Dion Lewis Fumble/NOT a fumble

[Chris Stevenson]

So your defense of 5 examples of players having the ball taken from them either going out of bounds or going to the ground is "the officials are out of shape" Awesome.

Good bye crazy person.

As predicted, backpedal. And, you can stop giving yourself "winner" status like a Millennial, with your other account.

Won't work.

You don't know what a fumble is and you claim to be a master of NFL rules.

Priceless stuff, man.

 

[XLIX]

CLEAR RE-POSSESSION by Lewis against his leg. Tight, firm. No jostle, no space between the ball, his hand or leg.

Left knee down.

Down.

No fumble.

Your own posts are not even internally consistent. You still haven't answered my question regarding whether or not Lewis lost possession of the ball in the first place. The above posts suggest you do agree he lost possession. (When you say "CLEAR RE-POSSESSION" that implies you believe he possessed it, lost it, then repossessed it)

But then you turn around and say no fumble. So you are not even being consistent with yourself. I asked you this before: Forget about him pinning the ball loosely against his hip: Do yo believe there was a moment during the play where Lewis lost possession of the ball? Or do you simply believe he maintained possession from the moment he caught it until the moment his knee hit the ground?

 

[Chris Stevenson]

You obviously don't know what "survive the ground" means. It means retaining possession and control of the ball through the entire process of going to the ground. It does *not* mean simply having control the moment your knee hits the ground.

Um, the defense is allowed to claw at the ball to get the offense to lose possession. When it comes to surviving the ground you don't get to say "hey, he *would've* survived the ground if the other guy hadn't ripped it away so that counts as surviving the ground!" That very notion is ludicrous.

"Surviving the ground" is about the initial reception of the football.

You have no idea what you're talking about here.

Jack would have needed to pull a Bruschi on Domenic Rhodes in the 2004 divisionals, in order to have stolen the ball from Dion Lewis. If Bruschi had not stolen it before Rhodes knee hit the ground, it wouldn't have been a fumble. G

All it did was end up in his lap as a a"look what I found moment" and the ref who clearly did not see the play, took the cheese.

 

[Chris Stevenson]

Your own posts are not even internally consistent. You still haven't answered my question regarding whether or not Lewis lost possession of the ball in the first place. The above posts suggest you do agree he lost possession. (When you say "CLEAR RE-POSSESSION" that implies you believe he possessed it, lost it, then repossessed it)

But then you turn around and say no fumble. So you are not even being consistent with yourself. I asked you this before: Forget about him pinning the ball loosely against his hip: Do yo believe there was a moment during the play where Lewis lost possession of the ball? Or do you simply believe he maintained possession from the moment he caught it until the moment his knee hit the ground?

"internally consistent"? What does that even mean?

Also, he didn't "pin the ball loosely"...He pinned it with his human hand to his hip and it never moved until AFTER his left knee was down and he was flat on his back.

This is like saying Tyree didn't catch the ball because the ball wasn't pinned to where you wanted it pinned.

It doesn't matter what you want, it matters what happened and what the replay shows us.

 

[QuantumMechanic]

You obviously don't know what "survive the ground" means. It means retaining possession and control of the ball through the entire process of going to the ground. It does *not* mean simply having control the moment your knee hits the ground.
---------------------------------

It's false. He already CAUGHT THE BALL. This is not about a catch.

LMAO

This proves you don't know what you're talking about here. Once he possesed the ball, ran with it (football move), the catch discussion is done.

No, it's not "done." As we all saw in the Jets game, on the ASJ play, the same "survive the ground" rule applies to fumbles. ASJ's failure to survive the ground when trying to recover his fumble after being a runner is why that was a fumble and not a touchdown for the Jets. And since that play and the rules governing it state that possession must be maintained to and through contact with the ground, that also renders your "all he needs is possession for the moment his knee touches to be ruled down by contact" argument to be total BS.

The fact is, he never lost possession all the way to the ground (after the initial jostle by Jacks's arm), so there was never a fumble.

That's your (incorrect) opinion.

 

[QuantumMechanic]

"Surviving the ground" is about the initial reception of the football.

No, it's not. It's about any attempt to gain possession of a loose ball, which includes passes, laterals, fumbles, etc.

Did you actually watch the Pats-Jets game this season where their tight end fumbled trying to reach for the goal line? Or read any of the news coverage about it, including the referee's on-the-record statement to the press about the play and why it was ruled the way it was? Apparently not, because you wouldn't be making idiotic statements like the quoted one.

 

[XLIX]

"Surviving the ground" is about the initial reception of the football.

It also applies to a player trying to establish (or re-establish) possession of a loose ball.

 

[XLIX]

"internally consistent"? What does that even mean?

I guess it is time for a junior high school grammar lesson:

When I say your posts are not "internally consistent" it means you contradict yourself within your own posts.

Also, he didn't "pin the ball loosely"...He pinned it with his human hand to his hip and it never moved until AFTER his left knee was down and he was flat on his back.

This is like saying Tyree didn't catch the ball because the ball wasn't pinned to where you wanted it pinned.

It doesn't matter what you want, it matters what happened and what the replay shows us.

Once again you avoided answering my simple question.

Do you believe there was a moment during the play where Lewis lost possession of the ball? Or do you simply believe he maintained possession from the moment he caught it until the moment his knee hit the ground?

 

[fnordcircle]

Enjoying seeing posts that rely on insulting people get deleted.

 

[QuantumMechanic]

Also, even if this "pin to the hip" was enough to actually be possession, that still doesn't stop it from being a fumble.

