Idle thoughts - the "3rd and 18" edition

[Sfpat]

The ball was clearly pinned against his hip and it stayed against his hip unmoved after Lewis hit the ground. It was ONLY after Jack grabbed it and pulled it out that he lost control. But he was already on the ground and down by that time.

FWIW, Peter King in today's MMQB agrees that it should not have been a fumble.

 

[sambam94]

I think that is a small contention that will be blown out of proportion. Think about it this way. You are ahead 14-10 and will get the ball to open the half. You just had a quick TD scored on you and you have a QB who has been known to give it away. Plus you are moving the ball and while still protecting that QB. Why take a risk and perhaps lose the ball, or give it back to the Pats will 30 odd seconds left.

While I see your point, I can see why Maronne chose to sit on it to close out the half.

how about a screen to see if it gains decent yardage..then go for it. Kneeling is inexcusable

 

[jimnance]

Ken, great as always.
One correction, the numbskull announcer is Jim "Nantz".
As I know you know, Jim " Nance" is the greatest rb in Patriots history.

 

[Palm Beach Pats Fan]

ASJ lost possession before hitting the ground and regained it after he was out of bounds.

Correct.

Corrente says that ASJ fumbled, meaning that he was a runner, having previously completed the process of the catch. Further, he explains that ASJ was neither down by contact nor in possession of the ball when it crossed the goal line. He grasped the ball while falling to the turf, but during a fumble recovery anywhere on the field made while falling to the turf, you have to survive the ground. He did not, so he did not regain possession. No TD.

At that point, it was still a live ball. It then went out of bounds before he or anyone else gained possession, hence it was a touchback.

That's the only way I see Corrente's detailed explanation making any sense at all. Both factors are relevant: surviving the ground and if that does not happen, someone, anyone, gaining possession while in-bounds.

 

[Sfpat]

So the media's *****ing about the pats getting the calls today. They where the right calls. The one you can make an argument about was the one before the half with the brandin cooks PI. That's the only one.

I see that differently as a blatant PI (if that wasn't dpi, what is?) as the db held Cooks and shoved him out of bounds.

 

[PatsDeb]

He wasn’t down by contact. I am not familiar with any rule that said you have to survive the ground or it’s a fumble. Once you are down by contact the ball is dead.

Plus I thought the "survive the ground" only applies to whether a receiver has possession right after a reception. Lewis was about 10 yards downfield from his reception at that point. Isn't he considered a runner then? It's so confusing.

 

[long distance]

 

[PatsDeb]

I think that is a small contention that will be blown out of proportion. Think about it this way. You are ahead 14-10 and will get the ball to open the half. You just had a quick TD scored on you and you have a QB who has been known to give it away. Plus you are moving the ball and while still protecting that QB. Why take a risk and perhaps lose the ball, or give it back to the Pats will 30 odd seconds left.

While I see your point, I can see why Maronne chose to sit on it to close out the half.

They had the defense on their heels at that point though. Fournette was literally taking aim at the center of our line and running right through it (they fixed that in the 2nd half, thank goodness). They could have tried a couple of runs or those maddening RB dump passes with so much time on the clock and the two TOs to manage the clock, and at least get into FG range. I thought it was dumb not to do so, to go for those back-to-back scores the Pats look to crush people with. I'm glad they turtled there.

 

[SacPete1]

Plus I thought the "survive the ground" only applies to whether a receiver has possession right after a reception. Lewis was about 10 yards downfield from his reception at that point. Isn't he considered a runner then? It's so confusing.

It really is confusing and we have a lot of knowledgeable fans on this board and we have different interpretations or understandings of it.

 

[PatsDeb]

I thought the fumble was called correctly even though it pissed me off

Me too.

 

[QuantumMechanic]

The problem wasn't that ASJ did not regain possession of the ball, the problem was that he was out of bounds when he regained possession. He fumbled right before crossing the goal line and then regained possession in the air and out of bounds.

And the reason he regained possession OOB is because he didn't survive the ground. His knee hit in bounds. If he had survived the ground at that point it would have been a TD. But because he didn't, and didn't regain possession until OOB in the EZ, it was a touchback.

Likewise, the defender had a valid fumble recovery because Lewis lost the ball, creating a loose ball, was trying to re-control it but didn't survive the ground (because the defender stole it from him before he could get the necessary control over it), therefore the ball was still considered a loose ball, therefore Lewis was not down by contact, therefore a fumble recovery.

 

[Palm Beach Pats Fan]

regarding Amendola's comments...

Every critical play leading to a win for the Patriots, on offense or defense, always seems to boil down to executing something that they have already practiced, often many many times.

So while there are Meadowlands Miracles, Music City Miracles, Minnesota Miracles, and immaculate receptions, there doesn't seem ever to be any Foxboro miracles.

Rather there is preparation, meeting opportunity, meeting execution

 

[Ring 6]

Correct.

Corrente says that ASJ fumbled, meaning that he was a runner, having previously completed the process of the catch. Further, he explains that ASJ was neither down by contact nor in possession of the ball when it crossed the goal line. He grasped the ball while falling to the turf, but during a fumble recovery anywhere on the field made while falling to the turf, you have to survive the ground. He did not, so he did not regain possession. No TD.

At that point, it was still a live ball. It then went out of bounds before he gained possession, hence it was a touchback.

