2 things lost in this faux controversy

[40yrpatsfan]

*sigh*

It doesn't matter that he hit the pylon. When you fumble into the endzone like he did you have to maintain possession of the ball all the way through t0 ground (not to mention land inbounds). He did not. Again, I refer you to page 9 of this thread:

The ASJ Fumble

The pylon only matters in the sense that it establishes he scored, not out at the 2" line. My point is where was the fumble? there was no fumble. Ball never hit the ground, therefore he never lost possession. No different than if he tossed it to himself from hand to hand as he crossed the GL. Are you saying that because Butler touched it, that makes it a fumble?

 

[Betterthanmost]

The pylon only matters in the sense that it establishes he scored, not out at the 2" line. My point is where was the fumble? there was no fumble. Ball never hit the ground, therefore he never lost possession. No different than if he tossed it to himself from hand to hand as he crossed the GL. Are you saying that because Butler touched it, that makes it a fumble?

Why are you going on and on about the ball touching the ground? That is not the definition of a fumble. This is the reason you don't understand what happened, and why majority of America don't understand the minutia of the game and thus the pitch forks and torches.
You cross the goal line into the end zone which is part of the field of play. If you toss if to yourself and catches the ball out of bounds in the end zone, it is a touchback.
The pylon is only in play if he had re-established himself as a runner in the field of play prior to touching it. He was the air when he secured the ball again and never got the chance to established himself inbounds.

 

[SlowGettingUp]

It moved through the air from 1 hand to the other, never hit the ground.

That means he no longer had possession - in other words it was a fumble. That is not disputed - there is a picture of the ball mid-air without any hands on it.

What is in dispute is whether he then regained control and came down inbounds and maintained control as he went to the ground. Have to think of it as a new catch.

 

[archstanton543]

Didn't he even put his hands on the referee while arguing it?

.

The ref stumbles and Butler made contact with him but it was incidental.

 

[Kargetina]

Malcolm is a Patriot personified.

Not the most gifted, not the most acclaimed but he always gives his all for the team, takes responsibility when he doesn't play to his standard and most importantly, always comes back stronger.

He got beat for the second TD and he came back with the INT and then with the fumble. Completely changed the momentum with both plays.

Belichick was very proud at the press conference when a reporter told him that Butler said after the game that he knew the rule and that's why he was protesting.

 

[bormio]

Malcolm is a Patriot personified.

Not the most gifted, not the most acclaimed but he always gives his all for the team, takes responsibility when he doesn't play to his standard and most importantly, always comes back stronger.

He got beat for the second TD and he came back with the INT and then with the fumble. Completely changed the momentum with both plays.

Belichick was very proud at the press conference when a reporter told him that Butler said after the game that he knew the rule and that's why he was protesting.

Proud enough to give $12 mil per year?

 

[Deus Irae]

*sigh*

It doesn't matter that he hit the pylon. When you fumble into the endzone like he did you have to maintain possession of the ball all the way through t0 ground (not to mention land inbounds). He did not. Again, I refer you to page 9 of this thread:

The ASJ Fumble

His knee's down. The issue is whether or not he regained control before another part of him hit out of bounds. The league determined he did not, and the league felt that was clear enough to warrant an overrule. That seems to have been an "ambitious" ruling on the part of the league.

 

[Gumby]

I can't see how what happened can even be called a fumble. It moved through the air from 1 hand to the other, never hit the ground. Butler dislodged it but the runner got control of it again, then landed on the pylon. Calling it a fumble makes no sense. If a runner were in the open and at the goal line tossed it from 1 hand to the other it would still be a TD.

It MOVED THRU THE AIR = no control = fumble (although it is true that not every temporary loss of control is counted as fumble and recovery BY THE STATISTICIANS when no intervening sideline is crossed or ball doesn't touch the ground).

ALSO, it didn't MOVE ON ITS OWN and runner didn't DECIDE TO SWITCH HANDS*, it was PUNCHED OUT by a DEFENDER!

* he was carrying on the away from defenders left arm and he is going to switch to the near the defenders right arm ON PURPOSE?? While fighting for EZ?

You being silly.

 

[Gumby]

The pylon only matters in the sense that it establishes he scored, not out at the 2" line. My point is where was the fumble? there was no fumble. Ball never hit the ground, therefore he never lost possession. No different than if he tossed it to himself from hand to hand as he crossed the GL. Are you saying that because Butler touched it, that makes it a fumble?

