The ASJ Fumble

[QuantumMechanic]

Once you admit there was a fumble you cannot pretend it did not occur. You have to make a ruling on when possession was regained in order to rule TD or no TD.

That's not what I'm saying at all. Of course you have to rule about possession to resolve the review.

The question being argued is this -- what's the standard to overturn on a play like this?

Is it: "Reviewer needs to see conclusive evidence that ballcarrier did not re-possess the ball in the EZ to overturn the original call."

Or is it "Because of the fumble, the rebuttable presumption of the truth of the call on the field is negated and the reviewer needs to be sure ballcarrier did re-possess the ball in the EZ to confirm the original call."

I think it's the former. Others think it's the latter. The ref's public statement isn't sufficient to tell because he said he conclusively saw lack of possession, which would be an overturn under either standard of review.

 

[yukon cornelius]

Frankly, I don't know how you can overturn that call. There is one frame (the one everyone keeps posting) that shows the ball loose, but I think the guy regained control quickly before he went out of bounds. Who among us can say we thought that was getting overturned? We all sat there in stunned disbelief at my house, but then said, "We'll take it!" Goofy calls get made every week in the NFL. It's nice for the Pats to be on the good side of one once in a while. Thanks Tony. On to Atlanta!

"regaining control" doesn't re-establish possession per NFL rules, though....in this instance he must maintain control as he goes to the ground, and he clearly does not.....therefore possession was not re-established until he is OOB

 

[yukon cornelius]

That's not what I'm saying at all. Of course you have to rule about possession to resolve the review.

The question being argued is this -- what's the standard to overturn on a play like this?

Is it: "Reviewer needs to see conclusive evidence that ballcarrier did not re-possess the ball in the EZ to overturn the original call."

Or is it "Because of the fumble, the rebuttable presumption of the truth of the call on the field is negated and the reviewer needs to be sure ballcarrier did re-possess the ball in the EZ to confirm the original call."

I think it's the former. Others think it's the latter. The ref's public statement isn't sufficient to tell because he said he conclusively saw lack of possession, which would be an overturn under either standard of review.

there IS conclusive proof he did not repossess the ball in the endzone! as he goes to the ground and oob, the BALL IS STILL MOVING, so he did not maintain possession as he went to the ground and oob, therefore possession COULD NOT BE RE-ESTABLISHED....the fact that he may have "regained control" of the ball in the meantime cannot re-establish possession by NFL rule

 

[QuantumMechanic]

there IS conclusive proof he did not repossess the ball in the endzone! as he goes to the ground and oob, the BALL IS STILL MOVING, so he did not maintain possession as he went to the ground and oob, therefore possession COULD NOT BE RE-ESTABLISHED....the fact that he may have "regained control" of the ball in the meantime cannot re-establish possession by NFL rule

Yes, I already said that's what the ref has publicly stated. The problem, in the context of what the exact rule for overturns is, is that what the ref said is consistent with both theories of how overturns work and so doesn't help to establish which theory is correct.

 

[upstater1]

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.

When you're moving it from hand to hand, you have control.

The still picture clearly shows no hands whatsoever on the ball before the goal line, so that's a fumble. Recovery happened after a part of his body already touched out of bounds.

 

[SacPete1]

I'd like to hear from Riveron on this since it appears he made the final determination.

I wish the "analysts" knew the rules first before providing their expert opinion. Fouts and Eagle and a number of others think that once ASJ regained control of the ball, that this represents possession which it doesn't and they should know this. I didn't hear them comment on when he hit the pylon, did he have 2 feet or a knee down. Some might argue the knee was down but I'm not sure it was before he hit the pylon.

I can see the ball move slightly as he hits the ground but I didn't think the ball moving necessarily means he doesn't have control.
This ruling of possession and control will always be judgemental to a degree which creates the controversy.

 

[upstater1]

I wouldn't agree that a sub-second bobble in the air by a runner constitutes "loss of possession". In the act of a catch, yes, but as a runner no.

How can you have possession when there are no hands on the ball and it's in mid-air? How is that possession?

Put it this way: as a runner, if he attempts to break the plane by putting the ball forward over the line, is it a TD if there are no hands on it?

No.

It is only a TD if the ball is controlled in the runner's hands.

