Dion Lewis Fumble/NOT a fumble

[BradyFTW!]

I think it was a fumble, but it was also clearly down by contact as he started the recovery. There's really no room for dispute on the latter point, which is explained pretty well here: http://www.footballzebras.com/2018/01/21/championship-liveblog-jaguars-at-patriots/

 

[bbobbo]

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.

the section that you linked to is from the 2011 rulebook. the 2017 rulebook is different, and clarifies gaining possession of a loose ball:





the important parts:

To gain possession of a loose ball...a player must have complete control of the ball...and then maintain control of the ball long enough to become a runner.

note 1 is worded slightly differently as well, and the changes are relevant:



even if one argues that lewis re-possessed the ball by pinning it to his hip, he didn't remain upright long enough to demonstrate that he was clearly a runner, therefore he had to maintain control until after his initial contact with the ground in order to establish possession. he obviously did not do that.
.

 

[luuked]

I think it could be called either way and both sides have an argument.

What certainly isn't productive is each side calling the other blind or implying they don't know anything about football because of how they interpreted an extremely close call.

I am sorry but this is ********. There is no interpretation what a fumbled is. There are clear rules about it.

As I said before, people have as much right to an opinion about what a fumble is as they do to claim the earth is flat.

It just goes to show that some posters dony even understand fundamentals about football.

 

[QuantumMechanic]

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.

Lewis doesn't have possession, so being contacted by Jack while Lewis is on the ground does not cause the play to be dead.

Jack, while on the ground, touches Lewis. That "marks" him as having been contacted. Jack gets possession of the ball while he is still on the ground. At this point Jack (a) has possession, (b) has been contacted, and (c) is on the ground. He is therefore down by contact. It's the same rule that makes a receiver down when he bumps with a defender as the ball touches his hands and then touches ground.

If Jack was on his feet at all times when Lewis was touching his body it would have remained a live ball.

 

[EddardSnow67]

I am sorry but this is ********. There is no interpretation what a fumbled is. There are clear rules about it.

As I said before, people have as much right to an opinion about what a fumble is as they do to claim the earth is flat.

It just goes to show that some posters dony even understand fundamentals about football.

Possession of the ball has been a contentious issue over the past several years, so I don't know if someone not knowing the intricacies of the rule - considering it's been fairly fluid lately - really reflects much on them beyond the fact that they jumped the gun before researching the rule itself.

 

[GoBlue]

It was a difficult call to make and only brings to question as to how the Patriot haters can say the refs favor the Patriots all day, If that was the case they might have given the ball back to them.

 

[luuked]

Possession of the ball has been a contentious issue over the past several years, so I don't know if someone not knowing the intricacies of the rule - considering it's been fairly fluid lately - really reflects much on them beyond the fact that they jumped the gun before researching the rule itself.

I understand your point on a more general level but it is fairly evident in this specific case. The fact that some people dont get that a ball doesnt have to be out for something to be a fumble alone shows that there is a giant disconnect for some with the rulebook.

 

[chasa]

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.

"If ifs and buts were candies and nuts we'd all have a merry Christmas"

Who cares what max kellerman and the rest of america think. Kellerman thought brady would fall off a cliff 5 years ago, the dude is legit mentally challenged, being concerned with what he thinks about is like being concerned with what kim kardashian thinks of Giselles fashion sense.

Stop worrying about what some asshat on tv is saying and start enjoying the ride my man.

 

[brdmaverick]

I understand your point on a more general level but it is fairly evident in this specific case. The fact that some people dont get that a ball doesnt have to be out for something to be a fumble alone shows that there is a giant disconnect for some with the rulebook.

It's football, there are a ton of rules so I won't hold it against people if they aren't masters of the rulebook. You yourself thought that 'surviving the ground' only applied to 'complete vs incomplete'. I'm certainly no master myself, but I'll certainly share what I believe to be the correct interpretation. If I'm proven to be wrong in a matter I'll ultimately be better for it. Either way what I do know is that this is a great place to discuss these issues because there are a lot of knowledgeable fans.

 

[FreeTedWilliams]

whichever way you think it was fumble or not fumble, they were correct to stick with the call on the field during the replay. There is no way you can say that the replay clearly showed it to be one way or another.

 

[NYCPatsFan]

I have a query that led to this 'fumble/non-fumble':

from my layman eyes when that play unfolded (felt like in slow motion as Lewis ran, paused and then started to go left) and after watching a couple of replays, I felt that Lewis completely missed the the Jags defender (Zack?) coming for him and hence did not appear to secure the ball closer to his body.

Anyone else think the same?

 

[archstanton543]

It was a difficult call to make and only brings to question as to how the Patriot haters can say the refs favor the Patriots all day, If that was the case they might have given the ball back to them.

It's not a tough call to make. It was a clear fumble by Lewis and recovery by Jack. There's no way the refs would have let the Pats keep the ball at the end of that play.

 

[archstanton543]

I have a query that led to this 'fumble/non-fumble':

from my layman eyes when that play unfolded (felt like in slow motion as Lewis ran, paused and then started to go left) and after watching a couple of replays, I felt that Lewis completely missed the the Jags defender (Zack?) coming for him and hence did not appear to secure the ball closer to his body.

Anyone else think the same?

Yeah, Lewis was being a bit careless with the ball because he had two or three blockers ahead of him and didn't account for the guy he ran past catching up to him.

 

[upstater1]

"If ifs and buts were candies and nuts we'd all have a merry Christmas"

Who cares what max kellerman and the rest of america think. Kellerman thought brady would fall off a cliff 5 years ago, the dude is legit mentally challenged, being concerned with what he thinks about is like being concerned with what kim kardashian thinks of Giselles fashion sense.

Stop worrying about what some asshat on tv is saying and start enjoying the ride my man.

Who said I'm worrying? I stated that if the teams were reversed, there'd be a clamor.

 

[Soliel]

Who said I'm worrying? I stated that if the teams were reversed, there'd be a clamor.

Yes they would have screamed like kiddies

 

[davidg5700]

Yeah, Lewis was being a bit careless with the ball because he had two or three blockers ahead of him and didn't account for the guy he ran past catching up to him.

I may have missed this in prior posts, but what about the blockers in front of him? It appears that Mason looks at Jacks coming towards their wedge in front of Lewis and just turns his head and continues on. Shouldn't it have been Mason's responsibility to peel off and block Jack?

 

[Bobsyouruncle]

It comes down to the refs definition of control. The ref could decide players have control with the ball pinned against their helmet or back or when moving the ball. In this case they didn't think he exercised enough control to maintain possession.

 

[chasa]

Who said I'm worrying? I stated that if the teams were reversed, there'd be a clamor.

So?

there's already a clamor. Anything the patriots do will result in a clamor. the patriots lost a fumble, and people are saying its rigged in favor of the patriots because the play was called dead during the fumble.

honestly, think about it. Something negatively happened to the patriots and people ARE STILL UPSET AT THE PATRIOTS for it.

no sense in even committing brain power to it.

 

[mosslost]

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.

I can't remember what we are disagreeing about but thank you

 

[mosslost]

Yes it is relevant

nope