The ASJ Fumble

[archstanton543]

-- If the call on the field was a 'simple TD' because the runner possessed the ball crossing the goal line(??), does that mean two completely separate aspects of replay determination come into play?

This wasn't a coach's challenge where they can only look at one aspect of the play. This was a booth review where they look at the entire play.

 

[bormio]

The technical aspects of the rule(s) turns out to be an interesting discussion.

1) If a runner loses control of the ball before crossing the goal line, then the ball crosses the goal line before the runner reestablishes control, what is the rule exactly?
-- Is it simply he must regain control for an instant, whether the control is in mid air/off the ground?
-- Or is it the runner now must regain control of the ball then establish himself in bounds (elbow, knee, two feet touch the ground in bounds)?

2) What is the rule exactly on the replay?
-- Was the call on the field the runner had control of the ball as he crossed the goal line (simply a TD, play is over, everything that happened afterward was moot because it's a dead ball? Or was the call on the field the runner lost control of the ball but the runner regained possession in the end zone?
-- If the call on the field was a 'simple TD' because the runner possessed the ball crossing the goal line(??), does that mean two completely separate aspects of replay determination come into play?
- If replay determines the runner did lose possession before crossing the goal line thereby overturning the 'simple TD' call on the field, does the replay call then become a second and wholly separate aspect that falls under a 'whatever is 50.1% likeliest' (versus the normal "conclusive" evidence)?

These are good questions. A ref who thought it was a simple TD would not care what happens after the ball crosses the plane. But with a fumble, it matters a whole lot. Scoring reviews already are a complete look at the play - here the replay is really a complete de novo look - cause the ref making the call made no determination of what happened after the ball crossed the plane. Thus the usual deference to the call on the field really has to go away.

 

[Seacoast Fan]

This image alone (there was another angle of the video from behind) proves that he didn't break the plane with possession, meaning for possession to count he would have had to re-establish that it was a catch per regular rules, and he did not until he was out of bounds. By rule, if a ball is fumbled into the opposing end zone it is a touch back for the defense or NE in this case.

Black and white. The fact that Gronk continues to get DPI'd on the majority of plays including the uncalled one when it was 14-7 for NYJ only underscores the stupidity and inability of people to put bias (against NE) aside.

The correct over turn was made and Fouts spewing inaccurate nonsense is similar to when Cris Collinsworth kept crying about SEA not running the ball at the 1 when they would have had to throw it at least once on 2nd or 3rd down (I would have gone play action if I was SEA though to at least keep the defense guessing but that's another discussion).

Fouts said it was the worst call he ever saw in his life...LOL

 

[QuantumMechanic]

The technical aspects of the rule(s) turns out to be an interesting discussion.

1) If a runner loses control of the ball before crossing the goal line, then the ball crosses the goal line before the runner reestablishes control, what is the rule exactly?
-- Is it simply he must regain control for an instant, whether the control is in mid air/off the ground?
-- Or is it the runner now must regain control of the ball then establish himself in bounds (elbow, knee, two feet touch the ground in bounds)?

I believe it depends on the posture of the ballcarrier when he loses possession. If he's not going to ground I'm pretty sure he just has to regain control and establish himself in bounds in the EZ.

If he is going to ground (like S-J was) then the rules for recovering the fumble are the same as for a catch when going to ground. You have to regain control and maintain it all the way to and through contact with the ground. Or, as Corrente puts it, you have to "survive the ground".

2) What is the rule exactly on the replay?
-- Was the call on the field the runner had control of the ball as he crossed the goal line (simply a TD, play is over, everything that happened afterward was moot because it's a dead ball? Or was the call on the field the runner lost control of the ball but the runner regained possession in the end zone?
-- If the call on the field was a 'simple TD' because the runner possessed the ball crossing the goal line(??), does that mean two completely separate aspects of replay determination come into play?
- If replay determines the runner did lose possession before crossing the goal line thereby overturning the 'simple TD' call on the field, does the replay call then become a second and wholly separate aspect that falls under a 'whatever is 50.1% likeliest' (versus the normal "conclusive" evidence)?

The original ruling was a TD because the refs believed the ballcarrier crossed the plane with possession (so Corrente said to the pool reporter).

Whenever there's a review, all aspects of the play are up for review. This is true even in coaches' challenges. The coach may say he's challenging X, but if the review official sees that the coach is wrong about X but sees some other thing Y that the coach never mentioned that means the call on the field was wrong, the play gets overturned.

Your final question is a great one and I don't believe anyone knows the answer definitively. The rulebook says:
A decision will be reversed only when there is clear and obvious visual evidence available that warrants the change. Prior to consulting with the Officiating department designee, the Referee will discuss the play with the covering official(s) to gather any information that may be pertinent to the review.
which doesn't address your question at all. I'm under the impression that ending state is all that matters (i.e. since a TD was called on the field, the reviewer has to be conclusively sure that a TD didn't happen to be able to overturn it, no matter how differently the play actually went from how the original refs assumed it went) but certainly can't give a cite to that.

