The ASJ Fumble

[VJCPatriot]

Here is a clear shot of the ASJ fumble.

Let's put it to rest. Only Jets fans are losing sleep over this.

 

[Tuck]

The key with this call was in the replay. After the ball comes loose there's no replay angle showing him getting control back until he's on the ground and over the plane.

 

[SacPete1]

by the actual letter of the law, the ruling was correct. rule 3, section 2, article 7 has a note for exactly this situation:



the only possible judgment call is what constitutes "possession", and to me, a hand coming off the ball means he didn't have "a firm grip and control of the ball", nor did he have "complete and continuous control of the ball until after his initial contact with the ground".

.

So there are 2 terms here that require distinction; Control and Possession.

Control is having the ball in your hands securely.
Possession is qualified by having established control and having 2 feet, a knee or body in bounds.

Possession is the key

If you are deemed to have possession just before hitting the ground you cannot lose control of the ball as you hit the ground. Movement of the ball after you have established possession does not necessarily constitute loss of possession (Para 3 Rule3 section 2).

Riveron's quote today from PFT "“By rule, he has to re-establish possession. He must regain control of the football again before he hits out of bounds,” Riveron said. “He has not regained control of the football before he hits out of bounds.”

He seems to use possession and control without distinction. I believe his last sentence should be possession and not control.

ASJ has to regain possession before he goes out of bounds.

 

[SacPete1]

Butler has nothing to worry about. The ref stumbled and fell into Butler. Butler actually prevented him from falling. It was incidental contact.

You can see it in the replays.

Oh really? I'll look at this again. Good catch!

 

[brdmaverick]

There is nothing wrong with the rule. All rules produce awkward looking results but if you think it's a bad rule how do you change it, remembering it applies to ALL fumbles.

Obviously everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but even if enforced correctly yesterday it's weird rule. If the offense loses the ball and it rules 15 yards downfield and out of bounds at the 1 yard line you are ok, but one yard further and you lose possession of the ball?

I think a case could be made that if the ball goes out of bounds (even if through the end zone) it goes back to where the fumbling player lost the ball.

I feel like this discussion came up last year as a result of Jim Harbaugh complaining.

 

[upstater1]

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

It's not like we don't have examples from the past. When the Jets' Vinny Testaverde's head was lying on the end line, I never imagined they'd invoke something called the Tuck Rule. I was confused. The Patriots lost. The Tuck Rule was explained. And I was like, that i some BS--but, "it was the rule."

Or even the field goal game against the Jets from a few years back.

Not to mention the Matt Cassel game against the Jets in 2008--which was just horsepucky.

 

[brdmaverick]

Alright, so this is slight digression but relevant in that it relates to control and possession of a fumble.............

Does anyone remember the 2009/10 playoff games against the Ravens when the Pats got credited with a questionable muffed punt recovery...........

fwd to the 37:10 mark of this video..........



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.

 

[upstater1]

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

Let me get this straight. If a player crosses the plane without the ball secure in his hands, then we agree it is not a TD right?

So... what do you call it? If he doesn't have control? You gotta call it something. Fumble seems most appropriate.

But let me play along more: say he doesn't have control when crossing the plane, but regains control at some other point (never hits ground, no other player gets control). Is it a TD? Yes, if he lands in the end zone.

But that didn't happen either. Instead, he didn't have control when he crossed the plane, and he landed out of bounds.

The only way your theory works is if there were a rule that stated, if a runner doesn't have control of the ball before crossing the plane, but regains control in mid-air over the end zone (and its infinite plane) before he lands out of bounds, it's a TD.

But the NFL has a rule which specifically states the opposite of that.

 

[archstanton543]

If the offense loses the ball and it rules 15 yards downfield and out of bounds at the 1 yard line you are ok, but one yard further and you lose possession of the ball?

Well, yes. The end zones are special parts of the field. Different than any other parts of the field. There are different rules in the end zones.

 

[brdmaverick]

#6 low sideline view

here's just the part where he loses control and is trying to secure the ball. you can clearly see his right hand come off of the ball:

That second one is an interesting shot, because I agree that his hand comes off the ball but oddly enough the ball seems pressed up against his body the whole way (when his hand is off the ball his arm is still pressed against it). That would still count as control, right?

 

[brdmaverick]

Well, yes. The end zones are special parts of the field. Different than any other parts of the field. There are different rules in the end zones.

