The ASJ Fumble

[JoeSixPat]

I agree with most of what you wrote, but there is a clarification worth making re: the bolded portion and what came after, as by rule there's actually clear proof that he never re-established possession after the fumble. The rulebook states pretty clearly that, much like securing a catch, securing possession of a fumble is a lot more involved than just grabbing the ball. You have to maintain possession to the point that you become a runner, a point on which Rule 3-7-2 of the NFL Rule Book is very clear:

Item 2. Possession of Loose Ball. To gain possession of a loose ball that has been caught, intercepted, or recovered, a player must have complete control of the ball and have both feet or any other part of his body, other than his hands, completely on the ground inbounds, and then maintain control of the ball long enough to become a runner. A player has the ball long enough to clearly become a runner when, after his second foot is on the ground, he is capable of avoiding or warding off impending contact of an opponent, tucking the ball away, turning up field, or taking additional steps. If the player loses the ball while simultaneously touching both feet or any other part of his body to the ground, there is no possession. This rule applies in the field of play and in the end zone.
​

By rule, ASJ clearly did not have the ball long enough to become a runner: he was going to the ground when he fumbled it, and therefore to regain possession he would have had to control it through to the ground in bounds, but it's irrelevant because he did not secure the ball through the fall: it came out once again when he hit the ground. Much like a receiver who gets a knee down in bounds is not awarded the catch if he drops the ball as he goes to the ground, ASJ never had possession of the football after the fumble.

Bottom line: the people who are arguing that it was a touchdown do not understand how the possession rules work. The people who are arguing that it should not have been overturned on replay do not understand how the replay rules work. A whole lot of people don't understand either of the two, and that's why we have a ton of controversy now surrounding a ruling that the league office has doubled down and said was not only correct, but was actually quite obvious. It was absolutely, 100% the correct application of a really stupid rule that as a Pats fan I freely concede should not exist. We absolutely got a gift yesterday, but it was in the form of a colossally stupid rule, not a blown call or unreasonable overturn.

Right - I'm over-simplifying I know, but the reason why TDs are reviewed is to determine if he had posession in the first place.

The official on the field ruled he did - the replay showed he didn't

Thus - TD overturned

Now - if the video evidence showed he REGAINED control then obviously it would have been a TD

There was no evidence that showed this. TD overturned and ruled a touchback

 

[archstanton543]

No. That is simply not correct, it's objectively not what the rule book says. I dunno why you keep repeating it, maybe it's a reading comprehension issue, but the rule book is very clear on this point. The exact text of the rule has already been given to you multiple times in this thread, so either you somehow lack the ability to read it or you've just decided to lie even after being corrected by the one and only definitive source on this topic.

This whole "his knee was down and hit the pylon" argument is driving me nuts. And people are still espousing it like the refs missed it (including Mr. Balstieri on his podcast [who I like]) when "knee down, pylon hit = TD" isn't part the play once the ball is fumbled as per the rule book.

 

[BradyFTW!]

This whole "his knee was down and hit the pylon" argument is driving me nuts. And people are still espousing it like the refs missed it (including Mr. Basltieri on his podcast [who I like]) when "knee down, pylon hit = TD" isn't part the play once the ball is fumbled as per the rule book.

People feel like that's what the rule should be and therefore in their minds that's what the rule is. When their feelings conflict with the facts of the matter, they choose to ignore the facts and pretend their feelings are facts instead.

 

[Digit]

The problem with the rules is considering a juggle like that a fumble, requiring some need to re-establish possession by taking a step or whatever. What is the point of that? None that I can see. He re-secured control instantly under his left arm. So long as it doesn't hit the ground or be taken away by a defender, how is that a fumble from a possession standpoint? The juggle is a complete non-event. To my knowledge, those do not count in the game stats as fumbles. If Butler managed to grab it in that instant, yes that turnover would be classified as a fumble, which is the case even it he had it tucked tight, but Butler didn't grab it. Also it never touched the ground, and he hit the pylon with it firmly in his control. That should be end of play, TD, regardless of what happens out of bounds afterwards.

Your mistake, and what a lot of people are missing, is that a loose ball isn't -necessarily- a fumble. It's a loose ball. Whether it's called a fumble or not depends on how the loose ball ends up... if he resecures the loose ball, it's not a fumble. If he DOESN'T resecure the loose ball, it becomes a fumble.

