Dion Lewis Fumble/NOT a fumble

[mosslost]

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.

not relevant on a run play

 

[mosslost]

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.

people are getting this all confused. Surviving the ground does not matter on a run play, because the Ground cannot cause a fumble (unless you just fall on your own I "think") The only question is whether he lost the ball before being down, i.e the ground was not the "cause" of him losing control. If he fumbled before hitting the ground he would need to regain possession before being considered down.

OP is obviously major homer (like many of us) who lost his **** because we lost the ball at what appeared to a moment in the game that was going to be potentially fatal in terms of winning.

OP tantrumed. Been there.

 

[mosslost]

not relevant on a run play

@SacPete1 NOT Relevant on a run play

 

[richie021501]

I think it's close. Could go either way. The following quote is taken straight from the 2017 NFL Rulebook:

"A player is in possession when he is inbounds and has a firm grip and control of the ball with his hands or arms."

With this definition, I think there is a certain level of judgment that the officials need to make. It's not 100% black and white. The officials have to determine what a firm grip is and what control of the ball is. Two officials may have differing opinions on what constitutes a grip and control of the ball.

It's almost indisputable that Lewis initially lost control. However, I think you could argue that Lewis regained control in the attached image. It's close though, I could see it going either way. Unfortunately it went against us.

 

[mosslost]

Why did Nantz and Romo get so giddy

Romo worshiped Brady and the Pats during that broadcast what are you on?

 

[mosslost]

This is not disputable or you are new to football.

wrong

 

[mosslost]

didn't 'survive teh ground'.

this is not relevant.. But it was a fumble

 

[archstanton543]

I think it's close. Could go either way. The following quote is taken straight from the 2017 NFL Rulebook:

"A player is in possession when he is inbounds and has a firm grip and control of the ball with his hands or arms."

With this definition, I think there is a certain level of judgment that the officials need to make. It's not 100% black and white. The officials have to determine what a firm grip is and what control of the ball is. Two officials may have differing opinions on what constitutes a grip and control of the ball.

It's almost indisputable that Lewis initially lost control. However, I think you could argue that Lewis regained control in the attached image. It's close though, I could see it going either way. Unfortunately it went against us.

That is not a "firm grip" by any stretch of the imagination. The ball is 3/4ths out of both of his hands. That's anything but firm.

 

[richie021501]

That is not a "firm grip" by any stretch of the imagination. The ball is 3/4ths out of both of his hands. That's anything but firm.

I think 3/4th's is a little exaggerated but I lean more toward it being a fumble. But I think it was close enough to where I could see them ruling it the other way.

 

[Xerostomia]

I do not know the rules inside and out, but I think there are 3 parts of the play that complicates the matter.

1. Did Lewis fumble the ball. I would say yes. The defender's action causes the ball to come lose from Lewis.

2. Did Lewis regain control. This is where I do not know the rules. I thought Lewis pinned the ball to his thigh pretty good, while he was going down. I could be wrong, but that is what I thought.

3. When is the play called dead. I guess that depends on #2. IF he had control (as in this case the ball is between his hand and thigh), I would assume that when his knees hit the ground, he would be down by contact. Similarly, I thought the ground caused the ball to move. Does the ground 'aiding' in a fumble at that point have no bearing on the decision?

I guess if the argument is that #2, Lewis never regained control, then the ground would not make the play dead and it would be a live ball until Lewis establishes control for a third time?

 

[mosslost]

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.

you are partly correct. You are correct when you state that "surviving the ground is not relevant" . That is not relevant in this case.

BUT your two "facts" are actually judgement calls for the ref, not absolute facts. You are making the judgement call that he DID fumble but regained possession. The refs made the judgement call the other way. This is not like the "Tuck rule" where the ref has some kind of absolute to decide for them.

Unless you think Lewis NEVER at any point lost the ball in anyway, it became a judgment call for the ref the rest of the way.

