Dion Lewis Fumble/NOT a fumble

[luuked]

I need to make sure I understand you before I take you to school:

Are you saying he fumbled the ball then recovered it prior to hitting the ground? Or are you saying that he never fumbled the ball in the first place? (Please keep in mind that bobbling/juggling the ball is considered a fumble)

Do posters here realize that fumble doesn’t mean that the ball has to be on the ground ? Technically the moment you lose firm control over the ball is when you fumble. It seems many don’t even understand fundamentals..

 

[SHOWTIME15]

If the play was blown dead then NE should have kept the ball, and then Jax should have challenged it.

 

[XLIX]

Umm, but it's 100% clear he had the ball, his knee came down, and only then did Jack strip it.

It is 100% clear that Lewis fumbled the ball. The above picture is a man who has lost possession of the football (i.e. fumbled). The ball has completely detached from his forearm. The tips of his fingers are grazing the ball, but it is on its way down towards his right thigh/hip area.

 

[Dr Pain]

He had it pressed into his body (leg) and it remained there till he was down. It was not a fumble. It would not have been a catch but it was not a fumble.

 

[XLIX]

Do posters here realize that fumble doesn’t mean that the ball has to be on the ground ? Technically the moment you lose firm control over the ball is when you fumble. It seems many don’t even understand fundamentals..

I think you summed up the problem. People are saying "oh he didn't fumble it he just juggled it a bit." ANY loss of possession (other than a pass, handoff or punt) is a fumble.

 

[Palm Beach Pats Fan]

Once a player becomes a runner there is no surviving the ground because there is no way a ball can be ruled incomplete. That’s why that aspect is totally irrelevant in this case.

NFL referee Tony Corrente says you're wrong:

"...the New York Jets’ runner, we’ll call him a runner at that point, with the football starting to go toward the ground. He lost the ball. It came out of his control as he was almost to the ground. Now he re-grasps the ball and by rule, now he has to complete the process of a recovery which means he has to survive the ground again. So in recovering it, he recovered, hit the knee, started to roll and the ball came out a second time. So the ball started to move in his hands this way…he’s now out of bounds in the end zone, which now created a touchback. So he didn’t survive the recovery and didn’t survive the ground during the recovery is what happened here.”

..."When he lost the ball short of the goal line, when he lost the ball, he re-gained control but that doesn’t mean he possesses the ball. He doesn’t possess the ball until he’s completed going to the ground now and re-controlling the ball, which he did not survive the ground, which is why it wasn’t a touchdown. Had he never lost control of the ball in the first place, you would have a touchdown. But because he lost the ball and now has to re- establish control of the ball, that was the period of time.”

Jets-Patriots Referee Tony Corrente Says Overturning Austin Seferian-Jenkins’ Touchdown Was ‘Obvious’ Call

 

[luuked]

When you are a runner 'surviving the ground' does become relevant if the runner fumbles the ball.

Of course but that’s a different subset of rules. The “survive the ground” rules only really affects passes because it is one of the ways to determine incomplete passes.

Think about it.. if you catch a ball, get a knee down and then lose control while the body hits the ground it is an incomplete (Steelers non TD).

As a runner once your knee is down you are down by contact. No matter what happens with the ball later.

In this case however the fumble already happened before the ball got stuck at Lewis’ hip for a fraction of a second so he had no possession when his knee went down and the ball was a free for all for whoever would gain possession first.

 

[Dr Pain]

It is 100% clear that Lewis fumbled the ball. The above picture is a man who has lost possession of the football (i.e. fumbled). The ball has completely detached from his forearm. The tips of his fingers are grazing the ball, but it is on its way down towards his right thigh/hip area.

Wrong photo. he has it pressed on his thigh as he goes down. It was never out. He always had his hand on it. This is not a fumble. It would not have been a catch but it was not a fumble.

 

[MassPats38]

He had the ball pinned against his leg as he fell (therefore in possession) - FACT

The ball popped out upon his back slamming the ground (therefore down by contact) - FACT

The ball was then scooped up by Jax and blown dead by the official who had correctly observed facts 1 and 2 above. This isn’t the catch rule kids.

End of conversation, no debate needed.

Not a fact.

Review the video here, and rewind it as many times as you like. Play it back, and repeat.

Then review the NFL rules here defining 'fumble' and "possession," and explain how what you see qualifies as "a firm grip and control of the ball with his hands or arms." The ball bouncing around with a single hand of runner and defender on it before anyone is ruled down doesn't meet the rule requirements for possession. And that is the fumble rule, not the catch rule.

I like your confidence with FACT, but what you are offering is actually OPINION (one at variance with the facts in the video record). You are correct in no debate needed.

 

[Keyser Söze]

It’s clearly a fumble. You look really foolish saying otherwise.

 

[luuked]

NFL referee Tony Corrente says you're wrong:

"...the New York Jets’ runner, we’ll call him a runner at that point, with the football starting to go toward the ground. He lost the ball. It came out of his control as he was almost to the ground. Now he re-grasps the ball and by rule, now he has to complete the process of a recovery which means he has to survive the ground again. So in recovering it, he recovered, hit the knee, started to roll and the ball came out a second time. So the ball started to move in his hands this way…he’s now out of bounds in the end zone, which now created a touchback. So he didn’t survive the recovery and didn’t survive the ground during the recovery is what happened here.”

..."When he lost the ball short of the goal line, when he lost the ball, he re-gained control but that doesn’t mean he possesses the ball. He doesn’t possess the ball until he’s completed going to the ground now and re-controlling the ball, which he did not survive the ground, which is why it wasn’t a touchdown. Had he never lost control of the ball in the first place, you would have a touchdown. But because he lost the ball and now has to re- establish control of the ball, that was the period of time.”

