Dion Lewis Fumble/NOT a fumble

[XLIX]

That's a tautological definition. It just says a loss possession (fumble) is defined as anything that results in a loss of possession.

I don't have side here but if that's the NFL's definition than it clears nothing up.

I misread his post. That was my bad and I have edited it.

 

[A Defiant Goose]

That’s what wrong with some posters here. They think they know everything and is never wrong. If you disagree with them they get all defensive and condescending. It’s sad if that how they are in real life. I thought it was a fumble but I also thought he gained possession before the defender took it. But it really didn’t matter because we stopped them and then went on to win the game. Someone can prove their point and try to persuade another opinion but degrading someone isn’t going to help your cause.

Hey if you're stupid you're stupid it is what it is

 

[SomePatsFan13]

I’m trying to figure out why the hell OP got that many disagrees when he was correct

 

[RobertWeathers]

Neither knee was down and the ball is no longer in his grasp. He never had it back in his grasp before it was ripped away. Take a screenshot shot and repost.

 

[RobertWeathers]

I’m trying to figure out why the hell OP got that many disagrees when he was correct

Because he is incorrect

 

[fnordcircle]

I honestly don't know what happened to where what should be a civil debate has turned into name-calling and accusations at any who dare disagree.

*notices OP* Oh wait, now I know what happened.

 

[The Brandon Five]

Umm, learn the rules. It was 100% not a fumble because Jack didn't get it until after Lewis's left knee was down. This is not disputable or you are new to football.

His possession ended up being the ball trapped up against his leg. That's still possession. Doesn't matter how the possession looks in his arm, against his head, against his chest, leg, etc.

Someone ought to look into that helmet catch ten years ago.

 

[IcyPatriot]

http://static.nfl.com/static/content/public/image/rulebook/pdfs/6_Rule3_Definitions.pdf


PLAYER POSSESSION
Article 7

A player is in possession when he is in firm grip and control of the ball inbounds (See 3-2-3). To gain possession of a loose ball (3-2-3) 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 maintain control of the ball long enough to perform any act common to the game. If the player loses the ball while simultaneously touching both feet or any other part of his body to the ground or if there is any doubt that the acts were simultaneous, there is no possession.

This rule applies in the field of play and in the end zone. The terms catch, intercept, recover, advance, and fumble denote player possession (as distinguished from touching or muffing).

Note 1: A player who goes to the ground in the process of attempting to secure possession of a loose ball (with or without contact by an opponent) must maintain control of the ball throughout the process of contacting 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, there is no possession. If he regains control prior to the ball touching the ground, it is a catch, interception, or recovery.

Note 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 throughout the process of contacting
the ground, or there is no possession.

Note 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.

 

[RobertWeathers]

http://static.nfl.com/static/content/public/image/rulebook/pdfs/6_Rule3_Definitions.pdf


PLAYER POSSESSION
Article 7
A player is in possession when he is in firm grip and control of the ball inbounds (See 3-2-3). To gain possession of a loose ball (3-2-3) 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 maintain control of the ball long enough to perform any act common to the game. If the player loses the ball while simultaneously touching both feet or any other part of his body to the ground or if there is any doubt that the acts were simultaneous, there is no possession.

This rule applies in the field of play and in the end zone. The terms catch, intercept, recover, advance, and fumble denote player possession (as distinguished from touching or muffing).

Note 1: A player who goes to the ground in the process of attempting to secure possession of a loose ball (with or without contact by an opponent) must maintain control of the ball throughout the process of contacting 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, there is no possession. If he regains control prior to the ball touching the ground, it is a catch, interception, or recovery.

Note 2: If a player goes to the ground out-of-bounds
(with or without contact by an opponent) in the proc
ess of
attempting to secure possession of a loose ball at t
he sideline, he must
maintain
complete and continuous
control of the ball throughout the
process
of
contacting
the ground, or there is no possession.
Note 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.

"Note 3 " makes it seem clear.

