Dion Lewis Fumble/NOT a fumble

[chasa]

It's easily a half-3/4 of a second of time. It's a quick play, which is why it was missed and what replay is for. Otherwise, why have replay? Lewis never completely lost possession of the ball.

3/4 of a second is not long enough for possession to be established, which is what everyone is TRYING to explain to you. at full speed it is a fumble. Nobody is going to make a ruling based on a still image.

 

[Chris Stevenson]

Those people also:

1.) think the earth is flat
2.) Think Dan fouts is better then tony romo.
3.)Think jet fuel can't melt steel beams
4.)believe with a certainty that the moon landing was faked.
5.)Apparently believe the footage being posted of lewis losing control, was ALSO faked.

And there are also belligerent people who refuse to learn or who can't admit when they are so clearly wrong.

You know, like Goodell.

Lewis proved to show firm possession all the way to the ground, even after his left knee was down.

If Jack had recovered the fumble, he would have done so before Lewis's knee was down.

Just a simple NFL rule there. lol

 

[Chris Stevenson]

3/4 of a second is not long enough for possession to be established, which is what everyone is TRYING to explain to you. at full speed it is a fumble. Nobody is going to make a ruling based on a still image.

It's not a still image. It's called slow mo replay. It's what Riveron is hired to do. The problem here is, the original call was missed in suspicious fashion, and then they escaped by saying "not enough to over-turn", when the call should have been "down, we'll take a look at it"....Again, the ball came LOOSE visibly AFTER he was clearly down. Heck, it didn't even come loose right after his left knee hit! It came loose from his hand and hip area, after he was flat on his back!

In fact, the ref who made that call was in front of Lewis and couldn't see he had possession, he just took the cheese on Jack's sell job.

Nice job by Jack to try to sell it as he rolled over, but it just doesn't change the replay and what we saw from the backside angle.

Show me a rule where they show time limits to show possession. Good luck finding it. lol

If a WR quickly catches a ball and starts to run in under a second's worth of time, he still quickly caught it and made a football move. There are no time limits. You're just making that up in desperation. If we can see with our own eyes, that the ball is not jostling or moving as he falls to the ground, then that's the proof because jack didn't even have his hands on the ball. You can't even argue he was pulling it out at that point.

Who are you to claim "it's not long enough", when the NFL uses replay to try to see things that they may have missed due to the speed of the game? You don't get to tell people what you think a time period is to show possession because that would be very arrogant to do so.

The refs screwed up the original call and then arrogantly refused to admit they blew it after a clear replay.

 

[chasa]

Lewis proved to show firm possession all the way to the ground

Once jack slaps it out of his hand the ball never stops moving, that is UNLESS YOU PAUSE THE VIDEO. This is clearly a fumble.

 

[chasa]

It's not a still image. It's called slow mo replay.

In fact, the ref who made that call was in front of Lewis and couldn't see he had possession, he just took the cheese on Jack's sell job.

Nice job by Jack to try to sell it as he rolled over, but it just doesn't change the replay and what we saw from the backside angle.

Show me a rule where they show time limits to show possession. Good luck finding it. lol

If a WR quickly catches a ball and starts to run in under a second's worth of time, he still quickly caught it and made a football move. There are no time limits. You're just making that up in desperation. If we can see with our own eyes, that the ball is not jostling or moving as he falls to the ground, then that's the proof because jack didn't even have his hands on the ball. You can't even argue he was pulling it out at that point.

Who are you to claim "it's not long enough", when the NFL uses replay to try to see things that they may have missed due to the speed of the game? You don't get to tell people what you think a time period is to show possession because that would be very arrogant to do so.

The refs screwed up the original call and then arrogantly refused to admit they blew it after a clear replay.

Show me a rule where a fumble called on the field, and a rumble confirmed via review, isnt a fumble.

 

[chasa]

full speed:
That looks like a fumble
Slow mo:
yep still a fumble
Still Image:

Look see the ball isn't moving, clearly not a fumble /s

 

[Chris Stevenson]

Show me a rule where a fumble called on the field, and a rumble confirmed via review, isnt a fumble.

