Dion Lewis Fumble/NOT a fumble

[Silver Blue&Red]

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

The point is if it was the correct call. Not if we got jobbed.
The refs called it, and that's that.

It's just that nobody understands the rules.

No ones complaining. At least not me

 

[cmasspatsfan]

Shaq Mason looked at Jack and should have wiped him out, looking at it several times I think Shaq thought Dion would outrun him but there were two other blockers in front of Dion. I'd love to be a fly on the wall when BB goes over that play.

 

[bbobbo]

"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.

in my opinion, the ball comes loose here. you don't agree. that's fine.

 

[StockingAnarchyNumber12]

Clear fumble

 

[Silver Blue&Red]

in my opinion, the ball comes loose here. you don't agree. that's fine.

So he lost control, and them regained it against his thigh before he was downed. So it's a fumble and a fumble recovery by Lewis?
He's a "RUNNER". He can lose the ball and recover it. Hence, a fumble, Which BTW, I don't think is what happened.
But either way, it supports my Opinion, IMO

Either way, In my eyes, not a fumble.
You keep going back and forth to fit your assessment .

Oh well. No biggie

 

[bbobbo]

So he lost control, and them regained it against his thigh before he was downed. So it's a fumble and a fumble recovery by Lewis?

Either way, In my eyes, not a fumble.
You keep going back and forth to fit your assessment .

Oh well. No biggie

fumble, not a recovery. in order to be a recovery, you have to either:

• re-establish yourself as a runner, or
• maintain possession until after contacting the ground

not exactly sure what i'm going back and forth on.
.

 

[lancerman]

So he lost control, and them regained it against his thigh before he was downed. So it's a fumble and a fumble recovery by Lewis?
He's a "RUNNER". He can lose the ball and recover it. Hence, a fumble, Which BTW, I don't think is what happened.
But either way, it supports my Opinion, IMO

Either way, In my eyes, not a fumble.
You keep going back and forth to fit your assessment .

Oh well. No biggie

It got loose. Even if you want to say he regained control he was going down before he could make a football move and establish himself as a runner. So he never had possession again and needed to survive the ground.

 

[bbobbo]

It got loose. Even if you want to say he regained control he was going down before he could make a football move and establish himself as a runner. So he never had possession again and needed to survive the ground.

i pass the baton to you. off to bed for me.
.

 

[Silver Blue&Red]

It got loose. Even if you want to say he regained control he was going down before he could make a football move and establish himself as a runner. So he never had possession again and needed to survive the ground.

See you guy's are using the catch rule. He doesn't have to become a runner again, because he never stopped being a runner. He never lost possession. !!!

What's so hard about that?
HE WAS A RUNNER WHO MAINTAINED THE BALL AGAINST HIS BODY, TO THE GROUND..

Where in the rules does it say a RUNNER needs to have the ball in his "Hands" to be considered possession?
And, again, I'm not talking about "A catch Rule"

 

[Silver Blue&Red]

Anyway, good night.
I beat this to ground.
Sleep tight.
No hard feelings.

We are going to the SB.
Peace

 

[tuckeverlasting]

my son and i had the same argument. he thought it was a fumble, i did not.

 

[brdmaverick]

The point is if it was the correct call. Not if we got jobbed.
The refs called it, and that's that.

It's just that nobody understands the rules.

No ones complaining. At least not me

Right, and it's inspired some pretty good back and forth, so you it actually is a really good topic of conversation.

What also adds to the 'debate' is that the refs did not elaborate on their decision during the game. They just said 'the ruling on the field stands'.

 

[brdmaverick]

See you guy's are using the catch rule. He doesn't have to become a runner again, because he never stopped being a runner. He never lost possession. !!!

If that is your position then that is a fair argument. You are correct that if he never lost control then the whole 'surviving the ground' doesn't come into play.

In my opinion I'd say he did 'lose possession' when Jack initially jarred it, but I know another poster added some rules language that said movement of the ball doesn't necessarily mean a fumble. I suppose that is the part that is open for interpretation and the key determinant over whether it was a fumble or not. I think it is, but that's my interpretation.

 

[brdmaverick]

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.

Agreed, the key piece of your statement is 'established posssesion'. The instant Lewis fumbled he 'lost possession' and then needed to do the proper steps to re-establish possession (since he was going to the ground that included 'surviving the ground', which he did not do).

White didn't need to survive the ground because he wasn't in the process of recovering a fumble.

 

[Ring 6]

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.
.

When he regained control he was running wit the ball and being tackled

 

[QuantumMechanic]

Again, it's NOT "the catch rule", it's the "establishing possession of a loose ball rule".

We went through this endlessly on the ASJ play weeks ago. For some reason people keep forgetting he was a RUNNER when it happened. The ref clearly, explicitly, and on the record said that when going to ground in a fumble situation the would-be recoverer must survive the ground

It is an absolute fact that the ref said that.

 

[bbobbo]

When he regained control he was running wit the ball and being tackled

as soon as jack punches the ball loose, dion's legs stop moving and he falls forward. he doesn't do any of the four things which would have re-established him as a runner:

• 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

 

[Bobsyouruncle]

Again, it's NOT "the catch rule", it's the "establishing possession of a loose ball rule".

We went through this endlessly on the ASJ play weeks ago. For some reason people keep forgetting he was a RUNNER when it happened. The ref clearly, explicitly, and on the record said that when going to ground in a fumble situation the would-be recoverer must survive the ground

It is an absolute fact that the ref said that.

They're disputing it was a fumble. Saying:

1. It was a fumble
2: The rule for establishing possession in a fumble recovery were not met.

Is begging the question. You cant prove 1, by quoting the rule for 2.

I'm not disputing either point, I'm saying that is the argument being made.

 

[Chris Stevenson]

So he lost control, and them regained it against his thigh before he was downed. So it's a fumble and a fumble recovery by Lewis?
He's a "RUNNER". He can lose the ball and recover it. Hence, a fumble, Which BTW, I don't think is what happened.
But either way, it supports my Opinion, IMO

Either way, In my eyes, not a fumble.
You keep going back and forth to fit your assessment .

Oh well. No biggie

I don't like phony Mike Perreira, but even he acknowledged the ball was re-possessed by Lewis. Or, at least it showed to be that on the replay.

The only defense of the refs is that it happened very fast, but the fact the speed may have altered the correct call from being made, etc. But, it's suspicious the call that was made, was the choice by the ref. It would have made more sense, if Jack is down without the ball, and the then rolls over to show the ball, after he hit the ground, it would mean he didn't have the ball in his hands before he hit the ground.

The correct call should have been down by contact/no fumble, with a challenge from Jax.

There is no way the ref saw Jack strip the ball out before Lewis was down.

1. It never happened.
2. He didn't see it.

 

[Chris Stevenson]

my son and i had the same argument. he thought it was a fumble, i did not.

Well, your son doesn't know the rules. Understandable.