Hitting Pylon establishes he CROSSED THE PLANE, not possession. Both are required to score.

Yeah, and this is the NBA and balls must be dribbled.

You've never seen a strip sack that doesn't touch the ground and is not an int?

If he was running through the middle of field and bobbled the ball from hand to hand the whole way across the 10 yards of EZ and never reestablished control before he ran out the back, do you give him 6?

Sorry (not really)!that his angle gave him 12 inches of EZ instead of ten yards to get control, but possession is required

 

[luuked]

There is controversy because people feel the Patriots got the benefit of a sketchy call.

It is a controversy because as usual the majority of people not only have no clue about the rules but in addition to that are lazy ****s who dont bother looking them up or understanding them because it feels wrong. Which sums up one of the issues with society nowadays, the insistence that gut feeling means anything vis a vis facts or scientific research.

 

[luuked]

His knee's down. The issue is whether or not he regained control before another part of him hit out of bounds. The league determined he did not, and the league felt that was clear enough to warrant an overrule. That seems to have been an "ambitious" ruling on the part of the league.

Go read the damn ASJ thread and the pool report from the referee. ASJ clearly lost control of the ball a second time when hitting the ground which makes the entire knee situation meaningless.

 

[Deus Irae]

Go read the damn ASJ thread and the pool report from the referee. ASJ clearly lost control of the ball a second time when hitting the ground which makes the entire knee situation meaningless.

I read the thread. I read the report. You should just concentrate on pretending that the defense played well. That's funnier stuff.

 

[luuked]

I read the thread. I read the report. You should just concentrate on pretending that the defense played well. That's funnier stuff.

So you got nothing. Good.

 

[maineman209]

Here's the thing for me.

I saw the Butler make the ball come loose on the live play. When I saw Butler immediately begin protesting after the TD call on the field, I already had an idea what to look for on the replay. On the last replay that CBS broadcast before the review, I saw what Butler was protesting and knew what the call should be - a reversal.

The only thing I was surprised about was that the TD was actually reversed - y'know, League bias against the Pats and all.

But then, my paranoid conspiracy theorist side imagines a discussion that took place among League officials in "Review Central" ...

Riveron: "There it is! A reversal to a touchback is obviously the correct call according to the rules."

Wayne Mackie: "Yeah but,if we DON'T reverse it, we could help the Jets win and nobody would be the wiser because nobody's going to know this stupid rule anyway. Well, except maybe a few Patriots fans because they're smarter about the rules than most fans."

Russel Yurk: "You really think that Patriots fans know the rules better?"

Mackie: "Yeah. Our fault, really. We've screwed them so many time over the years that now they're looking up everything. Hell, they even know the Ideal Gas Law now!"

Riveron: "Ahem ... you realize that the Patriots could still win, regardless, right?"

Unnamed Goodell Toady: "Good point. Brady could end up looking like an even bigger hero for winning the game in spite of an 'incorrect' review call."

Yurk: "So ... what then?"

Mackie: "Well, the correct call is certain to generate a lot of controversy."

UGT: "True! And, if the Jets win in spite of it, they look like the heroes."

Yurk: "Right. And, if the Patriots win, it becomes another asterisk on their record."

Riveron: " Oh, for the love of God ...!"

Mackie: "Wow! Yes! It could even discredit their entire season! Sorta like Deflategate or .... or like the Tuck Rule!

Yurk: "The TUCK RULE! Exactly!!"

Mackie: "Okay, then. All in favor of reversing the TD to a touchback?"

Yurk: "Aye!"

UGT: "Aye!"

Riveron: "(you assholes)"

Riveron (to Corrente): "Okay. Brace yourself. 'The Boys' have decided that it's in the League's bet interests to go with the correct call this time. Reverse the TD to a touchback."

 

[DarrylS]

As much as this was the right call and Butler/Harmon had great situational awareness...

If this happened to Gronk there would be weeping and gnashing of teeth about the call...

 

[convertedpatsfan]

I can't see how what happened can even be called a fumble. It moved through the air from 1 hand to the other, never hit the ground. Butler dislodged it but the runner got control of it again, then landed on the pylon. Calling it a fumble makes no sense. If a runner were in the open and at the goal line tossed it from 1 hand to the other it would still be a TD.

