The ASJ Fumble

[cmasspatsfan]

Exactly:
https://operations.nfl.com/media/2646/2017-playing-rules.pdf

If you go to Article 7. Item 3. Note (2) of the same section, we read:

(2) If a player goes to the ground out of bounds (with or without contact by an opponent) in the process of attempting to
secure possession of a loose ball at the sideline, he must maintain complete and continuous control of the ball until
after his initial contact with the ground, or there is no possession.

Given where ASJ was on the field, the ruling of a touchback is clearly correct.

To be thorough, Note (3) in the same item reads:

(3) If a player has control of the ball, a slight movement of the ball will not be considered loss of possession. He must lose
control of the ball in order to rule that there has been a loss of possession.

So, the only possible debate could be whether the fact that the ball was completely out of contact with the runner's hands and body (as infinite replays definitely show to be the case) could be interpreted as "a slight movement of the ball." My amateur read and the read of the Replay officials was that he did lose control of the ball, which was completely out of contact with his hands and body, and was therefore re-establishing control in this case.

I guess what Blandino et al would have to be arguing is that what happened was actually"a slight movement of the ball" and not a loss of control.

It's not like Blandino hasn't been wrong before, if he was still in charge he'd say the call was right. He always stuck up for the refs on field calls when he was in charge. Remember the Carolina game with Gronk? His opinion means diddly.

 

[Digit]

I agree with the spirit of what you're saying, but technically, you're wrong. Butler caused a fumble.

Here is the NFL's definition of those terms:

Fumble: The loss of possession of the ball.

Loose Ball: A live ball not in possession of any player.

The loose ball is, not surprisingly, about the state of the ball. The actual act by the player of losing the ball is called a fumble.

But otherwise, yes, agree with the spirit of what you're saying.

40yearspatsfan was arguing that it would never be called a fumble if he'd regained control swiftly, and therefore it's not a fumble. My key point is that the ball was loose long enough to -not- be 'in possession'. Technically, yes, you could call it a fumble at that point, but frankly, a bobble is 'loose live ball' that hasn't yet been completely 'lost' possession of yet, either.

I think there's just enough gray area in there that people who want to ***** about bobbles are complaining that those could be ruled a fumbles, while missing the point that the key there is they never have -full- possession of the ball.

Honestly, I think they should just clear up the terminology of 'fumble' to indicate 'loss of full possession'. Which is what the end of that play ended up being, due to touchbacks.

 

[Ring 6]

40yearspatsfan was arguing that it would never be called a fumble if he'd regained control swiftly, and therefore it's not a fumble. My key point is that the ball was loose long enough to -not- be 'in possession'. Technically, yes, you could call it a fumble at that point, but frankly, a bobble is 'loose live ball' that hasn't yet been completely 'lost' possession of yet, either.

I think there's just enough gray area in there that people who want to ***** about bobbles are complaining that those could be ruled a fumbles, while missing the point that the key there is they never have -full- possession of the ball.

Honestly, I think they should just clear up the terminology of 'fumble' to indicate 'loss of full possession'. Which is what the end of that play ended up being, due to touchbacks.

You are confusing the rules with what people count toward a statistic.
Just because statisticians don't waste their time looking for a fumble that is retained by the fumbler pretty quickly doesn't mean it's not a fumble.
Statisticians aren't making judgments that count in a game.

 

[Digit]

Bloody hell, that was 40yearspatsfan who kept whining it wasn't a fumble because it 'wouldn't be called one'.

I just think the key takeaway to that whole sequence is that the moment the ball becomes loose, the 'in possession' doesn't apply. Whether or not it's called a fumble or not isn't significant as much as the 'moment that the ball comes loose', and arguing about whether that should be called a fumble or not misses the point that at that moment it's a LOOSE BALL, the same way a bobble isn't a fumble, but it's not 'full possession either'.

 

[convertedpatsfan]

40yearspatsfan was arguing that it would never be called a fumble if he'd regained control swiftly, and therefore it's not a fumble. My key point is that the ball was loose long enough to -not- be 'in possession'. Technically, yes, you could call it a fumble at that point, but frankly, a bobble is 'loose live ball' that hasn't yet been completely 'lost' possession of yet, either.

