The ASJ Fumble

[BradyFTW!]

this is what it has led to

If they showed us favoritism, they probably wouldn't have called two penalties that literally do not exist on us to extend the very same drive in question. No surprise, though, that it's now being debated by a roundtable of talking heads who clearly have no idea what the rule in question actually is. I guess the jackass claiming we "get all the bogus calls" didn't watch the rest of that drive, and he definitely didn't watch the 2013 Pats/Jets game that was decided on the last play by a penalty that had never been called before and has never been called since.

 

[cmasspatsfan]

I think it makes sense for fumbling in the end zone to be disincentivized in some way but I think loss of possession is too steep. I'd allow the offense to keep the ball much like they do when they fumble it out of bounds in the field of play, but place it on the 1, 5, 10, or 20 yard line. I don't really care which, that can be hashed out by people who care more than I do how much the fumble should be penalized - I'd be fine with anything up to the 20 yard line, calling it some weird inverted form of touchback.

I think it should be a severe penalty for not protecting the ball at the goal line. It's the most important piece of ground on the field.

 

[BradyFTW!]

I think it should be a severe penalty for not protecting the ball at the goal line. It's the most important piece of ground on the field.

Sure, I'm fine with that. But I'd argue that forcing them back to the 20 yard line after they were an inch from punching it in is a severe penalty. You won't get any argument from me over how important ball security is, but that doesn't mean we have to go nuts here. I think it's really bizarre that if the ball goes out of bounds at the 1 inch line the offense keeps the ball there, but if it even slightly crosses the plane it's suddenly a turnover.

 

[skinnydog]

That's the thing, by the rule he absolutely did not regain possession. Establishing possession--which he had to do in order to to secure the touchdown once the fumble occurred--requires the player to hold the ball long enough that you become a runner. Much like a receiver who gets both hands on the ball and brings it into the body isn't awarded a catch if the ball pops out as he lands, grabbing the ball after he loses it means nothing unless he maintains possession long enough to establish himself as a runner.

Rule 3-7-2 of the NFL Rule Book makes this explicitly clear:

Item 2. Possession of Loose Ball. To gain possession of a loose ball that has been caught, intercepted, or recovered, a player must have complete control of the ball and have both feet or any other part of his body, other than his hands, completely on the ground inbounds, and then maintain control of the ball long enough to become a runner. A player has the ball long enough to clearly become a runner when, after his second foot is on the ground, he is capable of avoiding or warding off impending contact of an opponent, tucking the ball away, turning up field, or taking additional steps. If the player loses the ball while simultaneously touching both feet or any other part of his body to the ground, there is no possession. This rule applies in the field of play and in the end zone.​

The problem here is that people are trying to apply rules for when a runner is granted a touchdown to a player who had not established himself as a runner. The rules are different depending on if you've established possession or not; it's the same basic reason why a guy entering the end zone just has to have the ball cross the plane, while a receiver in the end zone has to control the ball all the way to the ground.

Yes and from the replay it looks like this happened. The ball gets knocked loose, he regains control in mid air, he lifts the pylon and it looks like a knee comes down in the end zone. He hits the ground on his chest and rolls onto his back now out of bounds. At that point he has the ball held firmly to his chest. So please show me a video demonstrating that ASJ did not regain possession of a loose ball and score a touchdown.

 

[bbobbo]

Yes and from the replay it looks like this happened. The ball gets knocked loose, he regains control in mid air, he lifts the pylon and it looks like a knee comes down in the end zone. He hits the ground on his chest and rolls onto his back now out of bounds. At that point he has the ball held firmly to his chest. So please show me a video demonstrating that ASJ did not regain possession of a loose ball and score a touchdown.

right hand comes off of the ball, so he doesn't have the ball held firmly to his chest:

 

[QuantumMechanic]

How would you change the rule so it wouldn't been stupid?

And what should the penalty be for fumbling into the end zone?

Offense's ball on the 1, down counts.

 

[archstanton543]

Yes and from the replay it looks like this happened. The ball gets knocked loose, he regains control in mid air, he lifts the pylon and it looks like a knee comes down in the end zone. He hits the ground on his chest and rolls onto his back now out of bounds. At that point he has the ball held firmly to his chest. So please show me a video demonstrating that ASJ did not regain possession of a loose ball and score a touchdown.

Once he fumbles the ball, the rules change. That's what most people are missing. Once the ball is fumbled, he needs to regain and retain possession all the way to the ground. The pylon is irrelevant at this point. He doesn't retain possesson as the ball moves as he hits the ground out of bounds. Therefore it's a fumble through the end zone resulting in a touchback. Look at the gif on page 13. It's the best shot of the play.