 

[slam]

He was a runner, not a receiver in the act of a catch. The ball never hit the ground. I don't see how this could be viewed as a fumble. If you're running it over the goal line in the clear and tossing it from hand to hand as you cross the goal line, it's a TD. Even as he's out of bounds and his hands leave the ball, it never touches the ground.

I don't believe that this is a thing that has ever happened in the history of football.
Even Leon Lett didn't intentionally juggle the ball when he thought he was all alone. Desean Jackson was stupid enough to drop the ball too early, but he wasn't intentionally juggling.
And if you were to alley oop yourself the ball while showboating and running forward, shouldn't that be an illegal forward pass?

 

[QuantumMechanic]

Scoring reviews already are a complete look at the play - here the replay is really a complete de novo look - cause the ref making the call made no determination of what happened after the ball crossed the plane. Thus the usual deference to the call on the field really has to go away.

All reviews, even coaches' challenge ones, are a complete look at the play. A coach says he's challenging X, but all reviewable parts of the play are (supposed to be) looked at by the reviewer, even ones the coach didn't mention.

As for something like this one being de novo or not, I don't think there's any way to tell that given the scant bit the rulebook says about reviews.

 

[slam]

Fouts said it was the worst call he ever saw in his life...LOL

Reminder: In a draft of all the players in the history of football, Fouts drafted a punter fourth overall.

 

[ThatllMoveTheChains!!!]

Fouts said it was the worst call he ever saw in his life...LOL

Fouts rates calls that benefit the Patriots on a scale from controversial to worst call ever. His rating is based 80% on how much the call benefits the Patriots and 20% on his poor understanding of the rules. He's quite the treasure.

 

[bormio]

All reviews, even coaches' challenge ones, are a complete look at the play. A coach says he's challenging X, but all reviewable parts of the play are (supposed to be) looked at by the reviewer, even ones the coach didn't mention.

As for something like this one being de novo or not, I don't think there's any way to tell that given the scant bit the rulebook says about reviews.

I think it is probably vague - but once you see the fumble, you have to make a ruling on when control was reestablished or not. There was no original call on that, so you have to rely on replay. Fortunately the ref felt he got a good look at it on replay.

 

[PF_SU]

I wonder if those that think the offense fumbling the ball through the opponents EZ resulting in a touchback is a bad rule think the same when it's the other way round with the ball going out of the offense's own EZ being a safety.

 

[TheBostonStraggler]

I believe it depends on the posture of the ballcarrier when he loses possession. If he's not going to ground I'm pretty sure he just has to regain control and establish himself in bounds in the EZ.

If he is going to ground (like S-J was) then the rules for recovering the fumble are the same as for a catch when going to ground. You have to regain control and maintain it all the way to and through contact with the ground. Or, as Corrente puts it, you have to "survive the ground".



The original ruling was a TD because the refs believed the ballcarrier crossed the plane with possession (so Corrente said to the pool reporter).

Whenever there's a review, all aspects of the play are up for review. This is true even in coaches' challenges. The coach may say he's challenging X, but if the review official sees that the coach is wrong about X but sees some other thing Y that the coach never mentioned that means the call on the field was wrong, the play gets overturned.

Your final question is a great one and I don't believe anyone knows the answer definitively. The rulebook says:
A decision will be reversed only when there is clear and obvious visual evidence available that warrants the change. Prior to consulting with the Officiating department designee, the Referee will discuss the play with the covering official(s) to gather any information that may be pertinent to the review.
which doesn't address your question at all. I'm under the impression that ending state is all that matters (i.e. since a TD was called on the field, the reviewer has to be conclusively sure that a TD didn't happen to be able to overturn it, no matter how differently the play actually went from how the original refs assumed it went) but certainly can't give a cite to that.

Much appreciate all the info QM.
For the last item I think a clarification by the NFL is in order.
If a referee's call on the field is determined conclusively wrong by the replay official, and the play itself had 'action occurring' after the timestamp the referee made the call on the field, what is the replay determination guidelines for that 'action occurring'?

1 - if the 'action occurring' does not produce conclusive video evidence for a determination, does the call on the field stand even though that call was determined wrong?
2 - Or is the 'action occurring' now a new look and much like a civil court case whatever is likeliest?

You mentioned the call on the field was a simple TD.
Since the prevailing opinion(??) is he did lose control before the goal line was crossed, seems to me this clarification by the NFL is the key point. If the 'action occurring' is a standalone replay determination of what is likeliest instead of the 'conclusive video evidence to reverse the call on the field' guideline, IMHO the call becomes less controversial (what little I did see on replays, again IMHO, it does not favor a determination of reestablishment of possession). OTOH if 'conclusive video evidence to reverse the call on the field' remains the guideline throughout the entire play (something at the level of "conclusive" has to be determined even within the 'action occurring'), the call is certainly and definitely controversial. IMHO the 'action occurring' didn't have a "conclusive" level, and the call on the field should stand (again to be fair I haven't watched too much of the replay. I'm on to Atlanta).