At that point, since it's a loose ball when he's crossing the TD line, it's not a touchdown because he has yet to establish control, but it's not a fumble yet because they -still- have to play through the rest of that sequence. At that point, either he needs to re-secure the ball to call it a touchdown -while- in bounds, or it's a touchback.

That the ball went from his left arm to his right arm WHILE going to the pylon should have been obvious that it was never 're-secured under his left arm'. And because it's out of bounds in the end zone when he finally secures it, -that-'s when it's ruled a fumble and a touchback by the refs.

Basically, Butler caused the loose ball. And at that point, the 'show control to the ground' applies. Because it's out of bound in the end zone by the time there's any potential potential 'securing', by rule, it's a touchback. And because it's a touchback, it's considered 'a fumble'.

 

[Ring 6]

If they'd seen the knee down as he hits the pylon with the ball secured, that would have re-established possession, thus a td

No. they saw the knee down.
He did not "survive the ground" meaning you do not regain possession when you recover on your way down until you land and continue to have control. He didn't because the ball was moving around after the knee hit and when he finally gained control he was out of bounds and a player out of bounds cannot gain possession.
The knee is irrelevant and the pylon is irrelevant unless he maintained control and "survived the ground".

 

[QuantumMechanic]

As someone in this thread previously pointed out, the exact same rule covers this as covers catches. In fact, the rule isn't even (directly) about catches -- it is about loose balls. And then says that a catch, an INT, a fumble, etc. are all loose balls covered under the rule. And that's the rule that contains the "act common to the game" (or whatever the wording is this year), "going to the ground", etc. stuff we normally associate with catches. But it's way more general than that.

 

[QuantumMechanic]

By the way, the official NFL 2017 rulebook can be found here:
2017 NFL Rulebook | NFL Football Operations
and here
https://operations.nfl.com/media/2646/2017-playing-rules.pdf

Those are the real things and not the crappy "Digest of Rules" thing that used to be the only thing the NFL made available for free.

Sadly, neither of those contains the casebook addendum.

But I did find the 2017 rulebook + casebook elsewhere in NFL land:
https://nflcommunications.com/Documents/2017 Offseason/2017 Rulebook.pdf - Adobe Acrobat.pdf

 

[QuantumMechanic]

Actually that sharepoint site has open-to-public read-only access and has bunches of interesting things (nothing secret -- as you might guess by the website name, it's all various press releases, announcements, etc. from the NFL).

Documents - All Documents

 

[convertedpatsfan]

Your mistake, and what a lot of people are missing, is that a loose ball isn't -necessarily- a fumble. It's a loose ball. Whether it's called a fumble or not depends on how the loose ball ends up... if he resecures the loose ball, it's not a fumble. If he DOESN'T resecure the loose ball, it becomes a fumble.

At that point, since it's a loose ball when he's crossing the TD line, it's not a touchdown because he has yet to establish control, but it's not a fumble yet because they -still- have to play through the rest of that sequence. At that point, either he needs to re-secure the ball to call it a touchdown -while- in bounds, or it's a touchback.

That the ball went from his left arm to his right arm WHILE going to the pylon should have been obvious that it was never 're-secured under his left arm'. And because it's out of bounds in the end zone when he finally secures it, -that-'s when it's ruled a fumble and a touchback by the refs.

Basically, Butler caused the loose ball. And at that point, the 'show control to the ground' applies. Because it's out of bound in the end zone by the time there's any potential potential 'securing', by rule, it's a touchback. And because it's a touchback, it's considered 'a fumble'.

I agree with the spirit of what you're saying, but technically, you're wrong. Butler caused a fumble.

Here is the NFL's definition of those terms:

Fumble: The loss of possession of the ball.

Loose Ball: A live ball not in possession of any player.

The loose ball is, not surprisingly, about the state of the ball. The actual act by the player of losing the ball is called a fumble.

But otherwise, yes, agree with the spirit of what you're saying.

He regained control, but evidently the ball moved too much when he hit the ground after regaining control for it to be considered possession. So you can argue that the rule is ok, but not applied properly in that it should have been ruled that there was sufficient control when hitting the ground after regaining control while in mid air ton constitute possession and therefore a TD.

The rules were absolutely applied correctly. You're just missing one key component: the sideline.