The ball was clearly loose. Then, while falling down, Lewis put his hand on the ball with the ball between his hand and his hip. Let's be generous and say that "pin" actually met the standard of having possession. Because Lewis was falling down at that point he still has to maintain possession to and through the ground. As he hit the ground, Jack took it away from him. Lewis thus did not survive the ground and so could not be ruled down by contact. It's a validly recovered fumble by Jack.

And please, when you go to argue about this, please spare us the blatant falsehood of claiming that "survive the ground" only applies to receptions. We all know that's false. And it's falsity is not a matter of opinion. It's fact, as demonstrated in an actual Patriots game this very season.

 

[Chris Stevenson]

No, it's not. It's about any attempt to gain possession of a loose ball, which includes passes, laterals, fumbles, etc.

Did you actually watch the Pats-Jets game this season where their tight end fumbled trying to reach for the goal line? Or read any of the news coverage about it, including the referee's on-the-record statement to the press about the play and why it was ruled the way it was? Apparently not, because you wouldn't be making idiotic statements like the quoted one.

That's because the ball was being jostled all the way to the ground before he showed possession for a score, and he landed out of bounds without control, which means Jenkins has to show he has it all the way through to score. Otherwise, it is a touchback because he WAS OUT OF BOUNDS WITH A JOSTLING BALL. Correct call and not applicable to Lewis maintaining possession, running 15 yards, ball jostled, with clear re-possession.

The Champ Bailey 2006 playoff call was ALSO wrong, too, but i bet you believed the ball went 90 degrees to the left at the 1 yard line, magically so, because that's what the refs told you it did, even though the overhead replay clearly shows the ball flying right over the pylon for a touchback.

Believe it or not, refs get calls wrong. lol

Lewis ran 15 yards and then the ball jostled, but he he saved it from coming loose, by pinning it to himself, on the way to the ground. Possession, ground. No fumble.

The situations are completely different. The problem with Sefarian-Jenkins is that he never really had the ball as he moved to the pylon, making the football move to score.

He has to show possession to score.

 

[Chris Stevenson]

Also, even if this "pin to the hip" was enough to actually be possession, that still doesn't stop it from being a fumble.

The ball was clearly loose. Then, while falling down, Lewis put his hand on the ball with the ball between his hand and his hip. Let's be generous and say that "pin" actually met the standard of having possession. Because Lewis was falling down at that point he still has to maintain possession to and through the ground. As he hit the ground, Jack took it away from him. Lewis thus did not survive the ground and so could not be ruled down by contact. It's a validly recovered fumble by Jack.

And please, when you go to argue about this, please spare us the blatant falsehood of claiming that "survive the ground" only applies to receptions. We all know that's false. And it's falsity is not a matter of opinion. It's fact, as demonstrated in an actual Patriots game this very season.

Yes, it does. lmao

You don';t get to decide how a human possess a ball in which fashion or how. What you need to do is to see if the ball moves, if there is space between his hand or body between the ball, which there was none.

 

[Chris Stevenson]

Enjoying seeing posts that rely on insulting people get deleted.

Fascism is not cool, nor are arrogant people a generation below me, who are naive and gullible.

Good thing you have a cute avatar, though! So important in life.

 

[fnordcircle]

Fascism is not cool

Censorship in a private forum isn't fascism.

 

[Chris Stevenson]

Censorship in a private forum isn't fascism.

Sure it is. Deleting one group's comments, while not the belligerents' comments, shows favoritism and is arbitrary, just like Mussolini, Hitler or Stalin's logic.

Fascism is fascism.

 

[bbobbo]

Also, even if this "pin to the hip" was enough to actually be possession, that still doesn't stop it from being a fumble.

The ball was clearly loose. Then, while falling down, Lewis put his hand on the ball with the ball between his hand and his hip. Let's be generous and say that "pin" actually met the standard of having possession. Because Lewis was falling down at that point he still has to maintain possession to and through the ground. As he hit the ground, Jack took it away from him. Lewis thus did not survive the ground and so could not be ruled down by contact. It's a validly recovered fumble by Jack.

And please, when you go to argue about this, please spare us the blatant falsehood of claiming that "survive the ground" only applies to receptions. We all know that's false. And it's falsity is not a matter of opinion. It's fact, as demonstrated in an actual Patriots game this very season.

i would change all of your uses of the word "possession" to "control". i.e., pinning the ball to his hip might have demonstrated control, but that alone was not enough to establish possession.
.

 

[fnordcircle]

Sure it is. Deleting one group's comments, while not the belligerents' comments, shows favoritism and is arbitrary, just like Mussolini, Hitler or Stalin's logic.

Fascism is fascism.

If I'm in your house shouting something you don't like you're not a fascist if you kick me out. This is Ian's house.

I get that understanding the finer points of things like, you know, their actual definition, isn't exactly your strong suit so I'm just trying to help.

 

[Chris Stevenson]

If I'm in your house shouting something you don't like you're not a fascist if you kick me out. This is Ian's house.

I get that understanding the finer points of things like, you know, their actual definition, isn't exactly your strong suit so I'm just trying to help.

I suggest night school. Start there, Goodell Jr.

 

[Chris Stevenson]

i would change all of your uses of the word "possession" to "control". i.e., pinning the ball to his hip might have demonstrated control, but that alone was not enough to establish possession.
.

Oh boy..Now we have a Johnnie Cochrane on the the thread. Control and possession are the same things.

You playing semantics won't work here.

 

[bbobbo]

Oh boy..Now we have a Johnnie Cochrane on the the thread. Control and possession are the same things.

You playing semantics won't work here.

i'm just citing the rulebook, which makes a distinction between control and possession.

.