Dion Lewis Fumble/NOT a fumble

[mosslost]

But that where you have an incorrect understanding. It can/does apply to runners as well. Again, look no further than the Austin Sefarian Jenkins play. The fact that he caught the ball in the play had nothing to do with the decision of fumble or not. The fumble had everything to do with what he did AS A RUNNER. The fact that he caught a pass prior to that did not matter. Surviving the ground does apply to runners as well. The only difference is that when a runner doesn't survive the ground it's a 'live ball' instead of it being incomplete.

?

 

[primetime]

Best kind of Patsfans thread is the one where people whine about a (pretty unobjectionable) call after winning the AFC Championship Game.

 

[Kdo5]

It was obviously a fumble. Whether he regained possession? I don't know...it's a tough call but given the initial ruling I can understood why it stood.

In any case the refs were right to initially rule it a fumble, they shouldn't have blown the play dead either. We were fortunate with that, would have been game over.

 

[captain stone]

the section that you linked to is from the 2011 rulebook. the 2017 rulebook is different, and clarifies gaining possession of a loose ball:





the important parts:


note 1 is worded slightly differently as well, and the changes are relevant:



even if one argues that lewis re-possessed the ball by pinning it to his hip, he didn't remain upright long enough to demonstrate that he was clearly a runner, therefore he had to maintain control until after his initial contact with the ground in order to establish possession. he obviously did not do that.
.

Were these passages referenced when the Austin Sefarian-Jenkins TD in New Jersey was reversed?

 

[Ring 6]

the section that you linked to is from the 2011 rulebook. the 2017 rulebook is different, and clarifies gaining possession of a loose ball:





the important parts:


note 1 is worded slightly differently as well, and the changes are relevant:



even if one argues that lewis re-possessed the ball by pinning it to his hip, he didn't remain upright long enough to demonstrate that he was clearly a runner, therefore he had to maintain control until after his initial contact with the ground in order to establish possession. he obviously did not do that.
.

He was running with the ball and being tackled. That would seem to establish him as a runner.

 

[archstanton543]

It was obviously a fumble. Whether he regained possession? I don't know...it's a tough call but given the initial ruling I can understood why it stood.

In any case the refs were right to initially rule it a fumble, they shouldn't have blown the play dead either. We were fortunate with that, would have been game over.

When Jack secured possession of the football, Lewis' hand and arm contacted him. Jack is down by contact.

 

[brdmaverick]

?

Ok, that was wordy so let me try to explain myself better.....

Do you agree that 'surviving the ground' was applicable to the Austin Sefarian Jenkins play? (Please say 'yes'. After all, the ref said it in his explanation and was discussed by everyone at length for a week.)

Ok, and when they said he did not survive the ground, did they rule it a fumble or an incompletion? (Please say 'fumble')

Right, a fumble. Only a person in possession can fumble. Another word for a person in possession is a RUNNER. Even though the depth chart says he is a tight end, after he caught the ball, got two feet down, and made a football move he became a RUNNER. As a runner he fumbled, and the 'survive the ground rule' came into play.

So that is an example of 'surviving the ground' applying to a runner, so to suggest otherwise would not be accurate. Yes, I agree, surviving the ground does also apply to 'complete vs incomplete', but it also applies to anyone trying to recover fumble as well.

 

[meatface]

Imagine if the roles had been reversed and it had been Fournet fumbling like that with the Pats recovering. Everyone would be saying that the ref rigged the game

 

[XLIX]

I have no idea if that was a fumble or not.. I am just saying you can't use the "survive the ground" terminology in relation to a fumble, just a catch.

Of course you can. It means you have to maintain possession all the way through contact with the ground.

Seriously, learn the rules.

 

[XLIX]

Didn't we just watch a player catch the ball with his *** a few weeks ago. ?

If you're talking about the play I think you're talking about, nobody caught a ball with his ass. The ball never hit the ground, and yes it bounced off a guy's ass. But if a forward pass bounces around while never actually touching the ground, it can be caught by anyone who gains possession.

