Dion Lewis Fumble/NOT a fumble

[mike_usagisan]

See my post above. Knee being down is only enough if you had possession before falling to the ground and during your fall to the ground. If so (and if you've been touched, of course), you're down by contact.

But if you lose possession of the ball and don't regain it and maintain it during your entire fall to the ground, even if you're touched you're not down by contact unless you maintain possession when you hit and for a short time afterwards. That's "surviving the ground".

I know you're right, but I can guarantee you I'd never be able to see that watching it (even with 10,000 replays in slow-mo). To me it looked like he did survive the ground but didn't survive Jack. By the time Jack knocks it out it looks like Lewis has already flipped over onto his back. So, I guess, does surviving the ground mean until he comes to a complete and final stop?

 

[fnordcircle]

Ha ha... I'm one of the crazies who thinks you can make a case for "pinned to the leg" as possession

I don't think that's crazy. I just don't think enough time had passed for it to be reasonably ruled that he had regained possession. But it's not crazy.

 

[TommyD4207]

I'm not only saying Lewis didn't survive the ground, I'm saying he never re-gained possession in the first place.

Dunno. The way I saw it was Tyree had the ball pinned to his helmet and survived until he was down. (I don't think "survived the ground" was a thing back then.)

It was (there has been a variation of it in the rules since 1999). Either way, it has nothing to do with the Tyree catch. That ball never hits the ground. It never leaves Tyree's possession. Harrison tried to knock it free, and couldn't. Tyree's catch was odd, but very clearly and obviously a catch.

Lewis had the ball, bobbled it, pinned it to his side and survived until he was down,

"Pinning" the nose of the football to your leg, after it has been knocked out of your arm, isn't possession. The rule is 'firm grasp and control'. There was nothing 'firm' about that grasp, and it certainly wasn't anything resembling control.

Lat which point Jack flicked it out. Now you're saying Lewis didn't survive the ground, which I believe you, but I still don't understand it and clearly can't recognize it when I see it.

Don't really know what to tell you then. Did you see the Jets game? That's an example of a fumble without the ball hitting the ground. This was the same thing, except it was in-bounds, and the defender got control of the loose ball.

 

[TommyD4207]

I know you're right, but I can guarantee you I'd never be able to see that watching it (even with 10,000 replays in slow-mo). To me it looked like he did survive the ground but didn't survive Jack. By the time Jack knocks it out it looks like Lewis has already flipped over onto his back. So, I guess, does surviving the ground mean until he comes to a complete and final stop?

He didn't have possession of the ball to survive the ground with.

 

[mike_usagisan]

I don't think that's crazy. I just don't think enough time had passed for it to be reasonably ruled that he had regained possession. But it's not crazy.

Yeah, and I think you must be right. I just didn't get all the strident "It WAS a fumble and it can't be seen any other way!" "It was NOT a fumble and it's clear!" yelling that was going on earlier. To me it's confusing.

 

[mike_usagisan]

Don't really know what to tell you then. Did you see the Jets game? That's an example of a fumble without the ball hitting the ground. This was the same thing, except it was in-bounds, and the defender got control of the loose ball.

I'm not going to lie, I didn't really understand it then, nor do I understand it in the Steelers game. Hell, I still think the Dez catch was a catch. That's why I'm happy to defer to people who know the rulebook better, but it's obviously not always easy to recognize.

 

[XLIX]

Yes, it does. lmao

You don';t get to decide how a human possess a ball in which fashion or how.

Actually we do. The rulebook gets to decide what constitutes a possession, and the phrase it uses is "firm grip and control of the ball with his hands or arms.

Why won't you answer the question I have asked you twice?

 

[XLIX]

Sure it is. Deleting one group's comments, while not the belligerents' comments, shows favoritism and is arbitrary, just like Mussolini, Hitler or Stalin's logic.

Fascism is fascism.

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand it's nice to see we've finally satisfied Godwin's Law.

 

[mike_usagisan]

He didn't have possession of the ball to survive the ground with.