Fumble

1. The distinction between a fumble and a muff should be kept in mind in considering rules about fumbles. A fumble is the loss of player possession of the ball. A muff is the touching of a loose ball by a player in an unsuccessful attempt to obtain possession.
2. A fumble may be advanced by any player on either team regardless of whether recovered before or after ball hits the ground.
3. A fumble that goes forward and out of bounds will return to the fumbling team at the spot of the fumble unless the ball goes out of bounds in the opponent’s end zone. In this case, it is a touchback.

NFL Rules Digest: Fumble

The textbook definition of a fumble never mentions if a ball hits the ground or not.. It is not part of the discussion, so part of your confusion is introducing things that aren't in the rules and thinking they're true.

Think back to the Texans game when Brady got sacked, the ball popped up into the air, and Clowney returned it for a touchdown. That was ruled a fumble for Brady even though the ball never hit the ground.

"A fumble is the loss of player possession of the ball."

That was indisputable.

If a runner switches it from 1 hand to another, sure, that's possession. And if my aunt had balls, she'd be my uncle. That's not what actually happened.

The ball was dislodged by a defensive player, some combo of Harmon on the elbow and Butler below punching at it. Both guys knew it was a fumble right away. I don't think they knew it was a touchback exactly, but at the very least, it could have been ruled out at the 1 and give the defense another chance to save the TD.

If people want to dispute possession or whatever else, we can have that discussion. But the fumble part is the most blatantly clear piece of the entire thing.

 

[RedSleevesPinkStripes]

Proud enough to give $12 mil per year?

If I had to bet, at least part of BB wishes he could go back in time and just pay Malcolm, leave Gilmore alone.

 

[Patsfanin Philly]

A little OT here but related to the OP's point about Butler and Harmon knowing the rules and immediately signalling fumble..
Compare that to the Steelers who got a safety early in their game and got the ball (or were supposed to) on the following free kick. Unfortunately their return man didn't realize that the free kick was more a kickoff than a punt and rather than immediately grab it, let it bounce and roll and a KC player grabbed it......Then a gain a certain Patriot acquired in the offseason did the same thing last year on a kickoff... Hopefully he knows the rules now...

 

[Triumph]

1) butler didn't give up on the play and punched it out

2) both butler and harmon clearly knew exactly what happened and both knew the rule.....they adamantly called it even while the TD sign was given



to me that says more about this team then anything else

Butler had his best game this season.

Make Gilmore pay money back and give it to Butler..

 

[Nehalem]

Fumble

1. The distinction between a fumble and a muff should be kept in mind in considering rules about fumbles. A fumble is the loss of player possession of the ball. A muff is the touching of a loose ball by a player in an unsuccessful attempt to obtain possession.
2. A fumble may be advanced by any player on either team regardless of whether recovered before or after ball hits the ground.
3. A fumble that goes forward and out of bounds will return to the fumbling team at the spot of the fumble unless the ball goes out of bounds in the opponent’s end zone. In this case, it is a touchback.

NFL Rules Digest: Fumble

The textbook definition of a fumble never mentions if a ball hits the ground or not.. It is not part of the discussion, so part of your confusion is introducing things that aren't in the rules and thinking they're true.

Think back to the Texans game when Brady got sacked, the ball popped up into the air, and Clowney returned it for a touchdown. That was ruled a fumble for Brady even though the ball never hit the ground.

"A fumble is the loss of player possession of the ball."

That was indisputable.

If a runner switches it from 1 hand to another, sure, that's possession. And if my aunt had balls, she'd be my uncle. That's not what actually happened.

The ball was dislodged by a defensive player, some combo of Harmon on the elbow and Butler below punching at it. Both guys knew it was a fumble right away. I don't think they knew it was a touchback exactly, but at the very least, it could have been ruled out at the 1 and give the defense another chance to save the TD.

If people want to dispute possession or whatever else, we can have that discussion. But the fumble part is the most blatantly clear piece of the entire thing.

A fumble clearly does not need to hit the ground.

In fact there was a Brady fumble earlier this year(against Texans?) that did not hit the ground, but was caught by a Texan and returned for a TD. The difference here is that ASJ only "barely" fumbled it, and recovered it himself. So it doesn't "look" like a fumble. Still correctly counts as a fumble.