The ASJ Fumble

[Bobsyouruncle]

The offense has an advantage in fumbles since they can either recover or get the ball out of bounds to maintain possession. The defense must recover. In the end zone the advantage would be greater if there was no penalty since they have a 3 sided box to bat or kick the ball to in order to retain possession. The defense still has to recover and retain possession.

 

[convertedpatsfan]

O I don’t see that at all. When he regains possession in mid air it looks like he regains it with both hands on the ball or the right more than the left and it is the right hand that he is using to clutch the ball as he rolls over and stand up. And where does it say that you cannot switch hands and still maintain possession? By any fair viewing he maintains control when hitting the ground and rolling over and standing up. That’s true at both 14 seconds and 25 seconds of the replay

You're all over the place with this.

When he regains possession in mid air

He does NOT regain possession. He regains control. There is a difference, and to understand what happened, you need to stop mixing things up.

He lost possession when the ball came loose. He must regain possession. Control is one part of possession, but not the only part.

And where does it say that you cannot switch hands and still maintain possession

Again, you're missing the mark. He can't maintain possession because he has LOST POSSESSION. He must regain possession first before he can maintain it. There's nothing to maintain.

If he had possession, yes, he can switch hands. If he had possession, all he has to do is break the plane of the end zone with any part of the ball while active in the field of play, including the pylon extended.

But again, he does NOT HAVE POSSESSION. Let me repeat: HE DOES NOT HAVE POSSESSION.

This is going to turn into my Dennis Green moment. IF YOU WANT TO CROWN HIS ASS, THEN CROWN IT *pounds laptop with fist*

Sooooooooo...

To regain possession, he's basically under the same rules as completing a catch.

He needs to do the following, which means ALL of the following. You keep pointing out things he's done while ignoring the one he hasn't. This isn't horseshoes, close doesn't count, he needs to check every single box.

1. Establish control (check)
2. Touch the ground inbounds (check...temporarily)
3. Maintain control of the ball long enough to establish possession (not really)

In addition to those 3 things, because he is going to the ground, he must ALSO:

4. he must maintain control of the ball until after his initial contact with the ground, whether in the field of play or the end zone. If he loses control of the ball, and the ball touches the ground before he regains control, the pass is incomplete. If he regains control prior to the ball touching the ground, the pass is complete. (no, because)

In addition to that, he is near the sideline, he must ALSO:

5. If a player goes to the ground out-of-bounds (with or without contact by an opponent) in the process of making a catch at the sideline, he must maintain complete and continuous control of the ball until after his initial contact with the ground, or the pass is incomplete. (not even close).

He must do all 5 of those things. ONLY if he does ALL 5 will it be a touchdown.

So back to your post.

By any fair viewing he maintains control when hitting the ground and rolling over and standing up

The ball never contacts the ground, so if this had happened in the middle of the field and he doesn't have control and he rolls and the ball bounces around a bit but doesn't touch the ground, that's fine, it's a touchdown.

But because he's near the sideline, this is not about if he maintains control when hitting the ground and rolling over. The criteria is COMPLETE AND CONTINOUS CONTROL OF THE BALL until after his initial contact with the ground. That's why that ball can't move at all. He does not regain possession inbounds. It never happens.

You keep pointing to one or two items on the list. This isn't a pick and choose thing. Due to the circumstances, he must check EVERY.SINGLE.BOX. He does not.

Source:

Completing a Catch | NFL Football Operations

 

[skinnydog]

doesn't look like a firm grip to me.

And yet the ball is still pinned to his chest with his forearm. Like I said he’s already landed in the corner of the end zone with the ball and I guess he has to complete his roll around on the ground or something. The fact that we’re analyzing whether he still has or has regained possession in s still photo of ASJ on his back after he has rolled a full 1yard out of the end zone is itself ridiculous.

 

[Ring 6]

And yet the ball is still pinned to his chest with his forearm. Like I said he’s already landed in the corner of the end zone with the ball and I guess he has to complete his roll around on the ground or something. The fact that we’re analyzing whether he still has or has regained possession in s still photo of ASJ on his back after he has rolled a full 1yard out of the end zone is itself ridiculous.

The rule is the rule.

 

[bresna]

Tough game, I know, but we got a nice preview of what Edelman could bring to the table. This was his rookie year and he was thrown into action with the Welker injury just a week prior.