Show me where the officials are perfect and always get the call right? That just doesn't happen, as we know.

The fact is, any close calls, Jax was getting them. That's a Goodell order as English people lined up in the pubs with Jaguars jerseys on.

Suspicious that it was called so quickly so wrong. Sad that you can't grasp that.

It's also comical the penalties Jax did get were beyond legit, with people running around the interwebs saying they got screwed yet again as Gronk is cheapshotted, Cooks armbarred all game, and Jax OL are bodyslamming our DL all game long.

Kinda funny how bad the refs are, how they can't get calls right, right in front of them, and then we have Pats fans brainwashed with Puritan Guilt trying to concede the refs were right.

 

[Chris Stevenson]

I am laughing at "Chasa" not knowing the ground cannot cause a fumble.

 

[chasa]

Show me where the officials are perfect and always get the call right? That just doesn't happen, as we know.

The fact is, any close calls, Jax was getting them. That's a Goodell order as English people lined up in the pubs with Jaguars jerseys on.

Suspicious that it was called so quickly so wrong. Sad that you can't grasp that.

It's also comical the penalties Jax did get were beyond legit, with people running around the interwebs saying they got screwed yet again as Gronk is cheapshotted, Cooks armbarred all game, and Jax OL are bodyslamming our DL all game long.

Kinda funny how bad the refs are, how they can't get calls right, right in front of them, and then we have Pats fans brainwashed with Puritan Guilt trying to concede the refs were right.

so that's a yes on the crazy person part? because only someone a few pieces short of a completed puzzle would be this angry about a play that didn't matter in a game that our team won.

 

[Chris Stevenson]

3/4 of a second is not long enough for possession to be established, which is what everyone is TRYING to explain to you. at full speed it is a fumble. Nobody is going to make a ruling based on a still image.

Have you shown us an NFL rule where a time stamp is needed to "show" a human being is possessing a ball?

I don't think ya have. Keep doubling down, Goodell Jr.

 

[chasa]

I am laughing at "Chasa" not knowing the ground cannot cause a fumble.

LOL i dont think you understand what that sentence means.

The ground not being able to cause a fumble Literally means impacting with the ground cant cause the ball to pop out resulting in a fumble. This has ZERO bearing on this play. Lewis loses the ball while running and never regains control. For instance :
Kyle Fuller rips ball out of receiver's hands to intercept Garoppolo pass
Here is another scenerio where a player has the ball taken from them going to the ground. but im sure over in crazy town, that is not an interception right, because the 49er player is down.

how about this one? Bobby Wagner Rips Ball Away For Interception

Also not an int right?

man these refs keep getting it "wrong"

this one?

How about this one?

Damn these refs and goodell forcing those other teams with turnovers!!!

how about this one blob:https://vine.co/960d05d1-d485-495d-8bbd-b978e8dfd177 clearly that one player steps out of bounds right?

I'm going to be straight with you, i didn't expect to find this many examples of how wrong you are. This isnt even the last of them I could keep going, but im Probably just going to watch you ignore all these say something about how im a plant, then ill add you to ignore.

 

[Tony Cahncuhd]

There is a clear-as-day rule that I think some in here are not aware of:

If a player is in the process of going to the ground while trying to make a catch, he has to survive the ground or it is incomplete.

If a player is in the process of going to the ground while trying to recover a fumble, he has to survive the ground or it is still a loose ball.

He survived the ground. He didn't survive Myles Jack ripping it away after his knee touched the ground. If Jack hadn't done that he would have retained the ball. In real-time, this was not obvious so I don't blame the officials. I think you're more than a little deluded here. But the whole thing's kind of irrelevant now.

 

[Chris Stevenson]

so that's a yes on the crazy person part? because only someone a few pieces short of a completed puzzle would be this angry about a play that didn't matter in a game that our team won.

So, with ratings dropping left and right with refs calling things wrong that they can't even see, this is one big coincidence to you, huh? You're a really smart guy!