Because he's also going out of bounds too, he must exhibit control all the way through the catch when he lands.

If this happens in the middle of the field, he loses control, he regains control, gets his knee down, rolls, loses control but ends up with the ball in his arms secured, it's a touchdown.

But when you factor in the sideline, it changes. He must have control throughout the entire catch. So the second he bobbles it AND he's going out of bounds, it's no longer possession.

Basically, he has to have full control throughout the process because he's going out of bounds. The split-second he doesn't show control, he's deemed out of bounds. And when he's deemed out of bounds, it's beyond the pylon, into the end zone, hence the touchback.

This isn't about combining parts of 2 or 3 rules. This is 3 different rules applied at the exact same time: regaining possession, possession along the sideline, and contact going to the ground. He must satisfy all the conditions related to all 3 rules. If he misses one (and he does), it's a touchback.

So instead of pointing out how he did this or that or whatever, you need to see if he checks EVERY.SINGLE.BOX. He does not. And continuing to point at one or two things he did is totally irrelevant if he doesn't check EVERY.SINGLE.BOX. 50%, 75%, 90% don't count. He has to get 100% of those things done or it's a touchback. So pointing to his knee or pointing to how he has the ball at the end doesn't really prove anything.

You have to show every single part of every single rule applicable is satisfied. If he gets all but one, you're still wrong.

 

[PatriotsReign]

The most irritating phrase in the English language "That's not fair".

Life itself isn’t fair and that’s a good thing

 

[PatsFanSince74]

I originally thought it was a bad call...and it took me a while to wrap my head around it...but this is why I changed my mind:

The rule doesn't distinguish between a fumbled football that is out of the player's grasp an inch or two from his body (which the replay clearly shows happened) and a fumbled ball that pops five feet into the air before either the player regains control or someone else recovers the ball.

Once you look at it that way, there's no doubt that the Replay official got it right and the former Officials, who are paid as analysts, got it wrong.

It's a rule that would be very difficult to change, because it would have to come down to determining something like "how many inches away from the players hands" the ball would have to be in order to be considered a fumble. In this case there was clearly an inch or two of daylight between the entire ball and the player's hands.

 

[PatriotsReign]

Not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying that people are arguing the call was wrong to the point that they're getting personal ("you're making a mockery of football", "you should seek counseling") over something that was a very positive occurrence for the team.

I 100% agree that the call was correct. I'm just trying to sort out why the argument continues the way that it does and is so heated.

Some people have natural guilt complexes. If some guy gets beat up for robbing a store, their natural tendency is to feel bad for the robber.

Not me...I like when robbers get beat up.

 

[QuantumMechanic]

In the rules, "fumble" is a verb, not a noun. A "fumble" is something a player does. A "loose ball" is the result of a "fumble". And yes, ASJ absolutely fumbled since there was a loss of player possession (presumably by now we've all seen the picture with the ball in the air and zero hands on it).

From Rule 3 Section 2 of the 2017 NFL Rulebook:

ARTICLE 4. LOOSE BALL. A Loose Ball is a live ball that is not in player possession, i.e., any ball that has been kicked, passed, or fumbled. A Loose Ball is considered to be in possession of the team (offense) whose player kicked, passed, or fumbled it. It is a Loose Ball until a player secures possession or until the ball becomes dead. If it has not yet struck the ground, a Loose Ball is In Flight.

ARTICLE 5. FUMBLE. A Fumble is any act, other than passing, handing, or legally kicking the ball, which results in a loss of player possession. The use of the term Fumble always means that the ball was in possession of a player when the act occurred

 

[p8ryts]

It was a bad call.

Maybe this is the update of the tuck rule that will spur the team to another 20 years of domination

 

[A Defiant Goose]

Your mistake, and what a lot of people are missing, is that a loose ball isn't -necessarily- a fumble. It's a loose ball.

Citation needed. A loose ball after gaining possession is literally a fumble. Regaining control just means you recovered your own fumble. It might not show up on the stat sheet because it's so trivial a thing to keep track of but if it affects the play it goes down as a fumble

 

[K. Dog]

When Edelman dropped the ball during the Catch was that a fumble? I.e. when the ball was airborne? If it was a fumble was his catch a fumble recovery? Was the catch legal only because he wasn’t touching the ground when he double clutched?