I think there's just enough gray area in there that people who want to ***** about bobbles are complaining that those could be ruled a fumbles, while missing the point that the key there is they never have -full- possession of the ball.

Honestly, I think they should just clear up the terminology of 'fumble' to indicate 'loss of full possession'. Which is what the end of that play ended up being, due to touchbacks.

I get what you're saying, I just think you're overthinking it. There's no need to invent an in-between term. It was a fumble. The NFL rule book definition is pretty straight-forward:

"Fumble: The loss of possession of the ball."

There's no NFL rule book definition for bobble or whatever else people are calling it. It's a fumble.

If people read the definition and watch the play and then still don't believe it's a fumble, there's not much else you can really do at that point. I mean maybe lobby your local government leaders to invest more on education for future generations, but really, it's a fumble, the definition is pretty clear, and so is the play.

At some point, you have to accept that certain people will never be able to comprehend certain facts.

 

[chris_in_sunnyvale]

If the play happened 1yd to the right, it's a TD as ASJ regains possession inbounds. If the play happened 1yd back, it's a fumble OOB and Jete ball at the 6inch line.

It's just poor luck on the Jete (and great fortune for the Pats) that the play happened in that exact spot. It's literally a corner case not deserving of any wholesale rule change.

Regards,
Chris

 

[PF_SU]

Don't know if this picture has been posted yet, but I just saw the turning point clip on Youtube and there was (in my opinion) a pretty clear shot with undisputable evidence (as Corrente's said in his interview after the game) that Sefarian-Jenkins lost control of the ball while rolling out of bounds, thus not completing the process of the catch. See how his right hand comes off the ball:



Below is the full clip including a nullified TD by RGIII which is pretty similar to the fumble of Sefarian-Jenkins

 

[Ive_Killed_People]

Two things.

1) You have to survive the ground and retain control of the ball, this is not an instantaneous thing

2) You can't establish anything laying OUT OF BOUNDS. Once you touch out of bounds its Bye Felicia!

 

[mb6592]

The tortured length of ( and complicated rationales expressed within) this thread and the Tyreek Hill catch (which, I guess, should have been a non catch- certainly didn't "survive the ground") shows just how f--cked the NFL is. They have lost their way by forgetting the wise old adage of KISS:

Raiders Save Season With Stunning TD at Buzzer vs. Chiefs

Tyreek Hill leaps for HUGE sideline catch of 31 yards

 

[convertedpatsfan]

The tortured length of ( and complicated rationales expressed within) this thread and the Tyreek Hill catch (which, I guess, should have been a non catch- certainly didn't "survive the ground") shows just how f--cked the NFL is. They have lost their way by forgetting the wise old adage of KISS:

Raiders Save Season With Stunning TD at Buzzer vs. Chiefs

Tyreek Hill leaps for HUGE sideline catch of 31 yards

I think you need to understand the history of football. It's founded on skirting rules and finding loopholes and exceptions. It's like tax law. You create a rule, people circumvent it. Create another rule to close that loophole, it opens up another unintended consequence. Which is why we are where we are.

Pop Warner used to sew half footballs on jersey arms so when players crossed arms, it would confuse opponents about who had the ball. Opponents responded by using the same colour ball as their home jerseys. There's a very well-established history of reading the rules, finding out how to twist them, then doing it until another rule comes in, then lather, rinse, repeat.

Everyone crying about how the fumble in the end zone should give the ball back to the offense on the 20 with a first down or something similar overlooks that every team on 4th and goal would intentionally fumble beyond the goal line for a fresh set of downs. Every player tackled would fumble it way beyond the end zone. Almost every single rule you think of, someone can (and will) think of how to exploit it. Because that's football.

I have no doubt there are better ways of dealing with it, but I haven't seen a single proposal so far which couldn't be exploited to cause an even bigger problem. It's not as simple as many people seem to think.