 

[convertedpatsfan]

I dont even think he shouldve been rewarded with a touchdown tho, maybe just like put the ball at the goal line or wherever the he last had clear possession. You'd still be taking away the touchdown but without having to go to the extreme of rewarding the other team for not really doing anything either.

I dont really know how you would word that from a rulebook perspective, but it seems like a more appropriate outcome then "the ball bobbled a bit, give it to the other team and f**k these guys"

This is professional sports, not house league. Everyone doesn't get a trophy for trying. You don't get extra attempts until you win, just like everyone else, yay, we're all winners. Ribbons and gold stars for everyone!

The referee made the correct call. To suggest he do anything else is total ****ing ********. If any referee in pro sports decides to blindly turn an eye to a rule to make some team or fans feel better, they should be fired on the spot.

And you're absolutely wrong about it rewarding the other team for not really doing anything. Most of the time, that is an easy TD. Butler and Harmon fought hard to free that ball, and they earned that fumble by being tenacious and going full-blast until the whistle blew, never giving up even when it looked totally like a lost cause.

Butler did it earlier too on a long pass attempt where he fought the receiver all the way to the ground, eventually knocking it loose when they were both on their backs. Should that count as a catch because it feels unfair that the receiver almost made a catch?

It's not about going to the extreme or rewarding anyone or saying **** these guys. It's what competition is all about. Sometimes you get to be the hero. Sometimes, you're the big loser. And there's no point even bothering to have real games if we're just going to simplify it all so there's no real consequences.

Yes and from the replay it looks like this happened. The ball gets knocked loose, he regains control in mid air, he lifts the pylon and it looks like a knee comes down in the end zone. He hits the ground on his chest and rolls onto his back now out of bounds. At that point he has the ball held firmly to his chest. So please show me a video demonstrating that ASJ did not regain possession of a loose ball and score a touchdown.

You're missing one important thing here.

When he hits the ground and rolls, he must maintain "complete and continuous control of the ball."

Yes, he has control when he rolls onto his back finally out of bounds. But he clearly doesn't demonstrate continuous control throughout the contact with the ground.

Refer to the video below.

Clippit

At the 14-second mark, you see it bounce up from his left arm to his right as he makes contact with the ground. Not continuous.

From another angle at the 25-second mark, you see it bounces again as he completes his roll.

When he finally has full continuous control at the end of the roll and as he rests on his back, he's well out of bounds.

 

[Ring 6]

Offense's ball on the 1, down counts.

What if it's 3rd and 8 from the 12 and he fumbles (purposely) through the end zone when he realizes he won't get the first down?

 

[skinnydog]

Once he fumbles the ball, the rules change. That's what most people are missing. Once the ball is fumbled, he needs to regain and retain possession all the way to the ground. The pylon is irrelevant at this point. He doesn't retain possesson as the ball moves as he hits the ground out of bounds. Therefore it's a fumble through the end zone resulting in a touchback. Look at the gif on page 13. It's the best shot of the play.

You must be absolutely kidding. I looked at the gif. What are you seeing??? ASJ, fumbles, regains control, hits the ground, rolls over, still has possession. Continues rolling over and as he begins to roll all the way over, across his back, and again towards his stomach, hits hits right elbow on the ground, the ball moves a little bit. Is that that what you’re referring to? That’s ridiculous and probably why Blandine and Pereira both think the call was wrong, and I expect they know the rule better than you. BTW, I’m not missing anything about the rule. It’s the idea that he did not regain possession based on that gif and every other replay I’ve seen that I find ridiculous. How many times does one have to roll over on the ground will the ball clutched to one’s side with no movement is enough? Another quarter turn? A half turn? Finish rolling over and hand the ball to the ref? This retain possession to the ground and in addition some additional time while rolling around on the ground stuff is beyond stupid. If that was Gronk, i’d be screaming about the call.

 

[archstanton543]

"I expect they know the rule better than you"

And right now they have about as much to do with the NFL as I do.

 

[skinnydog]

This is professional sports, not house league. Everyone doesn't get a trophy for trying. You don't get extra attempts until you win, just like everyone else, yay, we're all winners. Ribbons and gold stars for everyone!

The referee made the correct call. To suggest he do anything else is total ****ing ********. If any referee in pro sports decides to blindly turn an eye to a rule to make some team or fans feel better, they should be fired on the spot.

And you're absolutely wrong about it rewarding the other team for not really doing anything. Most of the time, that is an easy TD. Butler and Harmon fought hard to free that ball, and they earned that fumble by being tenacious and going full-blast until the whistle blew, never giving up even when it looked totally like a lost cause.