Can the ground cause a fumble or not? Telling you won't answer this one, too.

You thinking the ground can cause a fumble and the ball magically stuck to Lewis's hand and his hip, even though it wasn't magic, it's called force, I would venture to guess you're crazy and likely a young little guy who doesn't really know NFL rules like MOST people, which is why Romo and Nantz couldn't figure out why they were looking at the Jesse James TD for so long.

Duh.

Visible proof of possession is possession. We'll wait on this time limit rule you are going to source for us:

 

[Chris Stevenson]

He survived the ground. He didn't survive Myles Jack ripping it away after his knee touched the ground. If Jack hadn't done that he would have retained the ball. In real-time, this was not obvious so I don't blame the officials. I think you're more than a little deluded here. But the whole thing's kind of irrelevant now.

Thank you, sir.

The fact is, a Goodell stooge took the cheese from Myles Jack because "anything close, give to Jax" is the order of the day from Goodell.

Yep.

Hence, why a blinded ref immediately believed Jack's sell job.

Keep in mind, we're the team who saw Gronk mauled in the end zone in 2013 on MNF and they picke dup the flag to cheat us and Carolina win, helping Denver and Manning get the 1 seed.

Some guy can come whipping in to overrule a clear penalty, but a ref with a better view of the ref who ruled this one wrong, can't overrule, when it's clear as day.

 

[Chris Stevenson]

LOL i dont think you understand what that sentence means

I know what it means and I know it's an NFL rule.

LOL

We're waiting for you, to show us an NFL rule that disputes that rule or a "time" it takes to show a player having or maintain possession.

Or, is this where you double down again and backpedal with something else that doesn't pertain to the actual event on the field?

 

[chasa]

I know what it means and I know it's an NFL rule.

LOL

We're waiting for you, to show us an NFL rule that disputes that rule or a "time" it takes to show a player having or maintain possession.

Or, is this where you double down again and backpedal with something else that doesn't pertain to the actual event on the field?

I updated a previous post with like 5 examples of plays exactly like this weekends, feel free to put your tin foil hat on and shout nonsense.

 

[XLIX]

He survived the ground. He didn't survive Myles Jack ripping it away after his knee touched the ground.

You obviously don't know what "survive the ground" means. It means retaining possession and control of the ball through the entire process of going to the ground. It does *not* mean simply having control the moment your knee hits the ground.

If Jack hadn't done that he would have retained the ball.

Um, the defense is allowed to claw at the ball to get the offense to lose possession. When it comes to surviving the ground you don't get to say "hey, he *would've* survived the ground if the other guy hadn't ripped it away so that counts as surviving the ground!" That very notion is ludicrous.

 

[Chris Stevenson]

I updated a previous post with like 5 examples of plays exactly like this weekends, feel free to put your tin foil hat on and shout nonsense.

Yes, the NFL is not a business and has outstanding, well regarded, in-shape officials who are younger and can keep up with the speed of the game.

lmao

 

[chasa]

Yes, the NFL is not a business and has outstanding, well regarded, in-shape officials who are younger and can keep up with the speed of the game.

lmao

So your defense of 5 examples of players having the ball taken from them either going out of bounds or going to the ground is "the officials are out of shape" Awesome.

Good bye crazy person.

 

[Chris Stevenson]

You obviously don't know what "survive the ground" means. It means retaining possession and control of the ball through the entire process of going to the ground. It does *not* mean simply having control the moment your knee hits the ground.
---------------------------------

It's false. He already CAUGHT THE BALL. This is not about a catch.

LMAO

This proves you don't know what you're talking about here. Once he possesed the ball, ran with it (football move), the catch discussion is done.

The fact is, he never lost possession all the way to the ground (after the initial jostle by Jacks's arm), so there was never a fumble.

Get it?

I mean, holy mackerel.

When embarrassed and not knowing something, best advice is to not keep doubling down.

This is like the people who ignored what the Ideal Gas Law is, because they couldn't admit Goodell duped them.