 

[PF_SU]

Everyone crying about how the fumble in the end zone should give the ball back to the offense on the 20 with a first down or something similar overlooks that every team on 4th and goal would intentionally fumble beyond the goal line for a fresh set of downs. Every player tackled would fumble it way beyond the end zone. Almost every single rule you think of, someone can (and will) think of how to exploit it. Because that's football.

I said it earlier, I'm a bit confused how it's such a big deal that the offense fumbling out of the opponent's EZ is a touchback but nobody seems to have an issue of the offense fumbling out of their own EZ being a safety. The situation is exactly the same with no recovery needed for the ball to be turned over. And in the case of the safety the opposition even gets two points on top.

 

[QuantumMechanic]

Everyone crying about how the fumble in the end zone should give the ball back to the offense on the 20 with a first down or something similar overlooks that every team on 4th and goal would intentionally fumble beyond the goal line for a fresh set of downs.

That's been outlawed for decades. On all 4th down plays (and all plays in the final 2:00 of a half) the fumble can only be advanced by the fumbler. Any other offensive player recovers it and it goes back to the spot of the fumble. And it's also illegal to bat the ball forward all the time.

And no one has said it should go back to the offense with "a first down or something similar". We're saying that the offense should keep the ball with the down counting and the ball spotted at the 1 (or the 5 or 10 or something).

 

[QuantumMechanic]

I said it earlier, I'm a bit confused how it's such a big deal that the offense fumbling out of the opponent's EZ is a touchback but nobody seems to have an issue of the offense fumbling out of their own EZ being a safety. The situation is exactly the same with no recovery needed for the ball to be turned over. And in the case of the safety the opposition even gets two points on top.

It make sense to lose possession and points when you fumble it through your own EZ. It's akin to an own goal, so you should be punished for it. Doesn't make sense down at the other end of the field. Sure, you can't spot the ball in the EZ for the next play so it has to come out to somewhere, but there's no good reason for the offense to lose possession.

 

[fourhour]

I said it earlier, I'm a bit confused how it's such a big deal that the offense fumbling out of the opponent's EZ is a touchback but nobody seems to have an issue of the offense fumbling out of their own EZ being a safety. The situation is exactly the same with no recovery needed for the ball to be turned over. And in the case of the safety the opposition even gets two points on top.

And possession (potential) via kick-off. I like this part.

 

[convertedpatsfan]

That's been outlawed for decades. On all 4th down plays (and all plays in the final 2:00 of a half) the fumble can only be advanced by the fumbler. Any other offensive player recovers it and it goes back to the spot of the fumble. And it's also illegal to bat the ball forward all the time.

And no one has said it should go back to the offense with "a first down or something similar". We're saying that the offense should keep the ball with the down counting and the ball spotted at the 1 (or the 5 or 10 or something).

Fair enough, I misread a few things in my earlier rush, my bad.

As for the rule on fumble advancement, it's worth noting that they weren't originally there. Someone twisted the rules to intentionally fumble it forward.

Holy Roller

That was my main point, that the history of the game is about understanding the rules, and then bending and manipulating them. So when fans complain that it's complicated, well, that's what football is about.

As for the proposed rule change, I think there are some weird situations that could arise out of it too. Like what if a defensive player intercepts the ball, then fumbles the ball out of bounds in the end zone during a hit while trying to run it back? Or if they recover a fumble in the end zone and then fumble it on their own after claiming possession? Or on a kickoff that gets pushed out of bounds? There are several other rules that would require some adjustments if you wanted to implement this one.

And I'd think coaches would start taking advantage of more flexibility in recovering the ball by calling outside running plays near the goal line or quick WR bubble screens and having the players near the sidelines always stretching to get over knowing they will get the ball back with another chance if it gets knocked out of bounds.

If there is a fumble in the end zone, you just teach your offensive players to swat it out the back knowing you'll get the ball back, albeit with some penalty yardage tacked on but better than being in a scrum for the ball if you don't have a clear shot at recovery.

So it's not totally perfect either. It might be a bit different and change some decisions around the goal line, but would require a few other rule changes which I haven't yet really thought about either. I don't think it makes the game better, just different. And there may be other consequences we haven't considered yet.