 

[brdmaverick]

'surviving the ground' can apply to runners, see the famous ASJ play from the Jets game

I'm SHOCKED people disagree with this. There was literally at least a whole week on this board and talk radio in which this was shoved down everyone's throats.

 

[brdmaverick]

"Note 3 " makes it seem clear.

That interpretation is difference maker here, and that's why even now after pages of dispute I'm still up in the air over whether it was a fumble.

It all boils down to whether or not you feel he lost possession in the first place. If he never lost possession then the 'surviving the ground' never comes into play.

 

[brdmaverick]

not relevant on a run play

of course it is

 

[RobertWeathers]

That interpretation is difference maker here, and that's why even now after pages of dispute I'm still up in the air over whether it was a fumble.

It all boils down to whether or not you feel he lost possession in the first place. If he never lost possession then the 'surviving the ground' never comes into play.

In my opinion, he lost his grasp of the ball before his knee was down.

I understand other views but it just seems decisive to me.

 

[fnordcircle]

That interpretation is difference maker here, and that's why even now after pages of dispute I'm still up in the air over whether it was a fumble.

I don't agree with comments that he regained possession by pinning it to his leg, but I can see the logic in them.

That people don't think he lost control of the ball in the first place is blowing my freaking mind.

 

[brdmaverick]

people are getting this all confused. Surviving the ground does not matter on a run play, because the Ground cannot cause a fumble (unless you just fall on your own I "think")

Your statement about 'the ground can't cause a fumble' is true but with a slight asterisk.

If a player going to the ground while trying to recover the ball loses control when he hits the ground then that player will be ruled to have NOT recovered the ball. Now in the case of Dion Lewis the ground therefore would have 'caused the fumble' but the official wording would not say that it. THe official story will be that the ground caused him to NOT recover his fumble, and thus the original statement of 'the ground can't cause a fumble' would still hold true.

So to phrase it differently.....A ground can't cause a fumble (unless no contact) but the ground can someone to NOT recover a fumble.

 

[brdmaverick]

yes. That is the point. The whole thing about "surviving the ground" is entirely about what a catch is and isn't. As soon as anyone is a runner with possession of the ball that terminology would never apply.

This is wrong. Think about the ASJ play again. WHat was the outcome? A fumble

It wasn't complete vs incomplete. IT was about what happened when he was a RUNNER. No one ever disputed incomplete. The fact that he caught the ball prior to his endzone fumble had NOTHING to do with the call. The same outcome would have happened if a jet sweep got him to the 1 yard line when Butler stripped him.

TO suggest otherwise is just wrong.

 

[chasa]

in slow mo, its not a fumble.

at full speed, its a fumble.

Ultimately it had no impact on the game as the jag was down by contact and that is not reviewable, and the jags did nothing with the fumble.

not really worth discussing any further,.

 

[brdmaverick]

not relevant on a run play

I took back my multiple 'disagrees'. Even though I still disagree, I didn't want to be 'that guy' that rains the 'disagree' button.

Again, while you still haven't swayed me to your side of the argument I can appreciate your passion and appreciate your counter arguments that you are presenting.

This really is a fascinating topic because I'm still not sure. We actually may agree on the outcome but for very different reasons. Either way, you gotta love the debate sparked by this play.

 

[upstater1]

I compare it to the Austin Seferian Jenkins play.

Player loses possession, and he needs to reestablish it. The refs ruled he didn't, and on instant replay, you can make an argument either way.... but I'd stick with fumble.

Two points:

1. Seferian Jenkins only established possession after his shoulder hit out of bounds, which made that the correct ruling.
2. If the shoe were on the other foot and that was Fournette who fumbled in that manner, Max Kellerman and all of America would be screaming right now that he had possession.

 

[IcyPatriot]

Myles Jack could not advance the ball because the ref blew the whistle when Lewis knee hit the ground.

If the play was dead the instant the whistle was blown - while Lewis held it against his leg ... how could possession change?

This is the part of the play that intrigues me the most.