Austin Sefarian Jenkins TD?

[David U Kennedy]

I'm not sure what a TD is anymore? Replay over turns it and it's called a fumble out of the back of the End Zone? Ball was never fumbled and ball never was in back of End Zone. What happened? If this happened in Fantasy Playoffs I would suggest Tampering. Otherwise I had a great football day but this crap makes a sane Man not so Sane.

[Greg Ambrosius]

I'm not sure what a TD is anymore? Replay over turns it and it's called a fumble out of the back of the End Zone? Ball was never fumbled and ball never was in back of End Zone. What happened? If this happened in Fantasy Playoffs I would suggest Tampering. Otherwise I had a great football day but this crap makes a sane Man not so Sane.

The NFL should be embarrassed by that call. He never fumbled out of the end zone and it's questionable if he even fumbled at all. The Jets were flat out screwed on that call.

And it's time to change the rule on fumbling near the goal-line. It happened to Gurley last week. Why is that a turnover? Put the ball back on the 20 or some other punishment, but to lose possession of the ball when the other team didn't even recover it is assinine. Unless the defense recovers it, the penalty is that you go back to the 20 or 10 yards back from the previous location. Loss of possession is idiotic.

But not as idiotic as Sunday's call. Embarrassing is more like it.

[Sandman62]

I am on the same side as you guys regarding this rule. But yesterday, some friends and I had a little debate about it and they suggested that it's a way to deter players from intentionally fumbling into the end zone whenever they feel like they're about to get tackled on the 1-yard line - which kinda makes sense.

Think about it... every time they're about to go down on the 1 (especially if it's 3rd down), why not just fumble into the end zone and maybe a teammate will recover for a TD? Of course, that'd only work if they fumbled in the vicinity of just their own players, or else they could turn it over. But if they somehow could see a teammate or two all alone in the end zone and "fumbled" it toward them, they could get a cheap TD. And if the only penalty was to put the ball back at the point of the fumble, then they'd have nothing to lose to try it every time.

Perhaps that would be considered a travesty of the game and a worse evil? But that explanation kinda makes sense, even though it sucks seeing the other team get the ball when they didn't recover.

[bald is beautiful]

One of the worst calls ever. It's almost like the NFL looks for ways to take TDs away.

[CALI CARTEL]

Under the current rules, all other fumbles forward out of bounds are returned to the spot of the fumble, that's what should happen here without a defensive recovery.

If you fumble at the 1, out of the end zone, then you get the ball at the 1. If you fumble at the 4, you get the ball at the 4, etc. Only on a defensive recovery in the end zone, should a touchback occur.

[King of Queens]

And it's time to change the rule on fumbling near the goal-line. It happened to Gurley last week. Why is that a turnover? Put the ball back on the 20 or some other punishment, but to lose possession of the ball when the other team didn't even recover it is assinine. Unless the defense recovers it, the penalty is that you go back to the 20 or 10 yards back from the previous location. Loss of possession is idiotic.

It also happened to J.J. Nelson last week. Initially ruled a touchdown, then a fumble/touchback. Three times in two weeks.

What makes the Seferian-Jenkins call even worse is that the ball never hit the ground. The ball never even left his arms. The ball just...moved a little

There were many people at MetLife Stadium that were upset by the call. Even worse, very few could understand how a seemingly-clear touchdown was not ruled a touchdown AND give possession to the other team. Rules like that will kill the popularity of the sport -- if they haven't already.

[BillyWaz]

Four words.......

IT IS THE PATRIOTS #stillcheatin