jets have lost all the 50/50 challenges this year.
:rofl: Whats crazy is how many interpret being critical of the refs to mean we are blaming them for our losses.
This. If the refs called it a no fumble in the first place and it wasn't overturned, so be it. But there was in no way Conclusive evidence to overturn that. Of course Fatcessa thought there was. "SEE, SEE I thought dey got dat cawl right, I think they got dat cawl right"
It;s amazing. No one said the Jets aren't playing like crap,or the refs are the reason for losses. But we've gotten a raw deal in 3 games as far as calls go. If they want to deny it,at least go back and watch a torrent. Our secondary has their hands tied sometimes.