 

[archstanton543]

All reviews, even coaches' challenge ones, are a complete look at the play. A coach says he's challenging X, but all reviewable parts of the play are (supposed to be) looked at by the reviewer, even ones the coach didn't mention.

Then why ask the coach what aspect of the play he's challenging when the flag comes out? And why don't they call penalties after review (like, say, holding on the O-line on a catch along the sidelines) if the entire play is under review?

 

[TheBostonStraggler]

This wasn't a coach's challenge where they can only look at one aspect of the play. This was a booth review where they look at the entire play.

I probably didn't make that clear, my bad.
Where I was going with this was: what was the guideline for replay conclusion? For the Ref's call on the field (call it a simple TD - Ref ruled that the runner immediately broke the plane with possession of the ball -- everything else that happened was dead ball nothingness), it is that well known 'conclusive video evidence to overturn the call on the field'. But if the replay official determines that a simple TD was conclusively wrong, where do you go with the determination from there? Does the follow up action also need to produce something conclusive else it defers back to the erroneous call on the field?
It's a bit confusing...

 

[TheBostonStraggler]

One thing overlooked on this play: major! props to Butler for making the play/the strip of the football. Whether you agree with the call or not, the strip was key and excellent effort.

 

[Deus Irae]

Tough to argue The Good, The Bad, The Ugly isn't the best western. It's a movie that falls into the category of Americana.
Other personal favorites: Butch Cassidy & the Sundance Kid ("who are those guys?"), Fistful of Dollars ("my mule don't like people laughing"), Unforgiven ("I'll come back and kill every one of you sons of bitc_es").

I'll add

Shane
Stagecoach
High Noon
The Man who shot Liberty Valance
The Searchers
The Magnificent Seven (Thank you, Kirosawa!)
Rio Bravo
True Grit
Treasure of the Sierra Madre
Once Upon a Time in the West

as contenders for best ever/top 10 lists.

 

[TheBostonStraggler]

I'll add

Shane
Stagecoach
High Noon
The Man who shot Liberty Valance
The Searchers
The Magnificent Seven (Thank you, Kirosawa!)
Rio Bravo
True Grit
Treasure of the Sierra Madre
Once Upon a Time in the West

as contenders for best ever/top 10 lists.

Damn! fine list DI.
It's been a long day for me....and that's my excuse for overlooking Rio Bravo ("how ya like them Apples") and The Magnificent Seven(the original) ("I never rode shotgun but getting up there don't bother me. It's the staying up there that I mind").

 

[Deus Irae]

Damn! fine list DI.
It's been a long day for me....and that's my excuse for overlooking Rio Bravo ("how ya like them Apples") and The Magnificent Seven(the original) ("I never rode shotgun but getting up there don't bother me. It's the staying up there that I mind").

I hear you, and there are a lot to choose from and try to remember. I love westerns, and I should have added a few more to that list. I've always considered Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid and The Wild Bunch to be overrated, though, and I absolutely hate McCabe and Mrs. Miller, even though those three are widely considered to be top notch, so I unfairly didn't include them, when I should have included them with a disclaimer.

 

[Joker]

any "list" that does NOT include Mel Brooks "The Producers" or Scorsese's "King Of Comedy", no matter what the genre is supposed to be, leaves me disillusioned with society. Of course, my all time favorite is an autobiographical tour de force starring the inimitable Johnny Boy as ME, Joe "Joikoff" Kerr...

 

[TheBostonStraggler]

I hear you, and there are a lot to choose from and try to remember. I love westerns, and I should have added a few more to that list. I've always considered Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid and The Wild Bunch to be overrated, though, and I absolutely hate McCabe and Mrs. Miller, even though those three are widely considered to be top notch, so I unfairly didn't include them, when I should have included them with a disclaimer.

Butch Cassidy and The Sundance Kid? I guess it's a individual taste thing -- that's a top 7 on my list.
One that may not make many other lists but mine, Tombstone. It's an overly canned Hollywood production but a damn fine movie/western overall (I thought Costner's Wyatt Earp got too bogged down in the details -- but I do like Dances With Wolves thought a bit too long for my A.D.D.).

I agree on The Wild Bunch -- just doesn't get me wrapped up in the movie the way a, for example, Unforgiven did.
Some good notable mentions from me(not best though): Breakhart Pass, Dueces Wild, The White Buffalo

 

[Deus Irae]

any "list" that does NOT include Mel Brooks "The Producers" or Scorsese's "King Of Comedy", no matter what the genre is supposed to be, leaves me disillusioned with society. Of course, my all time favorite is an autobiographical tour de force starring the inimitable Johnny Boy as ME, Joe "Joikoff" Kerr...

If you're talking westerns and Mel Brooks, you're talking the greatness that is Blazing Saddles.