Jets-Patriots Referee Tony Corrente Says Overturning Austin Seferian-Jenkins’ Touchdown Was ‘Obvious’ Call

That’s only relevant when you fumble out of bounds in the end zone.

 

[XLIX]

Wrong photo. he has it pressed on his thigh as he goes down. It was never out.

This is what a couple of you just aren't understanding. It doesn't have to be "out" to be a fumble. Once he has lost possession of it - which my picture clearly shows he did - then it is a fumble, even though it doesn't go tumbling away on the ground like a normal fumble does.

Do you agree he lost possession of the ball in my picture? Or do you think the player in my picture is a man in possession of a football?

 

[Angelpats]

Don’t matter guys. I have my opinions and you have yours. Agree to disagree. They went three and out after that play anyways. We won. We are onto the eagles.

 

[luuked]

Wrong photo. he has it pressed on his thigh as he goes down. It was never out. He always had his hand on it. This is not a fumble. It would not have been a catch but it was not a fumble. View attachment 19400 View attachment 19400

He didn’t have possession in those pictures as the ball was already fumbled. Seriously guys this is not complicated..

 

[Palm Beach Pats Fan]

As a runner once your knee is down you are down by contact. No matter what happens with the ball later.

But if you have not re-established possession of the football after first losing control of it, a knee going down is totally irrelevant. You have to establish possession by surviving the ground. Corrente is perfectly clear on that.

 

[luuked]

Don’t matter guys. I have my opinions and you have yours. Agree to disagree. They went three and out after that play anyways. We won. We are onto the eagles.

You have as much right to an opinion about a clear cut rule as to claim the earth is flat or only 2000 years old.

 

[Dr Pain]

Not a fact.

Review the video here, and rewind it as many times as you like. Play it back, and repeat.

Then review the NFL rules here defining 'fumble' and "possession," and explain how what you see qualifies as "a firm grip and control of the ball with his hands or arms." The ball bouncing around with a single hand of runner and defender on it before anyone is ruled down doesn't meet the rule requirements for possession. And that is the fumble rule, not the catch rule.

I like your confidence with FACT, but what you are offering is actually OPINION (one at variance with the facts in the video record). You are correct in no debate needed.

Video is even more clear. He was hit by the second Jaguar while on the ground. This was not a fumble

 

[brdmaverick]

Of course but that’s a different subset of rules. The “survive the ground” rules only really affects passes because it is one of the ways to determine incomplete passes.

Think about it.. if you catch a ball, get a knee down and then lose control while the body hits the ground it is an incomplete (Steelers non TD).

As a runner once your knee is down you are down by contact. No matter what happens with the ball later.

In this case however the fumble already happened before the ball got stuck at Lewis’ hip for a fraction of a second so he had no possession when his knee went down and the ball was a free for all for whoever would gain possession first.

How can you say the "survive the ground" really only affects passes? The ASJ fumble is the most famous example of it applying to a runner.

Yes, I know most often it applies to completions...I'm not disputing that. But it does apply to this case here even though Lewis wasn't a receiver.

AFter all...

1.) We all agree that Lewis had possession at some point (he was clearly running down the field with the ball).

2.) Most agree he lost possession as he was being tackled.

3.) Some are arguing that having his arm pinned against the ball as the ball was falling still counts as possession.

I'm saying if you believe statements 2 AND 3 then surviving the ground DOES come into play. After all, if you have possesion and lose possesion........in order to regain possesion you MUST survive the ground in order for him having hte ball pinned aginst his leg to be classified as 'possession'. Becuase he didn't surivive the ground, he did NOT have possesion against when it was against his leg. THerefore, he didn't have posession with his knee down. Therefore, it was a fumble.

 

[XLIX]

NFL referee Tony Corrente says you're wrong:

"...the New York Jets’ runner, we’ll call him a runner at that point, with the football starting to go toward the ground. He lost the ball. It came out of his control as he was almost to the ground. Now he re-grasps the ball and by rule, now he has to complete the process of a recovery which means he has to survive the ground again. So in recovering it, he recovered, hit the knee, started to roll and the ball came out a second time. So the ball started to move in his hands this way…he’s now out of bounds in the end zone, which now created a touchback. So he didn’t survive the recovery and didn’t survive the ground during the recovery is what happened here.”

..."When he lost the ball short of the goal line, when he lost the ball, he re-gained control but that doesn’t mean he possesses the ball. He doesn’t possess the ball until he’s completed going to the ground now and re-controlling the ball, which he did not survive the ground, which is why it wasn’t a touchdown. Had he never lost control of the ball in the first place, you would have a touchdown. But because he lost the ball and now has to re- establish control of the ball, that was the period of time.”

Jets-Patriots Referee Tony Corrente Says Overturning Austin Seferian-Jenkins’ Touchdown Was ‘Obvious’ Call

If you read the parts of Corrente's statement which apply to this situation, you would see that Corrente's logic proves it was a fumble.

1) the New York Jets’ runner, we’ll call him a runner at that point (Lewis was clearly a runner by this point)

2) He lost the ball. It came out of his control as he was almost to the ground. (Lewis clearly lost control of the ball before hitting the ground)

3) Now he re-grasps the ball and by rule, now he has to complete the process of a recovery which means he has to survive the ground again.

Lewis having the ball loosely pinned to his hip for .2 seconds does not constitute completing the process of a recovery, not to mention Lewis clearly did not survive the ground.

 

[A Defiant Goose]

Don’t matter guys. I have my opinions and you have yours. Agree to disagree. They went three and out after that play anyways. We won. We are onto the eagles.

You don't get to call a wrong fact an opinion man!