 

[bbobbo]

Frankly, I don't know how you can overturn that call. There is one frame (the one everyone keeps posting) that shows the ball loose, but I think the guy regained control quickly before he went out of bounds. Who among us can say we thought that was getting overturned? We all sat there in stunned disbelief at my house, but then said, "We'll take it!" Goofy calls get made every week in the NFL. It's nice for the Pats to be on the good side of one once in a while. Thanks Tony. On to Atlanta!

here, you see that his right hand comes off of the ball while he's on his back, out of bounds. that means he's still trying to gain control of it while out of bounds:

 

[bormio]

If that was a pass on the sideline and the ball moved like that, it would have been ruled incomplete. Exact same standard about having control after going to ground applies. It really is not that hard.

 

[upstater1]

Frankly, I don't know how you can overturn that call. There is one frame (the one everyone keeps posting) that shows the ball loose, but I think the guy regained control quickly before he went out of bounds. Who among us can say we thought that was getting overturned? We all sat there in stunned disbelief at my house, but then said, "We'll take it!" Goofy calls get made every week in the NFL. It's nice for the Pats to be on the good side of one once in a while. Thanks Tony. On to Atlanta!

But again.

This is not the rule.

People are missing the fact that he landed out of bounds.

Let's assume that he regained control and that he never again lost it.

He still landed out of bounds, and the rule clearly states that with a fumble, you have to establish possession while surviving contact with the ground. In this case, his body made contact out of bounds when it first touched ground.

This is no different than a player trying to recover a fumble and corraling it mid-air but landing out of bounds. Imagine a player dives, secures the ball in mid-air while still on the field, but lands out of bounds. It's not considered a fumble.

 

[SacPete1]

here, you see that his right hand comes off of the ball while he's on his back, out of bounds. that means he's still trying to gain control of it while out of bounds:

That's a really good shot of it and this is likely what Corrente is referring to in his explanation.

But I didn't think the ball moving necessarily implied no control and I'm sure I have seen this type of "ball movement" on other plays and yet they have ruled it a possession.

I haven't heard anyone comment on whether ASJ had 2 feet or a knee down before he hits the pylon.

 

[upstater1]

here, you see that his right hand comes off of the ball while he's on his back, out of bounds. that means he's still trying to gain control of it while out of bounds:

For me, this clip about him losing the ball a second time is just way after the fact. He has already landed out of bounds before corraling it the first time, so the argument about whether or not he lost it a second time or whether he grabbed it before crossing the plane is irrelevant.

I realize Corrente made a point of it.

However, the first part of his body to touch ground after the fumble was out of bounds. So the focus on whether he controlled it when he rolled onto his back is just irrelevant.

 

[upstater1]

I haven't heard anyone comment on whether ASJ had 2 feet or a knee down before he hits the pylon.

I've been talking about this. He was fully in the air when the fumble occurred. First part of his body to touch ground after that was out of bounds (even though he hit the pylon first). But the pylon in this case is irrelevant since you need to establish control of the fumble.

 

[1960Pats]

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.

And a (let's hear it) Patriots'... FIRST DOWN!

Kind of odd how another great play by Butler is marred by a bunch of losers whining. Too bad. It was a phenomenal play.

 

[ashley]

I wonder how this board or all Pat fans would feel if that call happened to the Pats.

 

[upstater1]

I wonder how this board or all Pat fans would feel if that call happened to the Pats.

Confused at first. Until it was explained.

 

[chasa]

Confused at first. Until it was explained.

at which point we would burn this place to the ground over such an outrage.

 

[BobDigital]

It is not a bad call. Maybe a bad rule but not a bad call. It was in fact 100% the correct call. If people don't like it change the rules. Simple as that. The refs are not to blames. The people who agreed on the rules are to blame and all of them equally. (This includes the whole league including the Jets as well).

Nothing else needs to be said. This is just sour grapes. If It went against the Pats I would be mad it happened but I wouldn't say the rule was unfair or applied unfairly.

Honestly I don't know if I want to change the rule. Everything is so easy for the offense these days and the rules favor that side in many instances.

 

[doesntmatter1]

This was garbage plain and simple. Imo a fumble didn't occur since the ball never transfered between players or hit the ground.

 

[JMC00]

This was garbage plain and simple. Imo a fumble didn't occur since the ball never transfered between players or hit the ground.

Explain this then