Right, to be clear I understand the rule, I'm just suggesting that the rule could easily be that the endzones aren't considered special parts of the field and that typical fumble rules could apply.

Again, that's not the rule and I understand that, in my opinion it would make sure sense if that was the rule.

Don't worry, I'm not expecting the ref to make the call based on what I think the rule SHOULD be.

 

[archstanton543]

That second one is an interesting shot, because I agree that his hand comes off the ball but oddly enough the ball seems pressed up against his body the whole way (when his hand is off the ball his arm is still pressed against it). That would still count as control, right?

Go back to page 13. There's a better shot of the ball moving around.

 

[upstater1]

Alright, so this is slight digression but relevant in that it relates to control and possession of a fumble.............

Does anyone remember the 2009/10 playoff games against the Ravens when the Pats got credited with a questionable muffed punt recovery...........

fwd to the 37:20 mark of this video..........



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.

This is precisely the correct analogy. But--I would say that even if Arrington didn't lose the ball, it was not a fumble because his second foot/knee was out of bounds. Same deal with ASF. Even though he never lost the ball, his body was out of bounds before he could get possession.

 

[brdmaverick]

This is precisely the correct analogy. But--I would say that even if Arrington didn't lose the ball, it was not a fumble because his second foot/knee was out of bounds. Same deal with ASF. Even though he never lost the ball, his body was out of bounds before he could get possession.

so you're saying it was as double whammy on the refs.............and in a playoff game none-the-less. It really is crazy that the Ravens didn't challenge.

 

[upstater1]

So there are 2 terms here that require distinction; Control and Possession.

Control is having the ball in your hands securely.
Possession is qualified by having established control and having 2 feet, a knee or body in bounds.

Possession is the key

If you are deemed to have possession just before hitting the ground you cannot lose control of the ball as you hit the ground. Movement of the ball after you have established possession does not necessarily constitute loss of possession (Para 3 Rule3 section 2).

Riveron's quote today from PFT "“By rule, he has to re-establish possession. He must regain control of the football again before he hits out of bounds,” Riveron said. “He has not regained control of the football before he hits out of bounds.”

He seems to use possession and control without distinction. I believe his last sentence should be possession and not control.

ASJ has to regain possession before he goes out of bounds.

I agree with most of what you wrote, but in Riveron's defense, once you lose the ball, regaining possession and control is the same thing. Just words which describe having the ball in your hand or hands.

 

[upstater1]

That second one is an interesting shot, because I agree that his hand comes off the ball but oddly enough the ball seems pressed up against his body the whole way (when his hand is off the ball his arm is still pressed against it). That would still count as control, right?

Personally, I don't think there's enough movement there to signal loss of control. I would have kept it as a TD...

...except for one thing: he landed out of bounds.

 

[brdmaverick]

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

Trent Dilfer, is that you?

 

[upstater1]

There are several pictures of the ball out of his possession in mid air, but i have yet to see a definitive picture of the ball out of his possession when he lands in the EZ. And by that logic, how the hell do you overturn a call like that without any clear evidence?

This is what is confusing so many people.

Once the ball is out of his possession in the first place, he needs to reestablish possession.

The only way to do that is to put a knee or two feet on the ground. But he landed out of bounds first.

By rule, he never regained possession. In other words, even if he had grabbed the balls securely in his hands in mid-air, he would still need to come down with it.

He fell out of bounds.

About the best argument you could make in this case (and I don't know the answer here) is that he had possession when he hit the pylon, but I'm assuming here that the pylon does not count as the ground, and so for the sake of this play, the pylon is invisible or irrelevant.

 

[upstater1]

It's a solid rule, why should the team that fumbled the ball through the end zone be rewarded? They aren't rewarded when they fumble it through their own end zone, why should they be if they fumble it through the opposition's end zone

One good reason for this rule is that they want to prevent offensive teams from purposely fumbling forward on desperation plays. Klecko with the Colts scored in 2006 against the Patriots on a fumble forward. But imagine the year is 2000, and instead of the Titan getting tackled at the 1, he deliberately tries to fumble forward so a teammate can recover.

This rule is there to dissuade the offense from doing that.

I would also want to know how long this rule has been in existence, since football is an offshoot from rugby, and in rugby, it works the exact same way. If you fumble the ball through the try-area, the other team gets possession. It's a turnover. Maybe the rules have been that way forever.

 

[CheekyDave]

Has anyone mentioned what Reiss thinks about the play?