see Idk what is going on or who I have to pay but when I watch the game on my screen, the Fox games are always crisper visually. the CBS games have a weird like fog or something.
I "Liked" your explanation, but I disagree. If I understand how replay is supposed to work, when they review a call there has to be clear evidence that shows the call on the field was wrong. There was no clear evidence - at least from what we could see. The call on the field was that it was not a TD. The only way it could have been a TD was if Hurts was not down by contact before he pushed the ball over the plane, which was impossible to see. Therefore, the call on the field should have remained. But even if they allowed it as they did, that means Hurts was not down by contact, BUT doesn't a player have to have control of the football to complete the play, even on a scoring play? In this case he did not. The ball can be seen in his hand then being popped forward into an Eagle player's hands - it's not clear if Hurts was actually trying to do that or if it was just a lucky bounce - but in any case, on that basis it should've been ruled a fumble and even though an Eagle recovered it, it goes over to the Jets because only Hurts could've legally recovered it in that situation. It was clearly another instance of the refs putting their thumb on the scale against us.
One view of it from behind looks like his hip/ass hits the ground before he extends his arm. Also, one official spots the ball with his foot at about the 1/2 yard line while the other 3 discuss if they want to give the eagles a td.
it wasn't my explanation for the record. It was one posted on the NFL reddit and it makes sense or at least does to me. the lack of any official explanation matching a video we seen is what bothers me. as far as the clear evidence goes, there was. that was the issue. the call on the field wasn't down by contact prior to crossing the line. if it was then it's likely not overturned form anything we seen. the call was fumble at the 1 and the replay showed clearly he didn't fumble and that the ball crossed the line prior to him losing control. that means the result could only be 2 options and it had to change to 1, it was either down before the ball crossed the line or a TD. "not a TD" isn't an official call. it is either down by contact short of the goaline or a fumble. there was enough evidence to overturn the fumble and since they never said he was down, they basically stuck with him not being down and not fumbling. it's a really odd situation but somehow we always seem to get those and the shit end of the stick. like the ASJ fumble/not fumble in the end zone. the chris baker being pushed out that caused a rule change because the call was so bad. etc etc. so this is where the NFL gets weird, if it's a receiver or a runner. they both have different rules for scoring a TD. as a runner all you need to do is get the tip of the ball to touch the tip of the white goal line and do it in bounds and not be down and it's a TD and play over. anything after that doesn't matter. pylons are in bounds which is why you'll see players dive and tap the pylon with the ball cause it's an instant TD. I agree we got the shit end of the stick, and it does feel like we got screwed but honestly due to the lack of camera angles for whatever reason, 1 team was going to feel screwed regardless. of course it was us. just to make it simpler though the call was fumble before the ball crossed the goalline and he was never down. video evidence showed he did get the ball across before he fumbled so it couldn't be a fumble. therefor was overturned to a TD. based on what we saw they were unable to confirm if he was actually down or not so they had to go with the original call of him not being down. had they ruled him down before the ball crossed the line, it's likely not overturned.
he spotted the ball there due to calling it a fumble and that the ball comes back to the fumble spot. nobody called him down which is the issue
The ref literally said he broke the goal line "while his body was up, not down by contact". It was not the case were he didn't fumble, hence it is a TD. They explicitly said his body was up and not down by contact. I just don't recall an angle showing this.
The bigger problem is how much these broadcasts hammer the fact that the call on the field is often the largest factor if there’s sketchy evidence as to if it should be overturned. Yet there’s no way they had conclusive evidence in this case to overturn the ruling on the field which that he didn’t break the plain. There’s a reason they didn’t want to show any of the replays.
I found the feed and it did look like more likely than not Hurts scored if you combine the angles of everything showed on the broadcast, but yeah, I don't think it was conclusive at all. To me this has to stand as called. To overturn the original call was a tough break for the Jets. This time though, unlike complete BS call against KC, we were able to overcome this.
thats the problem I have, there was no angle showing what they claimed. the commentators said "they have angles we don't and can sync the tapes together to see when he was down or not" from my understanding and I could be wrong,but that is a lie and they only have the same angles from the broadcast we do. at no point did we see any angle to show if he was down or not. it was an assumption at best.
the problem was it couldn't stand as called because it was called a fumble and the replay did clearly show it couldn't have been a fumble. what it didn't show is whether he was down or not before the ball broke the plain
Yeah, probably they didn't want to look like total fools and say that it was not a fumble, so that was the wrong call, but we don't know what the right call is, so it is a TD. So they portrayed something plausible and likely (that he was not down) as fact to save face. Tough break for us, but thankfully it didn't matter at the end.
You're probably right, but all they needed to say was "There wasn't anything conclusive enough to overturn the call on the field". They made their own problem by overturning it when they shouldn't have.
