The NFL is fixed

[psubills62]

I didn't see this play. Based on the comments, I'm assuming it's another case of the runner fumbling out the back of the end zone?

Just my opinion, but the fact that fumbling out the back of the end zone gives the ball to the other team is possibly the absolute worst rule in football. EVERY other time a player fumbles forward on the field, if it goes out of bounds, it comes back to the spot where the player fumbled and that team keeps the ball. There is no reason they can't make it the same way for fumbling out the back of the end zone. Makes zero sense to me that they other team gets the ball without having to recover it or get any possession.

[swiper]

I didn't see this play. Based on the comments, I'm assuming it's another case of the runner fumbling out the back of the end zone?

Just my opinion, but the fact that fumbling out the back of the end zone gives the ball to the other team is possibly the absolute worst rule in football. EVERY other time a player fumbles forward on the field, if it goes out of bounds, it comes back to the spot where the player fumbled and that team keeps the ball. There is no reason they can't make it the same way for fumbling out the back of the end zone. Makes zero sense to me that they other team gets the ball without having to recover it or get any possession.

It wasn't really a fumble. He jostled the ball for a second while he still had both arms around it. He never lost possession of the ball. It never hit the ground. The initial call of touchdown was correct. Overturning it was criminal.

[Joe Fo Sho]

It wasn't really a fumble. He jostled the ball for a second while he still had both arms around it. He never lost possession of the ball. It never hit the ground. The initial call of touchdown was correct. Overturning it was criminal.

Are you sure?

[Mr. Pink]

That call could have gone either way, imo.

I don't see the conclusive evidence to overturn the call on the field though.

There's no way to see if Sefarian Jenkins had or didn't have control of the football as he hit the pylon. You can tell he did not have control as he was about to fall forward but not if he regained control before hitting the ground and pylon and came out the other side with control.

Call on the field should have stood.

[Bill Cody]

Are you sure?

wow cool pic

- - - Updated - - -

wait so is the NFL fixed or not? Need to let my bookie know if I'm in or out this week?

[Night Train]

wow cool pic
- - - Updated - - -wait so is the NFL fixed or not? Need to let my bookie know if I'm in or out this week?

It's fixed. Bet WWE wrestling matches instead. They're more legit than Patriots games.

[swiper]

Are you sure?

ROFL. That picture is SOOOOOOO photoshopped. I watched the game. It was nothing like that. Watch the video replay.

[swiper]

http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/2...-replay-review

[DynaPaul]

There is no other conclusion after watching that Cheaters-Jets game. A real black eye for the NFL.

Wow, you're just now seeing it? The refs were fixing it all up before halftime.

[ckg927]

I would bet my life that certain games are fixed every week.

And you'd likely lose that bet.

[ckg927]

If you want to see this entire thread get the equivalent of the Ice Bucket Challenge, may I suggest you read Richard Roeper's book Debunked; he devotes a chapter(titled The NFL: National Fixed-Ball League)to blowing apart any number of conspiracy theories about the NFL.

[Mr. Pink]

ROFL. That picture is SOOOOOOO photoshopped. I watched the game. It was nothing like that. Watch the video replay.

That picture is not photoshopped, it's what actually happened.

However there's no clear way to tell if he regained or didn't have control when he got to the pylon. And because the call on the field was TD, that's the way it should have stayed. Likewise, if this was ruled a touchback on the field, that's the call that should have stood.

There was no conclusive evidence that he did or did not have control of the ball when he hit the pylon.

[OpIv37]

I've said this before and I'll say it again: I don't think the league is rigged. You'd need too many people to go along with it and someone would refuse to cooperate and/or blow the whistle.

But it's naive to think that the league doesn't have preferred outcomes. They want marketable players, and wins in larger and/o more fickle markets. So, if there's an opportunity to make a big call go toward the league's preferred outcome without making it blatantly obvious, I think the refs go for it.

