Dion Lewis Fumble/NOT a fumble

[Chris Stevenson]

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:


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.
.

Yes, he did. He took at least one more step, running, with it pinned to his hip.

 

[Chris Stevenson]

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.

Did David Tyree?

 

[Soliel]

I don’t think it was a fumble but we got to live and die with the calls

 

[mosslost]

He was tackling Lewis so there is contact all throughout that play

this part does not matter if the ball was loose, the contact no longer matters (at that point) because the ball is loose.

The argument being made is that there was no contact when he grabbed the loose ball, which may be true, but it is no matter, because of a "rule" that I was unaware of.. if two players are down, and one player sort of of has the ball, but it is "fumbled", and the either player grabs it, even there is literally no contact between the two players, possesion can change, but everyone is down LMAO @ my own type up of it, but that is the rule...

 

[Chris Stevenson]

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.

Right, but was the wrong call made to begin with? I thought it was odd, Lewis was down, Jack rolled over to try to sell the refs, where they never considered the ball had truly come free before Lewis's left knee was down.

This is my point...."Anything close, call it in favor of Jax"...That's exactly what happened, because the review clearly shows Lewis's knee was down with right possession up against his leg.

I just find it offensive that 99% of the NFL fanbases are somehow claiming the Pats are helped by the refs, yet the opposite is true.

It's a cop out to have replay and see something completely different than how the play was ruled.

 

[Chris Stevenson]

I don’t think it was a fumble but we got to live and die with the calls

Correct.

 

[Chris Stevenson]

"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.

I care, because people like Kellerman, other turds like Felger/Mazz, Romo, Collinsneck, Fouts, etc, and anyone else you want to mention, lie to the NFL customer constantly, which has created this Patsnoia problem all over the country, replete with concocted witch hunts and framejobs, to boot.

I am enjoying the ride. Absolutely. It doesn't mean we can't point out liars, hypocrites or phonies, though.

 

[chasa]

I care, because people like Kellerman, other turds like Felger/Mazz, Romo, Collinsneck, Fouts, etc, and anyone else you want to mention, lie to the NFL customer constantly, which has created this Patsnoia problem all over the country, replete with concocted witch hunts and framejobs, to boot.

I am enjoying the ride. Absolutely. It doesn't mean we can't point out liars, hypocrites or phonies, though.

No, the patriots winning for almost 20 straight years did that. the same thing has happened to all teams that have prolonged success.

 

[mosslost]

something weird happened in this thread. It had like 65 Disagrees the other night and now has 8.. are people changing their minds?

 

[XLIX]

nope

You can keep living in denial, but that won't make you right.

Funny how the people who say it was a fumble have provided several references from the rulebook to prove their point. The deniers provided.... well, one quote from Peter King I guess.

 

[brdmaverick]

something weird happened in this thread. It had like 65 Disagrees the other night and now has 8.. are people changing their minds?

Well, about four of them are from me. It's not because I changed my mind. I still disagree with you, ha ha, but I figured it would be better to disagree by stating my position than to blow you up with the disagree buttons.

Still, that only accounts for like four, if it went from 65 to 8 that's pretty impressive. People must be changing their minds.

 

[Chris Stevenson]

You can keep living in denial, but that won't make you right.

Funny how the people who say it was a fumble have provided several references from the rulebook to prove their point. The deniers provided.... well, one quote from Peter King I guess.

Too bad those don't apply. If you can show me space between Lewis's hand or leg with the ball, you win.

You won't find, it though.

 

[XLIX]

Too bad those don't apply. If you can show me space between Lewis's hand or leg with the ball, you win.

You won't find, it though.

I already showed you proof it was a fumble. Anyone with youtube can go watch the replay and see proof he did not survive the ground.

 

[mosslost]

Well, about four of them are from me. It's not because I changed my mind. I still disagree with you, ha ha, but I figured it would be better to disagree by stating my position than to blow you up with the disagree buttons.

Still, that only accounts for like four, if it went from 65 to 8 that's pretty impressive. People must be changing their minds.

not me though I'm talking about the OP

 

[mosslost]

You can keep living in denial, but that won't make you right.

Funny how the people who say it was a fumble have provided several references from the rulebook to prove their point. The deniers provided.... well, one quote from Peter King I guess.

I have no idea if that was a fumble or not.. I am just saying you can't use the "survive the ground" terminology in relation to a fumble, just a catch.

 

[brdmaverick]

I have no idea if that was a fumble or not.. I am just saying you can't use the "survive the ground" terminology in relation to a fumble, just a catch.

But that's where you have an incorrect understanding. It can/does apply to runners as well. Again, look no further than the Austin Sefarian Jenkins play. The fact that he caught the ball in the play had nothing to do with the decision of fumble or not. The fumble had everything to do with what he did AS A RUNNER. The fact that he caught a pass prior to that did not matter. Surviving the ground does apply to runners as well. The only difference is that when a runner doesn't survive the ground it's a 'live ball' instead of it being incomplete.

 

[lurker1965]

"The Titans were robbed of a TD were the ref blew dead the fumble recovery."

Obviously pinning the ball to your helmet is possession, but not pinning the ball to your hip. This logic as nothing to with blind Patriots hate.

 

[Silver Blue&Red]

Didn't we just watch a player catch the ball with his *** a few weeks ago. ?
Lewis had that ball pinned to his leg.

He became a runner, he maintained the ball against his body. He was down before the ball became loose.

No fumble IMO.

Doesn't matter tho. That's what they called on the field.
Just like the calls the Jags are crying about.

 

[Triumph]

I have a question.

Did Lewis fumble?

 

[fnordcircle]

Didn't we just watch a player catch the ball with his *** a few weeks ago. ?

The ball never touched the ground and was never taken away by another player so it's really not relevant.

I did think, during the game, that there was an argument to be made that when he pinned it to his thigh he had regained possession and was then down but I really don't understand what rules for possession apply in that split second so I assumed it wouldn't be overturned.

I don't think it's reasonable to assign malevolence or presume conspiracy with regards to the ref's decision there, especially when I'm 99% sure the same ref let Chung get away with some pretty bad DPI. They were letting both teams get pretty rough with receivers, so fine, they called it fair, but if they were actively out to screw us we would have lost that game.

Either way, nice to see the thread tone change to reasonable disagreement.