 

[QuantumMechanic]

As for the proposed rule change, I think there are some weird situations that could arise out of it too. Like what if a defensive player intercepts the ball, then fumbles the ball out of bounds in the end zone during a hit while trying to run it back? Or if they recover a fumble in the end zone and then fumble it on their own after claiming possession? Or on a kickoff that gets pushed out of bounds? There are several other rules that would require some adjustments if you wanted to implement this one.

I don't think it changes anything at all. We're only talking about changing what happens when the ballcarrier fumbles through the opposing team's EZ, not when he fumbles through his own.

For reference, in the cases you mention here's what the existing rules say:

1A) Defense intercepts the ball in the EZ, fumbles it OOB in the EZ (or is recovered in EZ by intercepting team) while running it back. This is a touchback and intercepting team's ball. It's the same as if the defense intercepted the ball in the EZ and took a knee. The offense provided the impetus putting the ball in the EZ via the intercepted pass. Because the ball never left the EZ, impetus cannot be "reassigned" to the returner, so it's touchback and not a safety.

1B) Defense intercepts the ball in the EZ, comes out of the EZ, then fumbles it back into and through the EZ (or is recovered in EZ by intercepting team). This is a safety. The ball was out of the EZ and the returner provided the impetus that put it back into his own EZ. So safety.

2A & 2B) Exactly the same as for the interception cases. If the ball never left the EZ, touchback and recovering team's ball or a safety if the ball had first left the EZ.

3A) Returner is in EZ. Kickoff or punt hits him there and goes OOB in EZ (or is recovered by kicking team). Touchback and receiving team's ball. Same as if they caught it in EZ and took a knee. Again, kicking team provided the impetus to put the ball in the EZ and because the ball never left the EZ, impetus is never "reassigned" no matter what happens to the ball.

3B) Returner is in the field of play. Kickoff or punt hits him there but ball continues into EZ and goes OOB (or is recovered by kicking team). Still a touchback and receiving team's ball because muffing a loose ball generally does not "reassign" impetus. There needs to be possession, clear bat of the ball, or muffing of a ball that has completely or almost completely stopped moving for impetus to be "reassigned".

3C) Returner is in the field of play. Gets possession of the kick, then fumbles and ball continues into EZ and goes OOB (or is recovered by kicking team). Safety. Possession and subsequent fumble "reassigns" impetus.

I don't see why any of that -- which is all about what's happening in a team's own EZ -- would need to change if the rule is changed about what happens when a team fumbles through the other team's EZ.

(BTW, impetus only matters when the ball goes OOB in the EZ or is recovered by a member of the team who that EZ belongs to. If the ball is recovered in the EZ by the team that EZ does not belong to then it's a TD regardless of whose impetus put the ball in the EZ. In other words, impetus only matters if the play isn't a TD. If it's not, then you go to impetus to determine if it's a TB or a safety.)

 

[convertedpatsfan]

I don't think it changes anything at all. We're only talking about changing what happens when the ballcarrier fumbles through the opposing team's EZ, not when he fumbles through his own.

For reference, in the cases you mention here's what the existing rules say:

1A) Defense intercepts the ball in the EZ, fumbles it OOB in the EZ (or is recovered in EZ by intercepting team) while running it back. This is a touchback and intercepting team's ball. It's the same as if the defense intercepted the ball in the EZ and took a knee. The offense provided the impetus putting the ball in the EZ via the intercepted pass. Because the ball never left the EZ, impetus cannot be "reassigned" to the returner, so it's touchback and not a safety.

1B) Defense intercepts the ball in the EZ, comes out of the EZ, then fumbles it back into and through the EZ (or is recovered in EZ by intercepting team). This is a safety. The ball was out of the EZ and the returner provided the impetus that put it back into his own EZ. So safety.

2A & 2B) Exactly the same as for the interception cases. If the ball never left the EZ, touchback and recovering team's ball or a safety if the ball had first left the EZ.