He had to two TDs in the game but a 4th and 7 really sums up what Jules is all about.

it's at the 1:56:30 mark. Jules takes a screen that is blown up from the start but Jules being Jules finds away to find the first.

Too bad there was a penalty to take it away and make it 4th and 17, but guess who makes the play again?

I was at that game. A few nice plays by Jules did not make that a better game to watch.... at all.

 

[skinnydog]

You're all over the place with this.



He does NOT regain possession. He regains control. There is a difference, and to understand what happened, you need to stop mixing things up.

He lost possession when the ball came loose. He must regain possession. Control is one part of possession, but not the only part.



Again, you're missing the mark. He can't maintain possession because he has LOST POSSESSION. He must regain possession first before he can maintain it. There's nothing to maintain.

If he had possession, yes, he can switch hands. If he had possession, all he has to do is break the plane of the end zone with any part of the ball while active in the field of play, including the pylon extended.

But again, he does NOT HAVE POSSESSION. Let me repeat: HE DOES NOT HAVE POSSESSION.

This is going to turn into my Dennis Green moment. IF YOU WANT TO CROWN HIS ASS, THEN CROWN IT *pounds laptop with fist*

Sooooooooo...

To regain possession, he's basically under the same rules as completing a catch.

He needs to do the following, which means ALL of the following. You keep pointing out things he's done while ignoring the one he hasn't. This isn't horseshoes, close doesn't count, he needs to check every single box.

1. Establish control (check)
2. Touch the ground inbounds (check...temporarily)
3. Maintain control of the ball long enough to establish possession (not really)

In addition to those 3 things, because he is going to the ground, he must ALSO:

4. he must maintain control of the ball until after his initial contact with the ground, whether in the field of play or the end zone. If he loses control of the ball, and the ball touches the ground before he regains control, the pass is incomplete. If he regains control prior to the ball touching the ground, the pass is complete. (no, because)

In addition to that, he is near the sideline, he must ALSO:

5. If a player goes to the ground out-of-bounds (with or without contact by an opponent) in the process of making a catch at the sideline, he must maintain complete and continuous control of the ball until after his initial contact with the ground, or the pass is incomplete. (not even close).

He must do all 5 of those things. ONLY if he does ALL 5 will it be a touchdown.

So back to your post.



The ball never contacts the ground, so if this had happened in the middle of the field and he doesn't have control and he rolls and the ball bounces around a bit but doesn't touch the ground, that's fine, it's a touchdown.

But because he's near the sideline, this is not about if he maintains control when hitting the ground and rolling over. The criteria is COMPLETE AND CONTINOUS CONTROL OF THE BALL until after his initial contact with the ground. That's why that ball can't move at all. He does not regain possession inbounds. It never happens.

You keep pointing to one or two items on the list. This isn't a pick and choose thing. Due to the circumstances, he must check EVERY.SINGLE.BOX. He does not.

Source:

Completing a Catch | NFL Football Operations

You entire explanation makes a mockery of football. I’m comfortable having Blandino an Pereria in my corner on the interpretation. He fumbled, regained control (sorry I said possession above, know what a mistake in word usage) while still in the air, lands in the corner of the end zone at or on the pylon with the bell against his chest, he rolls over and stands up with the ball. Yeah, he checked every box and it should have been ruled that he regained possession and a touchdown. And yes the ball can “move” when he hits the ground so long as he maintains control, the ground does not help him control the ball and the ground doesn’t cause him to lose control. No one outside of New England thinks this should not have been a touchdown.

 

[skinnydog]

The rule is the rule.

Yes and the replay officials made a rather obvious mistake in their application of the rule

 

[Ring 6]

Yes and the replay officials made a rather obvious mistake in their application of the rule

Then you don't understand the rule.

 

[Husse]

Personally, I think he came down with his knee in bounds before rolling out:


Whether he has full control of the ball at that point is another question.

 

[Ring 6]

You entire explanation makes a mockery of football. I’m comfortable having Blandino an Pereria in my corner on the interpretation. He fumbled, regained control (sorry I said possession above, know what a mistake in word usage) while still in the air, lands in the corner of the end zone at or on the pylon with the bell against his chest, he rolls over and stands up with the ball. Yeah, he checked every box and it should have been ruled that he regained possession and a touchdown. And yes the ball can “move” when he hits the ground so long as he maintains control, the ground does not help him control the ball and the ground doesn’t cause him to lose control. No one outside of New England thinks this should not have been a touchdown.

