Dion Lewis Fumble/NOT a fumble

[Chris Stevenson]

And Peter King agrees, amongst MANY others who know the rules...Pretty insulting to know the rules, know that possession has to be lost or transferred before the runner is down and watch Nanzt and Romo, egg on the cheating refs and act like this was a fumble, with the country brainwashed into thinking it was a fumble and Jax screwed it was blown dead.

1. It was not a fumble.
2. It was blown dead because he was down.
3. The refs don't know the rules or know the rules and cherrypick when they can help the opponent.

Why was the call a fumble on the field when no one could have seen when it was actually stolen from Lewis?

His left knee was clearly down, well before Jack stripped it, with him having possession against his leg, with no jostling or air between the ball or his hand, while he possessed it finally, to the ground.

 

[Username]

Jeff Reinbold on Sky Sports coverage was adamant it was not a fumble, that people are confusing catch rules with runner rules. The ball wasn't out of Lewis's possession before he hit the ground, in his opinion. He said it doesn't matter if it moved, it was fully in Lewis's possession, pinned against his leg, when he hit the ground.

 

[GoBlue]

And yet the Patriot haters content the refs favored the Patriots...

 

[luuked]

Jesus. He lost possession when the ball fell out of his hand. This is a fact. If you can’t acknowledge this you don’t understand the most fundamental rules to the sport. Therefore the entire aspect of his knee being down is irrelevant until he is deemed to restablish possession.

Now after losing possession the ball stopped moving wedged between his arm and thigh (or hip). This only happened for a fraction of a second. There is no way this should be considered restablishing possession because shortly after the ball slid fully out. He never fully got possession back.

There was no way that refs would overturn anything based on that video evidence no matter what the initial call would have been.

How is this in any way controversial ?

 

[brdmaverick]

I'm glad you brought this up because I STILL don't know what the right call was.

After all, it's clear that the hit that ultimately led to the Lewis losing possession took place prior to Lewis's knee going down............but does the forearm pinning it against his leg even though it's not really 'secure' count as continued possesion?

The fan in me wanted it to be continued possession and therefore he'd be 'down by contact'.

Funny thing is, both parties are upset after the call........Pats fans were robbed of possession. Jags fans were robbed of a likely TD (or at least long return).

 

[dannydyn]

It was a fumble. If you call that having control, you need to have you eyesight checked.

 

[XLIX]

Just because Peter King said it doesn't make it true.

Anyone who says Lewis didn't lose possession just isn't watching the same play the rest of us are all talking about. There is no doubt whatsoever he loses possession.

The question is does he regain possession prior to hitting the ground? Sorry, but having it loosely pinned against your hip and then not surviving the ground does not constitute regaining possession.

 

[IcyPatriot]

I think it would have been more interesting if they had called him down.
The issue of was there enough to overturn the call was key on the play as opposed to the rule and play itself.

 

[brdmaverick]

I guess this is where the 'surviving the ground' comes back to haunt us.

Even if we like that he had it pinned against his leg it's clear that he didn't 'survive teh ground'. After all, he was going to the ground when he had it pinned.

 

[Chris Stevenson]

Jeff Reinbold on Sky Sports coverage was adamant it was not a fumble, that people are confusing catch rules with runner rules. The ball wasn't out of Lewis's possession before he hit the ground, in his opinion. He said it doesn't matter if it moved, it was fully in Lewis's possession, pinned against his leg, when he hit the ground.

That is 100% correct. There are now ifs, ands and buts about it. The replay cleared showed it.

Why is this call, which is so easy to make, not reviewed and over-turned? I know why. Sad, but true. They were quick to call it wrong, they reviewed it, and still lied.

Why did Nantz and Romo get so giddy, refusing to educate the viewer on the rule and that Lewis's knee was down before Jack stole it?

It's incredibly annoying and now it's turned into a "the refs screwed Jax, they had a TD the other way!...."Rigged!"

I can't even go into work without 100% lies being talked about with regards to what really happened.

It was FACTUALLY by RULE, not a fumble.

Absolutely unreal.

 

[luuked]

I think it would have been more interesting if they had called him down.
The issue of was there enough to overturn the call was key on the play as opposed to the rule and play itself.

They would have stayed with the call either way.

 

[SHOWTIME15]

Just because Peter King said it doesn't make it true.

Anyone who says Lewis didn't lose possession just isn't watching the same play the rest of us are all talking about. There is no doubt whatsoever he loses possession.

The question is does he regain possession prior to hitting the ground? Sorry, but having it loosely pinned against your hip and then not surviving the ground does not constitute regaining possession.

What does surviving the ground have anything to do with a runner?

 

[luuked]

I guess this is where the 'surviving the ground' comes back to haunt us.

Even if we like that he had it pinned against his leg it's clear that he didn't 'survive teh ground'. After all, he was going to the ground when he had it pinned.

Don’t think that is relevant for a runner.

 

[Chris Stevenson]

It was a fumble. If you call that having control, you need to have you eyesight checked.

Umm, learn the rules. It was 100% not a fumble because Jack didn't get it until after Lewis's left knee was down. This is not disputable or you are new to football.

His possession ended up being the ball trapped up against his leg. That's still possession. Doesn't matter how the possession looks in his arm, against his head, against his chest, leg, etc.

 

[Pacific Coast Patriot]

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.

 

[Chris Stevenson]

What does surviving the ground have anything to do with a runner?

Exactly. They don't know the rules. That's what it means.

 

[Chris Stevenson]

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.

Thank you.

Some of us know the game, some of us apparently don't.

 

[brdmaverick]

They would have stayed with the call either way.

I believe this to be true as well, which is unfortunate for us because I bet they would have stuck with the initial 'down by contact' but feared they changed to 'fumble' knowing that a change of possession would automatically draw replay scrutiny.

We obviously won the game either way, but very interesting circumstances with this play.

 

[Chris Stevenson]

Don’t think that is relevant for a runner.

it's not...Was his left knee down when he had the ball possessed against this leg with his hand or not?

 

[XLIX]

Jeff Reinbold on Sky Sports coverage was adamant it was not a fumble,

Then Jeff Reinbold on Sky Sports doesn't know what he is talking about.

There is no doubt whatsoever that Lewis fumbled the ball (bobbling/juggling the ball is considered a fumble because the player has lost possession).