3A) Returner is in EZ. Kickoff or punt hits him there and goes OOB in EZ (or is recovered by kicking team). Touchback and receiving team's ball. Same as if they caught it in EZ and took a knee. Again, kicking team provided the impetus to put the ball in the EZ and because the ball never left the EZ, impetus is never "reassigned" no matter what happens to the ball.

3B) Returner is in the field of play. Kickoff or punt hits him there but ball continues into EZ and goes OOB (or is recovered by kicking team). Still a touchback and receiving team's ball because muffing a loose ball generally does not "reassign" impetus. There needs to be possession, clear bat of the ball, or muffing of a ball that has completely or almost completely stopped moving for impetus to be "reassigned".

3C) Returner is in the field of play. Gets possession of the kick, then fumbles and ball continues into EZ and goes OOB (or is recovered by kicking team). Safety. Possession and subsequent fumble "reassigns" impetus.

I don't see why any of that -- which is all about what's happening in a team's own EZ -- would need to change if the rule is changed about what happens when a team fumbles through the other team's EZ.

(BTW, impetus only matters when the ball goes OOB in the EZ or is recovered by a member of the team who that EZ belongs to. If the ball is recovered in the EZ by the team that EZ does not belong to then it's a TD regardless of whose impetus put the ball in the EZ. In other words, impetus only matters if the play isn't a TD. If it's not, then you go to impetus to determine if it's a TB or a safety.)

Sorry, the INT is a bad example, you're right, because possession has switched. I shouldn't be posting late Friday night after a few beers

I do think it would shift strategy so teams would attack the pylons more on the goal line.

I am worried about unintended consequences like changing the touchback for kickoffs by 5 yards for "safety reasons" leading to more short kicks and whatnot. I think a rule change could modify the game.

Maybe it's because I grew up with it and just accepted it for decades, but I don't consider that rule to be fundamentally broken and in need of fixing now just because the Jets lost a close game where they fumbled away a scoring opportunity.

But in any event, it probably is worth discussing. It would be consistent with the fumble forward out of bound rules where the offense gets the ball back at the spot of the fumble. But if they leave the rule alone, I don't lose any sleep over it either.

 

[QuantumMechanic]

I guess the way I look it is that I'm OK with a team getting punished for failing to protect its own endzone -- if the offense fails to protect its own endzone that's a safety and loss of possession. If the defense fails to protect its own endzone that's a touchdown.

But I just don't see a good rationale for punishing a team with loss of possession for losing the ball in the endzone it is attacking.

The more I think about it that more I think the down counting and putting it at the 5 is the way to go. Bringing it back to the 5 will negate virtually any shenanigans. Even in a situation where the anti-Holy Roller rule doesn't apply, no one is going to intentionally fumble it forward if the ball is going to go back to the 5.

 

[Pats2000]

I guess the way I look it is that I'm OK with a team getting punished for failing to protect its own endzone -- if the offense fails to protect its own endzone that's a safety and loss of possession. If the defense fails to protect its own endzone that's a touchdown.


But I just don't see a good rationale for punishing a team with loss of possession for losing the ball in the endzone it is attacking.

The more I think about it that more I think the down counting and putting it at the 5 is the way to go. Bringing it back to the 5 will negate virtually any shenanigans. Even in a situation where the anti-Holy Roller rule doesn't apply, no one is going to intentionally fumble it forward if the ball is going to go back to the 5.

I think loss of possession for failing to protect the football through the end zone is a fair rule. Anytime something good or bad happens through the end zone there are either points scored or a possession change. That makes sense to me. Otherwise it unbalances the rules in favor of the team attacking the end zone.

 

[QuantumMechanic]

I think loss of possession for failing to protect the football through the end zone is a fair rule. Anytime something good or bad happens through the end zone there are either points scored or a possession change.

Not true. There are no points scored and no possession change when a punt or kickoff goes through the EZ. (Remember, the change of possession happened the moment the kickoff was kicked or the moment the punt crossed the LOS. The receiving team gets the ball because of that, not because the ball went through the EZ.) And nothing bad happens when a pass goes incomplete in or through the EZ.