That's the only way I see Corrente's detailed explanation making any sense at all. Both factors are relevant: surviving the ground and if that does not happen, someone, anyone, gaining possession while in-bounds.

But surviving the ground just isn’t relevant and I don’t know why he even references it.
He lost the ball while upright and was out of bounds when he recovered it. Whether he survived the ground or not he was out of bounds. Technically once you establish yourself as out of bounds and make contact with the football the ball is deemed out of bounds and dead (remember the David patten unconscious play in buffalo and the guy who laid down out of bounds and touched a kick off?) so I don’t see how surviving the ground applies to the ASJ play.

 

[DaBruinz]

only 9 pressures, only 2 in the 2nd half

Yeah.. I'm not buying that stat.

The official line has the Pats with 39 pass attempts, 16 run attempts and 3 kneel downs. The Patriots ran 29 offensive plays in the 1st half and 31 offensive plays in the 2nd half, not including the 3 kneel downs or the penalties. So, I have no earthly idea where the 42/22 that @UptownPatsFan posted came from.

And I have no idea what ProFootballFocus was watching because Brady was hit more than twice and pressured more than twice.
Patriots-Jaguars Takeaways: Defensive Game Plan Took Time To Succeed

 

[QuantumMechanic]

Plus I thought the "survive the ground" only applies to whether a receiver has possession right after a reception. Lewis was about 10 yards downfield from his reception at that point. Isn't he considered a runner then? It's so confusing.

It applies to any "loose ball". In the part of the rules that talks about this, a "loose ball" includes an incoming pass or a fumbled ball (with the key difference that a loose ball that is an incoming pass is dead once it hits the ground not in possession while a loose ball that is a fumble remains live even after it hits the ground). You can find all sorts of rulebook quotes, etc. back in the archives when we were all discussing the ASJ play in that Jets game.

You could take a handoff on your own 1 and run 98 yards and fumble it and the "survive the ground" rule applies.

Remember, in the ASJ case he was not a receiver when that all happened. He caught the ball, took several strides (thus becoming a runner) and then fumbled while reaching for the goalline.

 

[Ring 6]

And the reason he regained possession OOB is because he didn't survive the ground. His knee hit in bounds. If he had survived the ground at that point it would have been a TD. But because he didn't, and didn't regain possession until OOB in the EZ, it was a touchback.

He didn’t have possession when the knee hit the ground.

Likewise, the defender had a valid fumble recovery because Lewis lost the ball, creating a loose ball, was trying to re-control it but didn't survive the ground (because the defender stole it from him before he could get the necessary control over it), therefore the ball was still considered a loose ball, therefore Lewis was not down by contact, therefore a fumble recovery.

Once Lewis has possession and is down by contact the play is over. Your interpretation says anyone being tackled and fumbling as they hit the ground would be a fumble, doesn’t it?

 

[DaBruinz]

And the reason he regained possession OOB is because he didn't survive the ground. His knee hit in bounds. If he had survived the ground at that point it would have been a TD. But because he didn't, and didn't regain possession until OOB in the EZ, it was a touchback.

Likewise, the defender had a valid fumble recovery because Lewis lost the ball, creating a loose ball, was trying to re-control it but didn't survive the ground (because the defender stole it from him before he could get the necessary control over it), therefore the ball was still considered a loose ball, therefore Lewis was not down by contact, therefore a fumble recovery.

The ball never moved on Lewis' hip after Lewis hit the ground until Jack grabbed it.. Claiming that he "didn't survive the ground" when the ball never moved after he hit the ground is just baloney..

 

[Ring 6]

It applies to any "loose ball". In the part of the rules that talks about this, a "loose ball" includes an incoming pass or a fumbled ball (with the key difference that a loose ball that is an incoming pass is dead once it hits the ground not in possession while a loose ball that is a fumble remains live even after it hits the ground). You can find all sorts of rulebook quotes, etc. back in the archives when we were all discussing the ASJ play in that Jets game.

You could take a handoff on your own 1 and run 98 yards and fumble it and the "survive the ground" rule applies.

Remember, in the ASJ case he was not a receiver when that all happened. He caught the ball, took several strides (thus becoming a runner) and then fumbled while reaching for the goalline.

So we are saying Lewis is gathering in a loose ball and after he has possession and is down by contact the ball can be ripped out and he didn’t survive the ground?

 

[Ring 6]

Plus I thought the "survive the ground" only applies to whether a receiver has possession right after a reception. Lewis was about 10 yards downfield from his reception at that point. Isn't he considered a runner then? It's so confusing.

I think the issue is when the ball comes out he is not a runner but a fumble recoverer.
I don’t believe survive the ground applies to recovering a fumble because I believe control and down by contact constitutes possession and a dead ball. I’m not certain though.

 

[SacPete1]

So we are saying Lewis is gathering in a loose ball and after he has possession and is down by contact the ball can be ripped out and he didn’t survive the ground?

Andy, I agree with you that Lewis is gathering a loose ball. But this also means that a loss of possession has occurred. Lewis then traps the ball against his thigh and he is heading the ground. I don't think there is any debating this. But possession in this instance isn't verified by Lewis securing the ball to his side. He must maintain it as hits the ground. The knee being down is irrelevant because re-possession has not occurred. This is surviving the ground. He didn't so its a fumble.