Lewis had that ball pinned to his leg.

He became a runner, he maintained the ball against his body. He was down before the ball became loose.

Go back and look at the picture I posted proving without any doubt Lewis fumbled the ball. Only the very tips of his fingers are in touch with the ball, so that constitutes a clear loss of control.

 

[bbobbo]

Yes, he did. He took at least one more step, running, with it pinned to his hip.

no he didn't. as soon as jack hits the ball out, dion's legs stop moving and he falls forward. he doesn't re-establish himself as a runner.

 

[Silver Blue&Red]

Of course you can. It means you have to maintain possession all the way through contact with the ground.

Seriously, learn the rules.

What is the definition of "maintain control"? With his hands only?

BTW, I can't find your pic. Your profile page wouldn't allow me to track your posts.

 

[bbobbo]

Didn't we just watch a player catch the ball with his *** a few weeks ago. ?
Lewis had that ball pinned to his leg.

He became a runner, he maintained the ball against his body. He was down before the ball became loose.

No fumble IMO.

Doesn't matter tho. That's what they called on the field.
Just like the calls the Jags are crying about.

in order to re-establish himself as a runner, he has to do one of the following:

• be capable of avoiding or warding off impending contact of an opponent NO
• tuck the ball away NO
• turn up field NO
• take additional steps NO

he never re-established himself as a runner, so down by contact doesn't come into play. instead, note #1 comes into play, which references "players going to the ground in the process of attempting to secure possession of a loose ball":



in this situation, he "must maintain control of the ball until after his initial contact with the ground"--he clearly doesn't do that.

.

 

[bbobbo]

He was running with the ball and being tackled. That would seem to establish him as a runner.

he was initially a runner, but after he lost control of the ball, he had to re-establish himself as a runner. he didn't do that.
.

 

[bbobbo]

Were these passages referenced when the Austin Sefarian-Jenkins TD in New Jersey was reversed?

i don't know if they specifically referenced those sections, but those rules also applied to the ASJ fumble.
.

 

[Silver Blue&Red]

no he didn't. as soon as jack hits the ball out, dion's legs stop moving and he falls forward. he doesn't re-establish himself as a runner.

Re-establish himself as a runner.
When did he stop? LOL.

It doesn't really matter. It was called as a fumble. So it's a fumble in the history books.
Done.

My last word on the subject.

 

[Bobsyouruncle]

Of course you can. It means you have to maintain possession all the way through contact with the ground.

Seriously, learn the rules.

Anyone who has established possession only has to maintain it until downed not all the way through contact with the ground.


At 1:50 in the video White does not survive the ground before the ball comes out, but his knee touches. Play dead, not a fumble.

 

[Silver Blue&Red]

in order to re-establish himself as a runner, he has to do one of the following:

• be capable of avoiding or warding off impending contact of an opponent NO
• tuck the ball away NO
• turn up field NO
• take additional steps NO

he never re-established himself as a runner, so down by contact doesn't come into play. instead, note #1 comes into play, which references "players going to the ground in the process of attempting to secure possession of a loose ball":



in this situation, he "must maintain control of the ball until after his initial contact with the ground"--he clearly doesn't do that.

.

Your quoting a catch situation.
He was a runner 15yrds through out the play. He was "Clearly a runner".
Your cherry picking.


that's my last word on it....
......Again. LOL

 

[bbobbo]

Your quoting a catch situation.
He was a runner 15yrds through out the play. He was "Clearly a runner".
Your cherry picking.


that's my last word on it....
......Again. LOL

"To gain possession of a loose ball that has been caught, intercepted, or recovered". he was trying to recover possession of the ball.

 

[Silver Blue&Red]

"To gain possession of a loose ball that has been caught, intercepted, or recovered". he was trying to recover possession of the ball.

"He. Never. Lost. Possession". That's the point. It was never loose.

...And does the rule say it must be possessed by his hands, arms, "arm and thigh", both legs.????,
He had the ball between his arm and thigh. BEFORE he hit the ground. Not a receiver, a runner.