 

[SacPete1]

@SacPete1 NOT Relevant on a run play

It doesn't matter whether its a run or a pass. Its about possession. If a player loses possession when he's a runner (this means it could be running play or a passing play), he must re-establish possession and if he is going to the ground while attempting to re-possess the ball, he must survive the ground.

Section 2 Article 7 in the NFL rulebook:

Note 1: A player who goes to the ground in the process of attempting to secure possession of a loose ball (with or without contact by an opponent) must maintain control of the ball throughout the process of contacting the ground, whether in the field of play or the end zone. If he loses control of the ball, and the ball touches the ground before he regains control, there is no possession. If he regains control prior to the ball touching the ground, it is a catch, interception, or recovery.

 

[mosslost]

I do not know the rules inside and out, but I think there are 3 parts of the play that complicates the matter.

1. Did Lewis fumble the ball. I would say yes. The defender's action causes the ball to come lose from Lewis.

2. Did Lewis regain control. This is where I do not know the rules. I thought Lewis pinned the ball to his thigh pretty good, while he was going down. I could be wrong, but that is what I thought.

3. When is the play called dead. I guess that depends on #2. IF he had control (as in this case the ball is between his hand and thigh), I would assume that when his knees hit the ground, he would be down by contact. Similarly, I thought the ground caused the ball to move. Does the ground 'aiding' in a fumble at that point have no bearing on the decision?

I guess if the argument is that #2, Lewis never regained control, then the ground would not make the play dead and it would be a live ball until Lewis establishes control for a third time?

the real issue is your number "2" is a judgement call for the ref to make.

 

[Soliel]

It was close. I’d hate to have to make that call

 

[mosslost]

Note 1: A player who goes to the ground in the process of attempting to secure possession of a loose ball (with or without contact by an opponent) must maintain control of the ball throughout the process of contacting the ground, whether in the field of play or the end zone. If he loses control of the ball, and the ball touches the ground before he regains control, there is no possession. If he regains control prior to the ball touching the ground, it is a catch, interception, or recovery.

exactly, which confirms what I am saying, that "must survive the ground is irrelevant" The "ground" did not cause the ball to come loose, that is what "surviving the ground is about". THAT is irrelevant for a runner. So, the rule you quote is applicable ONLY if Lewis did in fact fumble the ball BEFORE contacting the groun. (Which he did) And in that case he NEEDS to get possession back, and that is a judgement call for the ref. (whether he did or not)

OP was just pissed during the game and freaked.

 

[mosslost]

Thank you.

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

Fans from other teams read our board sometimes. Please stop you are making them think Patriot fans have no clue.

 

[SacPete1]

exactly, which confirms what I am saying, that "must survive the ground is irrelevant" The "ground" did not cause the ball to come loose, that is what "surviving the ground is about". THAT is irrelevant for a runner. So, the rule you quote is applicable ONLY if Lewis did in fact fumble the ball BEFORE contacting the groun. (Which he did) And in that case he NEEDS to get possession back, and that is a judgement call for the ref. (whether he did or not)

OP was just pissed during the game and freaked.

Ok so maybe we are seeing the same thing but using different terms.

 

[mosslost]

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

that is the refs judgment call.. and he made the call. No.

 

[mosslost]

Ok so maybe we are seeing the same thing but using different terms.

yes. That is the point. The whole thing about "surviving the ground" is entirely about what a catch is and isn't. As soon as anyone is a runner with possession of the ball that terminology would never apply.

 

[Chris Stevenson]

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)

Hilarious. I don't think you'll be doing anything until your learn what a fumble is. He did lose control of the ball, but CLEARLY regained the possession. This is Kevin

Lewis's red glove is on the ball all the way through, on his leg, well through his descension to the ground.

The second video tells all:

VIDEO: Myles Jack Should Have Had a Touchdown on Dion Lewis Fumble

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.

nope. cheating with still
frames before he regained possession and kept possession to the ground is the fact.

you being sneaky and not showing where he regained firm possession against his leg is possession again, otherwise, jack would have had possession before lewis came to the ground