Dion Lewis Fumble/NOT a fumble

[XLIX]

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

You can say it - and even use capitals - but that doesn't make it true.

The rule book defines possession as "a player is in possession when he is inbounds and has a firm grip and control of the ball with his hands or arms."

End of conversation, no debate needed.

 

[A Defiant Goose]

Is this true? How come I've witnessed countless running backs juggle, momentarilty lose control while running, but never actually fumble it and it doesn't show up on the stat sheet as an fumble and a recovery?

Because it's inconsequential. Stats don't always make sense. Like how can there be such thing as a strip sack? If the QB is sacked, he's down. If he's down, how could he fumble?

 

[brdmaverick]

Is this true? How come I've witnessed countless running backs juggle, momentarilty lose control while running, but never actually fumble it and it doesn't show up on the stat sheet as an fumble and a recovery?

Oh man, lawyered. I don't agree with your position but I do love this very interesting, thought-provoking counter-argument. Well done.

 

[TB_Helmet]

With all due respect, this is where you show you don't understand the rule. It doesn't have to come out to be a fumble.

If the ball is "moving," then that by definition is a fumble. A fumble is defined as "any act, other than passing, handing, or legally kicking the ball, which results in a loss of player possession."

So if you agree it was "moving" then you agree it was fumbled. It doesn't have to go bouncing on the ground in order to be considered a fumble.

Now that we agree it was a fumble, we move on to discussing if he clearly regained possession. In this case, the answer is he clearly did not. Having the ball loosely pinned against your hip for 0.2 seconds - and then subsequently not even surviving the ground - does not constitute regaining possession.

Yeah I think a lot of people are using the 'pinned against the hip' as a clear recovery / possession which is just wishful thinking. There's no way that constitutes a recovery. If you want to go by that logic then you can slow things down to the microsecond level when things are so slow that you'll always be able to find a time period during which the ball doesn't appear to be moving.

 

[XLIX]

Is this true? How come I've witnessed countless running backs juggle, momentarilty lose control while running, but never actually fumble it and it doesn't show up on the stat sheet as an fumble and a recovery?

A fumble is defined as "any act, other than passing, handing, or legally kicking the ball, which results in a loss of player possession."

If such a scenario as you pointed out happens and it does not show up in the box score, you'd have to take that up with the official scorer.

 

[Snake Eyes]

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).

Who else possessed it? He had it pinned to his leg and it wasn't going anywhere.

 

[GaryfromTO]

was it a fumble, I didn't think so, but I don't know.

In the end, just glad it didn't matter

 

[A Defiant Goose]

Who else possessed it? He had it pinned to his leg and it wasn't going anywhere.

 

[dannydyn]

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.

He lost control before hitting the ground. Get over it.

 

[patchick]

Here's a familiar situation that might help clarify this play:

The ball is knocked from a QB's hand and is rolling loose on the ground, triggering a free-for-all. A player is splayed out on the turf with an opponent on top of him. He reaches out his arm and sweeps the ball toward him. Is the play over? Isn't he "down by contact"?

I think we all instinctively know the answer: not if the ball is still moving around in his arm. Until he establishes control and possession, it's a live play and anybody's ball. That was the situation with Lewis: the ball was moving, thus he didn't technically have possession as he went to the ground and it didn't matter whether his knee was down.

 

[archstanton543]

Two more weeks....two more weeks of this nonsense.

 

[Kontradiction]

As an aside, I’m glad they didn’t pull Dion out. It’s not like he lost it due to him carrying like a loaf of bread. It was just a great play by Jack. It happens. They had faith in him and stuck with him, though, and it paid off.

 

[Kid~Brady]

I honestly still don't think it was a fumble. I could be wrong but each replay showed me that he knee was down before the ball was rolled over to Myles jack's possession. I'm sticking with this.

 

[Tony2046]

Is this true? How come I've witnessed countless running backs juggle, momentarilty lose control while running, but never actually fumble it and it doesn't show up on the stat sheet as an fumble and a recovery?

btw, I thought (by eye test) it was a fumble.

It doesn't show up on a stat sheet but technically it's a fumble.

 

[archstanton543]

As an aside, I’m glad they didn’t pull Dion out. It’s not like he lost it due to him carrying like a loaf of bread. It was just a great play by Jack. It happens. They had faith in him and stuck with him, though, and it paid off.

Part of the reason he fumbled it was because he was holding the ball away from his body. He was looking to make a cut or two behind his blockers and forgot that there was a guy behind him looking to swipe at the ball.

Fumbles happen to the best of players. This one's on Dion.

 

[Snake Eyes]

Here's a familiar situation that might help clarify this play:

The ball is knocked from a QB's hand and is rolling loose on the ground, triggering a free-for-all. A player is splayed out on the turf with an opponent on top of him. He reaches out his arm and sweeps the ball toward him. Is the play over? Isn't he "down by contact"?

I think we all instinctively know the answer: not if the ball is still moving around in his arm. Until he establishes control and possession, it's a live play and anybody's ball. That was the situation with Lewis: the ball was moving, thus he didn't technically have possession as he went to the ground and it didn't matter whether his knee was down.

No, the ball was moving and then it stopped moving, as he had it pinned to his leg. Movement doesn't necessarily mean the player still doesn't have control.

 

[mosslost]

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.

ground can't cause a fumble as well. That was not a fumble. However, I could care less about the loser fans out there complaining. I don 't care.

 

[TinhWoodhead]

Myles says “you dont know Jack!”

 

[mosslost]

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 ?

it is only controversial at this point because many feel and are saying on TV that the whistle should not have been blown. That is all.

 

[mosslost]

not surviving the ground

not relevant