I love this. The officials on the replay got this one correct and now people all over are crying and complaining. It was clear that the receiver lost control of the ball before crossing the Goal Line then the ball crossed the plane of the goal line and out of bounds while not having possession re-established.

Yeah the call sucks for a Jets fan, but they got this one right.

http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/21042849/officiating-czar-stands-call-nullify-new-york-jets-touchdown 

---

By rule, getting the call correct is not the purpose of replay. By rule, the calls stand unless "clear and obvious visual evidence" can be relied on to overturn.

People thinking the call was correct dont understand how to apply the rule. They see a fumble, dont see a clear recovery and say no TD.

However, the call on the field establishes that Jenkins did re-established control of the ball before entering EZ. Therefore to overturn "clear and obvious visual evidence" must be shown that Jenkins did not re-establish control.

The video attached does not evidence in any way that the player didn't regain control before entering EZ; hence, the call on field should have never been changed.

There was clear evidence of the ball being fumbled. At that poInt the question is did he regain possession. And the clear video evidence shows that he did not get two feet or other body part other than his hand down in fair territory before going out of bounds. Which is the requirement for possession.

---

NO!

Now it's evident why you;re having problems on the replay topic.

For your argument to work, you have to invalidate the part of ref’s call after you saw ball move, ya cant do that. The call on the field is the call, the whole call and nothing but the call, every aspect of the call must be given its full affect. This ref calling a TD is affirmatively and expressly declaring that the TE had control of the ball when he crossed the GL. As called it is asserted the TE regained control of the loose ball! To overturn there must be “clear and obvious visual evidence” that the TE didn’t.

Those 2 “expert” analysts on the video you provided; said they think the TE got a knee down before crossing; both assert the evidence was not “clear and obvious” either way, which means the call shouldn’t be overturned. You say it is clear he didn’t reestablish control; but after reviewing the evidence you provided, the experts are unequivocally correct.

It the same mistake you made on Zeke’s 4th and 1 conversion. You removed from the purview of the ref’s call what forward progress means. You invalidated the affect of the ref’s call after the ball purportedly reached the 19. You’re effectively saying the ball was at 19 and the affect of the ref’s call ends here; hence there’s not enough evidence to show it should be moved back from 19. But, the ref’s call by spotting the ball at the 20 expressly and affirmatively asserts that if Zeke reached the 19, he came back to the 20 under his own momentum and accord and it was at the 20 that GB began to push or carry him back. This of course means to overturn “clear and obvious visual evidence” needs to show that if he reached the 19, then he was expressly and affirmatively carried or pushed back by the D [And obviously no such evidence exists].

Sorry, I don't have it in me to watch you both go back an forth, again.

---