Butler did it earlier too on a long pass attempt where he fought the receiver all the way to the ground, eventually knocking it loose when they were both on their backs. Should that count as a catch because it feels unfair that the receiver almost made a catch?

It's not about going to the extreme or rewarding anyone or saying **** these guys. It's what competition is all about. Sometimes you get to be the hero. Sometimes, you're the big loser. And there's no point even bothering to have real games if we're just going to simplify it all so there's no real consequences.



You're missing one important thing here.

When he hits the ground and rolls, he must maintain "complete and continuous control of the ball."

Yes, he has control when he rolls onto his back finally out of bounds. But he clearly doesn't demonstrate continuous control throughout the contact with the ground.

Refer to the video below.

Clippit

At the 14-second mark, you see it bounce up from his left arm to his right as he makes contact with the ground. Not continuous.

From another angle at the 25-second mark, you see it bounces again as he completes his roll.

When he finally has full continuous control at the end of the roll and as he rests on his back, he's well out of bounds.

O I don’t see that at all. When he regains possession in mid air it looks like he regains it with both hands on the ball or the right more than the left and it is the right hand that he is using to clutch the ball as he rolls over and stand up. And where does it say that you cannot switch hands and still maintain possession? By any fair viewing he maintains control when hitting the ground and rolling over and standing up. That’s true at both 14 seconds and 25 seconds of the replay

 

[skinnydog]

"I expect they know the rule better than you"

And right now they have about as much to do with the NFL as I do.

Is there a point here. Most times it seems the former officials rally around their former colleagues. Here not so much.

 

[upstater1]

Yes and from the replay it looks like this happened. The ball gets knocked loose, he regains control in mid air, he lifts the pylon and it looks like a knee comes down in the end zone. He hits the ground on his chest and rolls onto his back now out of bounds. At that point he has the ball held firmly to his chest. So please show me a video demonstrating that ASJ did not regain possession of a loose ball and score a touchdown.

The pylon is irrelevant here.

His knee didn't come down in the end zone. His hip is the first thing to touch ground, and it touches out of bounds.

Whether he regained possession or not is irrelevant since he was out of bounds. There are dozens of videos in this thread.

 

[upstater1]

Is there a point here. Most times it seems the former officials rally around their former colleagues. Here not so much.

Blandino and Pereira actually said they interpreted the rule correctly but disagreed as to whether it was clearcut. They said that if the call had gone the Patriots way, they would have agreed with not changing it. Pereira in the past has disagreed with calls plenty of times.

 

[upstater1]

Is there a point here. Most times it seems the former officials rally around their former colleagues. Here not so much.

For the record, I do agree the video doesn't show conclusively that he lost the ball a second time.

But this is totally irrelevant IMO. You can clearly see his hip come down first out of bounds.

Put it this way: if this were a fumble recovery by a player on the sidelines (i.e. not near the end zone) he'd always be rule out of bounds.

Whether he had possession or not is irrelevant.

 

[TommyD4207]

I think we can all agree that the Pats player loses the ball on his way to the ground and never should have been credited with possession. Shockingly the Ravens didn't challenge.

They were ahead like 328 to -12 at the time, so why bother?

 

[TommyD4207]

Both previous heads of officiating say that the overturn was wrong.

One of whom was never an actual referee.

 

[Ive_Killed_People]

The universal agreement is the ball WAS knocked loose before the goal line as he was falling forward right? If that can be agreed to, then everyone should agree the refs got it right on replay Indisputably. The rule is once possession has been lost on the way to the ground, possession has to be reestablished by control of the ball surviving the ground. Even if he had regained possession all the way through the landing(he didn't) and his knee briefly hit in bounds (very debatable) he still did not have enough time or space to reestablish control. YOU CAN'T REESTABLISH CONTROL OUT OF BOUNDS. Like the ref said: "It was obvious."

 

[bbobbo]

You must be absolutely kidding. I looked at the gif. What are you seeing??? ASJ, fumbles, regains control, hits the ground, rolls over, still has possession. Continues rolling over and as he begins to roll all the way over, across his back, and again towards his stomach, hits hits right elbow on the ground, the ball moves a little bit. Is that that what you’re referring to? That’s ridiculous and probably why Blandine and Pereira both think the call was wrong, and I expect they know the rule better than you. BTW, I’m not missing anything about the rule. It’s the idea that he did not regain possession based on that gif and every other replay I’ve seen that I find ridiculous. How many times does one have to roll over on the ground will the ball clutched to one’s side with no movement is enough? Another quarter turn? A half turn? Finish rolling over and hand the ball to the ref? This retain possession to the ground and in addition some additional time while rolling around on the ground stuff is beyond stupid. If that was Gronk, i’d be screaming about the call.

doesn't look like a firm grip to me.