 

[Tony2046]

When Edelman dropped the ball during the Catch was that a fumble? I.e. when the ball was airborne? If it was a fumble was his catch a fumble recovery? Was the catch legal only because he wasn’t touching the ground when he double clutched?

It has to be ruled a catch before they could rule it a fumble. So in Edelman's case he was still in the process of completing the catch so that would not have been a fumble rather an incomplete pass if it had touched the ground.

 

[Digit]

Citation needed. A loose ball after gaining possession is literally a fumble. Regaining control just means you recovered your own fumble. It might not show up on the stat sheet because it's so trivial a thing to keep track of but if it affects the play it goes down as a fumble

I think the main point was why the guy I was pointing this out to kept whining about how plays like that doesn't always get called a fumble and therefore it's not a fumble.

Yes, that's why it doesn't show up on the stat sheet as a fumble because it's trivial, but the main point was pointing out why it never gets registered as a fumble. Because the guy basically re-establish control quickly so it never really gets registered as a fumble. But it's a damn loose ball, that's for sure and at that point, it's a matter of whether it ends up a fumble or not, and I definitely do agree with you about it being a fumble, but when some guy keeps harping on a loose ball like that being NOT a fumble, the main thing I'd point out first is that it was -loose-. If he recovers it, it ends up being either not a fumble (a bobble) or a self-fumble recovery, but arguing it's not a fumble and therefore is 'still under control' is missing the point that it's a loose ball. That's what 40yearspats fan kept referencing, 'that it's not a fumble'.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

In the rules, "fumble" is a verb, not a noun. A "fumble" is something a player does. A "loose ball" is the result of a "fumble". And yes, ASJ absolutely fumbled since there was a loss of player possession (presumably by now we've all seen the picture with the ball in the air and zero hands on it).

From Rule 3 Section 2 of the 2017 NFL Rulebook:

ARTICLE 4. LOOSE BALL. A Loose Ball is a live ball that is not in player possession, i.e., any ball that has been kicked, passed, or fumbled. A Loose Ball is considered to be in possession of the team (offense) whose player kicked, passed, or fumbled it. It is a Loose Ball until a player secures possession or until the ball becomes dead. If it has not yet struck the ground, a Loose Ball is In Flight.

ARTICLE 5. FUMBLE. A Fumble is any act, other than passing, handing, or legally kicking the ball, which results in a loss of player possession. The use of the term Fumble always means that the ball was in possession of a player when the act occurred

Exactly:
https://operations.nfl.com/media/2646/2017-playing-rules.pdf

If you go to Article 7. Item 3. Note (2) of the same section, we read:

(2) If a player goes to the ground out of bounds (with or without contact by an opponent) in the process of attempting to
secure possession of a loose ball at the sideline, he must maintain complete and continuous control of the ball until
after his initial contact with the ground, or there is no possession.

Given where ASJ was on the field, the ruling of a touchback is clearly correct.

To be thorough, Note (3) in the same item reads:

(3) 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.

So, the only possible debate could be whether the fact that the ball was completely out of contact with the runner's hands and body (as infinite replays definitely show to be the case) could be interpreted as "a slight movement of the ball." My amateur read and the read of the Replay officials was that he did lose control of the ball, which was completely out of contact with his hands and body, and was therefore re-establishing control in this case.

I guess what Blandino et al would have to be arguing is that what happened was actually"a slight movement of the ball" and not a loss of control.

 

[A Defiant Goose]

I think the main point was why the guy I was pointing this out to kept whining about how plays like that doesn't always get called a fumble and therefore it's not a fumble.

Yes, that's why it doesn't show up on the stat sheet as a fumble because it's trivial, but the main point was pointing out why it never gets registered as a fumble. Because the guy basically re-establish control quickly so it never really gets registered as a fumble. But it's a damn loose ball, that's for sure and at that point, it's a matter of whether it ends up a fumble or not, and I definitely do agree with you about it being a fumble, but when some guy keeps harping on a loose ball like that being NOT a fumble, the main thing I'd point out first is that it was -loose-. If he recovers it, it ends up being either not a fumble (a bobble) or a self-fumble recovery, but arguing it's not a fumble and therefore is 'still under control' is missing the point that it's a loose ball. That's what 40yearspats fan kept referencing, 'that it's not a fumble'.

Ok. So Goose jumped into a random part of a conversation without context and went with it from there. So classic Goose