The ASJ Fumble

[bormio]

The shot with the ball above the ground, not in his right hand, and ASJ laying OOB is what the reviewing ref saw. Once the ball was clearly seen to have been fumbled - the original ref DID NOT see this - the original call was thrown out and they used replay to determine what happened.

 

[Ross12]

Didnt you call the game over on our first turnover and then also got kicked out of the live thread ?

That would be correct. I removed him from the thread when he said something along the lines of “that’s the game, baby!!!!!!!” immediately after Gillislee’s fumble.

 

[XLIX]

No one understanding and applying the actual rule says it was wrong.

I agree. Your problem is you don't understand the rule. Fortunately, I have quoted you the exact passage correcting your error.

 

[Ring 6]

You're making things up out of thin air. It's ok for the ball to move if the player maintains control. In the notes following possession of a loose ball, the rule book states (emphasis added by me):

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.

And the ball moving constitutes not having possession. It slipped out of his hand but he recovered and held on. It still wasn't complete recovery of possesssion until after he fully controlled it, on the ground, out of bounds, as corrente said there was no doubt, it was obvious.

 

[Ring 6]

I agree. Your problem is you don't understand the rule. Fortunately, I have quoted you the exact passage correcting your error.

The passage you are misapplying?
Corrente and riveron did not consider it slight movement after control. They considered it part of gaining control. They were right.

 

[jah]

I personally believe it was a touchdown. But the refs did not give the game to the Pats. Fans of the other 31 are absolutely loving this opportunity to say this is proof the league is fixed for the Patriots, but they conveniently forget that this call only canceled out Gronk getting absolutely mauled in the endzone on 3rd down by a defender who wasn't looking for the ball with no flag.

 

[Ross12]

I actually missed this live, but here is the easiest way I can think to explain it. He had possession running toward the end zone but it was ripped out by Butler prior to him crossing the goal line.

So at this point you’re essentially treating Seferian-Jenkins’ body as an extension of the ground. It doesn’t matter if he had it on his body or near his hands, the ball was wiggling all over the place and thus it is still a live ball until someone actually gains legitimate possession of it. He did not actually GRASP the football again until he was standing up completely beyond the entire thick white sideline paint of the end zone.

 

[XLIX]

Unless you are doing that while completing the catch and going out of bounds.
In any event the issue here was that after clearly losing possession he was out of bounds before completing the act of regaining control of the ball.

It is undeniably clear that:

1) He fumbled in mid air
2) He recovered possession in mid air
3) His knee came down in bounds before any part of his body touched out of bounds (or he touched the pylon)
4) He must maintain possession of the ball all the way through the process of going to the ground

At this point, the only issue is whether or not he did satisfy #4. As I established when I corrected you (and I notice you've moved the goalposts), a slight movement of the ball is not considered loss of possession.

Sorry, I just don't seen any movement of the ball while he completes the process, let alone anything that conclusively goes beyond a "slight movement."

 

[Mainepatsfan54]

You know damn well no one (other fans, media) would make a big stink about this if the situation was reversed.

 

[convertedpatsfan]

Then - and here is where the refs and I differ (based on their official explanation) - I don't see any clear movement of the football out of bounds to show he juggled the ball or otherwise did not maintain possession.

Around the 14-second mark, you can see the ball "pop" up a bit from the contact with the ground.

Clippit

Later on in the same video around the 25-second mark, you see the ball rolling around in his arm while he's rolling onto his back from the contact.

He doesn't have "full" control of after hitting the ground until he's well out of bounds and lying on his back after the ball has bobbled a few times.

 

[Ross12]

You're making things up out of thin air. It's ok for the ball to move if the player maintains control. In the notes following possession of a loose ball, the rule book states (emphasis added by me):

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.

Huh? Your own quote answers your question. Read the second sentence... “he must lose control of the ball” which he DID...

 

[ScottishPatriots]

Good call, bad rule.

If it screws your team, you're furious.

 

[XLIX]

You know damn well no one would make a big stink about this if the situation was reversed.

Yes I am sure all the people in here saying it was a fumble would be saying the exact same thing.

I've noticed many fans of all teams (and certainly this one) would rather die than admit their team benefitted from a bad call. I've never been like that. I can gladly call something a bad call even if it benefits my team and not lose an ounce of sleep over it.

 

[luuked]

Sorry, I just don't seen any movement of the ball while he completes the process, let alone anything that conclusively goes beyond a "slight movement."

Lets be happy then that you are not a NFL ref then, because according to Corrente it was obvious that he lost control a second time.

 

[PATSYLICIOUS]

Dbag steeler fan texted me : 'what a sh** call'.
I responded: gotta be more specific... are you talking about the missed obvious pi on Gronk or the missed obvious pi on Dorsett which combined took away at least 10 points from NE and let an int stand?

 

[bormio]

Lets be happy then that you are not a NFL ref then, because according to Corrente it was obvious that he lost control a second time.

You cannot see it from the view from the side of the EZ. But there is a view from the other side showing the ball not in his right hand and him OOB.

 

[Angelpats]

No such rule exists. You can catch a football with one arm, secure it to your body with both arms, then transition it to the other without ever losing control.

He was a runner at that point with the ball in his left hand. Butler grabbed one arm , the ball was loose then. While in the air the ball switched to the right hand, and he was out of bounds with full control then.

 

[Biffins]

The least clear aspect is where he comes down.

Everyone is asking when did he juggle a second time, which is the least clear but critical aspect of the ruling. If he had maintained possession all the way through the ground, it'd be a touchdown. This clip at 0:22 is the best shot I saw. It shows that as he fell to the ground at 0:22, the ball popped out of his left hand to near his gut where he grabbed it with his right hand. Hence he's juggling the ball while he's rolling out of bounds, hence it's a touchback.

 

[XLIX]

I've stated my opinion, I stand by it, I have no problem admitting my team benefitted from a bad call (although it seems like most fans would rather die than admit that).

Pretty much everyone in the country outside New England (and Tony Corrente) agrees with me and that's good enough for me, so I have spoken my last piece on the matter.

 

[Pats1989]

Didnt you call the game over on our first turnover and then also got kicked out of the live thread ?

I was wrong about the outcome of the game, but this isn't a good football team right now.