Patriots "fans"'are as fickle as they come. The Jets were supposed to be the worst team in the history of ever, but they've actually been decent and have a shot at winning a weak div if things hold up. They've already won their fans back. Meanwhile, fans are scattering out of Gillete while the 4th quarter is still being played like roaches when you turn on the lights in a South Boston soup kitchen.

The refs gave the Pats the assist by not calling all the pushing off by their WR's in the final drive against Houston and they did it again against the Jets. Can't let that big market go sour on the team....

[starrymessenger]

The ref said he fumbled the ball a second time and wasn’t recovered until the ball was out of bounds..which would make it a touchback and change of position. Only problem... there is video that clearly shows him not fumbling a second time. He has possession before hitting the pylon and going out of bounds. PLUS they initially called it a ****ing TD!!! How can you say there is indisputable evidence to the contrary? The Bills got away with a couple of **** calls against Atlanta too.

The referees are the ones to blame and they’re the only ones who can consciously affect the outcome of a game.

Exactly. The refs and reviewer see exactly the same tape as everyone else. The ref/reviewer is the only one who saw a second loss of possession. Thats millions of viewers (less Pats fans) and the network crews vs the ref/reviewer. It just never happened. What made it worse was the refs post game comment that the fumble through the endzone was "obvious". Ignorance and dishonesty stoked with arrogance. And that wasnt the only Pats friendly call. Jets receiver takes a helmet to the face, head just about spins 360, flag thrown and, of course, picked up. Gronk absolutely mugs Adams, PI (of course). Then we have to look at Brady participating in every ref caucus as if he was a zebra. Any other player gets pushed away. Dont those idiots in the League office realize what that looks like?

[starrymessenger]

That picture is not photoshopped, it's what actually happened.

However there's no clear way to tell if he regained or didn't have control when he got to the pylon. And because the call on the field was TD, that's the way it should have stayed. Likewise, if this was ruled a touchback on the field, that's the call that should have stood.

There was no conclusive evidence that he did or did not have control of the ball when he hit the pylon.

There were two AP still frames shots from the back of the endzone showing that he clearly reestablished possession before crossing the plane inbounds. There was no second loss of possession as claimed by Corrente.

[Arm of Harm]

There were two AP still frames shots from the back of the endzone showing that he clearly reestablished possession before crossing the plane inbounds. There was no second loss of possession as claimed by Corrente.

Correct. The play should have been ruled a TD.

That said, the picture posted earlier in this thread is accurate, and is not Photoshopped. At about 56 seconds into the video, you can see that the ball has left his control. It's exactly the same story told by the picture.

[starrymessenger]

Correct. The play should have been ruled a TD.

That said, the picture posted earlier in this thread is accurate, and is not Photoshopped. At about 56 seconds into the video, you can see that the ball has left his control. It's exactly the same story told by the picture.

Absolutely he lost possession for a moment. The ref/reviewer was basing his decision on a second loss of possession for which there was no visual evidence (because it simply never happened).

[Joe Fo Sho]

ROFL. That picture is SOOOOOOO photoshopped. I watched the game. It was nothing like that. Watch the video replay.

Ha, of course it photoshopped...jesus.

http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/2...-replay-review

Pause that video at 0:47 and at 0:56 and you can see that the ball is loose. Or is that video shopped too?

Here's a screenshot that I just took. There's no denying that he lost possession of the ball.

[Mouldsie]

Horrible call. Why would anyone defend it?


Even ignoring the fact that he had regained "control" while crossing the goal-line (which makes the debate about whether or not the ball was loose obsolete): How can one lose possession of the football that never leaves their body, touches the ground, or touches an opponent? Not only that but how was there any evidence to overturn the call on the field?

[kishoph]

Horrible call. Why would anyone defend it?


Even ignoring the fact that he had regained "control" while crossing the goal-line (which makes the debate about whether or not the ball was loose obsolete): How can one lose possession of the football that never leaves their body, touches the ground, or touches an opponent? Not only that but how was there any evidence to overturn the call on the field?

This bothers me, for weeks we've been told that unless there is irrefutable evidence on the replay, they were sticking with the call on the field. Again the lack of any consistency in the officiating.