Dion Lewis Fumble/NOT a fumble

[Joey007]

Tin foil thread

 

[mosslost]

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.

I go back and forth on this, but no matter what, it is the refs judgment call, and the refs call rules. There is no "Tuck Rule" type concept that gives the refs an absolute.

It could be a bad call, but refs make "bad" calls a lot. The ONLY way the OP is correct is if it was NEVER a fumble. BECAUSE once you decide there was a "fumble" then it is the refs judgement as to whether he regained possession. All you can do is cry and scream and tantrum if you don't agree with a refs judgement call (like a bad PI or something)

 

[mosslost]

Tin foil thread

it is kind of like a reverse tin foil thread sort of ?

 

[Chris Stevenson]

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.

it absolutely does. the ball
never moved once pinned. not a fumble

very simple..knee down and then it was stripped away from his leg, well after his left
knee was down.



kevin faulk had that 4th and 2 in indy with final and forward progress/possession at the 30 yard line

unless you claim he did not ever have final control

 

[SlowGettingUp]

The second video tells all:

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

This is actually the more interesting discussion I think. The answer is that Jacks was considered down by contact even though he possibly was not touched:

See discussion here:

​

13:53 | 4th qtr. Looking back to the fumble recovery by the Jaguars early in the 4th quarter, there is a question as to whether Myles Jack is down by contact.

Whenever a ball is stripped from a player in possession on the ground, it is down by contact and no fumble. In this case, the ball was not in possession but taken from an opponent’s hands, so this is deemed as “contact” by the Patriots as Jack begins to take control.

Is it possible that there was no hand-to-hand contact? Yes, but there is no way that can be perceived, so the officials are instructed to treat this as down by contact.

The contact, by the way, only has to occur when a player is beginning to secure the ball. It is held until the player finishes establishing control, and is dead at that point.

This was correctly ruled as down by contact on the recovery.


http://www.footballzebras.com/2018/01/21/championship-liveblog-jaguars-at-patriots/

 

[SacPete1]

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.

surviving the ground phrase was used by Corrente when explaining the ASJ fumble so I was using it here.

Semantics really. We are in agreement over the interpretation.

 

[Snake Eyes]

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.

and if you look further down in the rulebook you'll see

"Note 3: If a player has control of the ball, a slight movement of the ball will not be considered loss of possession. He must lose control of the ball in order to rule that there has been a loss of possession."

Lewis had control when his knee hit the ground.

 

[IllegalContact]

I though he fumbled because the ball was moving before he hit the ground

I would not have complained if it was overturned, but was not expecting them to do so

 

[Kontradiction]

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.

Here’s the video so you can watch it over and over and over again to your heart’s content so that you can get it right.

 

[SacPete1]

and if you look further down in the rulebook you'll see

"Note 3: If a player has control of the ball, a slight movement of the ball will not be considered loss of possession. He must lose control of the ball in order to rule that there has been a loss of possession."

Lewis had control when his knee hit the ground.

and this is the crux of it and the judgement on the part of the referee and the replay. They determined it was more than a slight movement of the ball and a loss of control.

 

[EddardSnow67]

I think it could be called either way and both sides have an argument.

What certainly isn't productive is each side calling the other blind or implying they don't know anything about football because of how they interpreted an extremely close call.

 

[patchick]

FYI, from the National Football League Rulebook:

“A player is in possession when he is in firm grip and control of the ball inbounds.”

Firm grip and control. The fact that the ball is between the player's arm and leg is not enough to establish possession. Nor is the fact that super slow-motion can find an instant when you can't clearly see the ball moving.

At the very least, it's not enough to overturn the ruling on the field.

 

[richie021501]

FYI, from the National Football League Rulebook:

“A player is in possession when he is in firm grip and control of the ball inbounds.”

Firm grip and control. The fact that the ball is between the player's arm and leg is not enough to establish possession. Nor is the fact that super slow-motion can find an instant when you can't clearly see the ball moving.

At the very least, it's not enough to overturn the ruling on the field.

I think that's what makes it a judgement call. The rule book doesn't establish what constitutes "firm grip and control" so that is up to the referees judgement. I think the refs got it right, I think it was a fumble but I think it was close. It could have gone either way imo.

 

[TB_Helmet]

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.

You had me up until you started talking about this Kevin fellow.

Say what you will about millennials, but at least they are familiar with basic operation of a keyboard.

 

[MassPats38]

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

View attachment 19401

The rule requires that the ball be 'firmly' under Lewis's control. Short of freezing this to a single frame where all motion stops, precisely when does that happen after the ball goes loose? Pinning the ball while not gripping it is not firmly anything. It is a loose ball (also defined in the rules I referenced).

Feel free to actually quote the rules in lieu of offering a conclusion without the actual rule. Fumble, possession and loose ball are all defined by rule.

 

[Betterthanmost]

Why was Lewis not doing his usually acceleration there? Or is Jack that fast to catch up? Or was he just waiting on his blockers ahead?

 

[A Defiant Goose]

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.

Gotta say it was a weird looking play. He almost looked like he ran into the LB or just completely forgot he was there

 

[QuantumMechanic]

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.

Ground absolutely can cause a fumble. If an untouched runner falls to the ground and the ball is jarred loose, that’s a fumble.

 

[scout]

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.

Not sure what Nantz and Romo were saying as my TV was muted. Although, I saw the replay a number of times. He lost control and fumbled the ball. I've got to believe if the same play/call happens to a Jaguar runner, then a lot of posters switch opinions.

 

[mosslost]

Ground absolutely can cause a fumble. If an untouched runner falls to the ground and the ball is jarred loose, that’s a fumble.

I said that. But not if he his knocked to the ground.