He did not regain continuous control of the ball until after he was out of bounds. The ball is moving while it is in his chest. Control includes the ball not moving around and needing to use the left hand to secure it from its movement.

 

[Ring 6]

Personally, I think he came down with his knee in bounds before rolling out:


Whether he has full control of the ball at that point is another question.

This is irrelevant because he did not "survive the ground".

 

[Ring 6]

You entire explanation makes a mockery of football. I’m comfortable having Blandino an Pereria in my corner on the interpretation. He fumbled, regained control (sorry I said possession above, know what a mistake in word usage) while still in the air, lands in the corner of the end zone at or on the pylon with the bell against his chest, he rolls over and stands up with the ball. Yeah, he checked every box and it should have been ruled that he regained possession and a touchdown. And yes the ball can “move” when he hits the ground so long as he maintains control, the ground does not help him control the ball and the ground doesn’t cause him to lose control. No one outside of New England thinks this should not have been a touchdown.

The 2 people who's job it is to make this decision say it was obvious. They are outside of New England.
Every time the "survive the ground" aspect occurs people *****. That doesn't make it wrong.

 

[yukon cornelius]

this thread is starting to remind me of clapping with one hand

 

[Husse]

This is irrelevant because he did not "survive the ground".

Sure, but there seems to be a few people basing their arguments on Sefarian-Jenkins never getting a knee/two feet in bounds after the initial fumble. That is something I disagree with.

The ball moving after that point is a separate issue, and one I agree with.

 

[Angelpats]

You entire explanation makes a mockery of football. I’m comfortable having Blandino an Pereria in my corner on the interpretation. He fumbled, regained control (sorry I said possession above, know what a mistake in word usage) while still in the air, lands in the corner of the end zone at or on the pylon with the bell against his chest, he rolls over and stands up with the ball. Yeah, he checked every box and it should have been ruled that he regained possession and a touchdown. And yes the ball can “move” when he hits the ground so long as he maintains control, the ground does not help him control the ball and the ground doesn’t cause him to lose control. No one outside of New England thinks this should not have been a touchdown.

People outside of New England also think Brady purposely deflated footballs. You should not worry about what they or the mediots think. People will believe and see what they want to see. I have seen the replays and when he lands the ball pops out of his right hand and into his left, by then he is out of bounds. The ball can move but it can't move from one hand to the other.

 

[Ring 6]

Sure, but there seems to be a few people basing their arguments on Sefarian-Jenkins never getting a knee/two feet in bounds after the initial fumble. That is something I disagree with.

The ball moving after that point is a separate issue, and one I agree with.

No. whether he got a knee or even 2 feet down is irrelevant.
Actually by calling that he didn't survive the ground the ref is saying if he had survived the ground it's possession. So yes they felt the knee was down but that is only one element and not the one he failed. Possession isn't complete until he survives the ground. In this case he EVENTUALLY survived the ground and regained possession but he completed it while being out of bounds.

 

[Husse]

No. whether he got a knee or even 2 feet down is irrelevant.
Actually by calling that he didn't survive the ground the ref is saying if he had survived the ground it's possession. So yes they felt the knee was down but that is only one element and not the one he failed. Possession isn't complete until he survives the ground. In this case he EVENTUALLY survived the ground and regained possession but he completed it while being out of bounds.

Yes, I'm not arguing against any of that. My only arguments is that he touched down a kneed in bounds after the initial fumble. I think he did, and provided a picture to argue against others that seemingly didn't think so.

Anything after that is beyond my argument...

 

[Ring 6]

Yes, I'm not arguing against any of that. My only arguments is that he touched down a kneed in bounds after the initial fumble. I think he did, and provided a picture to argue against others that seemingly didn't think so.

Anything after that is beyond my argument...

But that does not matter.
It's irrelevant to the call.
Give him the knee in bounds, it's still the same call because he had to survive the ground to complete possession. Knee down in bounds is not the end he had to maintain possession all the way to the ground.

 

[Husse]

But that does not matter.
It's irrelevant to the call.
Give him the knee in bounds, it's still the same call because he had to survive the ground to complete possession. Knee down in bounds is not the end he had to maintain possession all the way to the ground.

Again, I'm only arguing that he had a knee down in bounds first. Which means he had a chance for a TD/down at the one as opposed to having no chance because he never came down in bounds.

 

[Ross12]

...I’m comfortable having Blandino...

... said no one ever.