Walt Anderson on Hunter Henry’s touchdown reversal: the ball touched the ground and the player lost control


Sports activities USA TODAY

With Thursday evening’s recreation tied at 23, the Patriots had the ball on the Minnesota six. It was the third and the objective.

Tight finish Hunter Henry caught the ball on the objective line and caught it earlier than it hit the bottom. He misplaced possession of the ball and completed the reception on the sphere of play.

The official subsequent to the motion dominated it a landing. The problem in replay evaluation turned whether or not Henry retained possession after hitting the bottom. NFL Senior Vice President of Officiating Walt Anderson, who handles all replay evaluation issues, dominated that the ball hit the bottom when Henry landed, making it an incomplete cross.

After the sport, Patriots head coach Invoice Belichick instructed reporters, “Why do not you guys go as much as them along with your pool reporter and ask them concerning the play? Is not that what you do?🇧🇷

Certainly it’s. And certainly they did.

Here is how Anderson defined the choice to’s Mike Reiss: “He was going to the bottom, the ball ended up touching the bottom after which he misplaced management of the ball in his palms.”

Why did not Henry determine to have possession of the ball earlier than the ball hit the bottom?

“As a result of when he goes to the bottom, he has to keep up management of the ball because it touches the bottom,” Anderson stated. “The generally used time period is ‘surviving soil.’ Many individuals confer with this. In order he goes to the bottom he has the weather of two toes and management, however as a result of he goes to the bottom he has to keep up management of the ball when he goes to the bottom.”

As Reiss pointed to Anderson, Henry had each palms on the ball.

“Effectively, if he had saved management of the ball with each palms, even when the ball touched the bottom, when you did not lose management of the ball after it touched the bottom, that will nonetheless be a catch.”

The choice raises an attention-grabbing query concerning the appliance of the “clear and apparent” normal. The choice on the sphere was a catch for a landing. For replay evaluation, here is the suitable query: was the on-field determination clearly and clearly improper?

There are two separate parts to the “clear and apparent” sample on this case. It was clear and apparent that Henry misplaced possession when he landed and regained possession simply wanting the tip zone. That will give New England the ball on the one-inch, fourth-and-goal line.

However was it clear and apparent that the ball hit the bottom and moved sufficient to not be caught?

Keep in mind, reversals ought to solely occur when it is clear and apparent. Fifty drunks in a bar must agree, as it’s typically described.

In that case, it appears clear and apparent that it wasn’t a landing. But it surely does not appear clear and apparent that it wasn’t a prank; Henry’s hand was beneath the ball the complete time. Thus, New England most likely ought to have had the ball outdoors Minnesota’s finish zone, fourth and objective.

Whereas it is potential the Patriots opted for the sphere objective and the 26-23 lead, the Patriots could have chosen to go for a landing. If the method had been true to the “50 drunks in a bar” normal, the Patriots ought to have had that choice.