Okay, but until Jack flicked it away, it looked like he did. If he ended up on the ground with the ball still pinned to his leg and no one ever touched him on the ground, would they would have ruled it what... an incomplete pass? ...a fumble that just stopped? I'm confused. Because it looked like possession to me until Jack flicked it away at the end.

 

[XLIX]

Here is the problem:

The ball never came loose. There was never a gap between his hand, the ball and his body.

Uh, newsflash: Just because you happen to be in physical contact with the ball doesn't mean it has come loose.

Essentially you're arguing that Lewis, for some reason, decided to take the ball and instead of giving it the usual 3-point control (hand, forearm, chest) and he deliberately decided to pin it with one hand against his hip.

The very idea is asinine.

 

[XLIX]

i also posted this several times, but here it is again:

It boggles the mind how anyone can see that video and not recognize that at that moment, Lewis lost possession of the ball.

 

[QuantumMechanic]

Okay, but until Jack flicked it away, it looked like he did. If he ended up on the ground with the ball still pinned to his leg and no one ever touched him on the ground, would they would have ruled it what... an incomplete pass? ...a fumble that just stopped? I'm confused. Because it looked like possession to me until Jack flicked it away at the end.

It depends on what you think about "pinned to his leg".

If you think pinned to his leg demonstrates "firm grasp and control" then yes, if Lewis maintained the pin "after initial contact with the ground" (the same standard used for deciding catch/no catch) he would have possession. If touched at that point he'd be down by contact. If not touched, the play is still live and someone could try to rip it out, he could try to get back up, etc.

If you don't think pinned to his leg demonstrated "firm grasp and control" then it doesn't matter how long he's on the ground. He still doesn't have possession, is not down by contact even if touched, and the play remains live until the ball goes OOB or someone, anyone, finally gets possession of the ball and either scores, is grounded, or goes OOB.

 

[XLIX]

I'm not only saying Lewis didn't survive the ground, I'm saying he never re-gained possession in the first place.

Amen. Having the ball loosely pinned against your hip for a quarter second is not even remotely considered establishing a firm grip and control.

 

[GoBlue]

The more i see and the more i read it was probably right to call it a fumble. But in the end the Pats still won and it proves the refs and NY don't favor the Pats like all the haters want to think.

 

[mike_usagisan]

It depends on what you think about "pinned to his leg".

If you think pinned to his leg demonstrates "firm grasp and control" then yes, if Lewis maintained the pin "after initial contact with the ground" (the same standard used for deciding catch/no catch) he would have possession. If touched at that point he'd be down by contact. If not touched, the play is still live and someone could try to rip it out, he could try to get back up, etc.

If you don't think pinned to his leg demonstrated "firm grasp and control" then it doesn't matter how long he's on the ground. He still doesn't have possession, is not down by contact even if touched, and the play remains live until the ball goes OOB or someone, anyone, finally gets possession of the ball and either scores, is grounded, or goes OOB.

Thanks, that helps quite a bit.

 

[Tony Cahncuhd]

From the rulebook:

"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 until after his contact with the ground"

He did control the ball until after his knee touched the ground. Granted, it was not for a long time afterward, but he satisfied the rule's condition for maintaining control of the ball 'after'

Also from the rulebook:

"Note 3: If a player has control of the ball, a slight movement of the ball will not be considered loss of possession."

 

[Angelpats]

Okay, but until Jack flicked it away, it looked like he did. If he ended up on the ground with the ball still pinned to his leg and no one ever touched him on the ground, would they would have ruled it what... an incomplete pass? ...a fumble that just stopped? I'm confused. Because it looked like possession to me until Jack flicked it away at the end.

I looked like he had possession too. I don’t recall any time limit in the rulebook that says how long someone needs to maintain firm possession after a fumble. It seems subjective. Just heard peter king and cowherd say they thought he reestablished possession too. If someone can produce the “time” required to establish firm control then I’ll consider their point. I was fine with the call as it stands though. It just if it was call our way I’d be fine with that too.

 

[bbobbo]

I looked like he had possession too. I don’t recall any time limit in the rulebook that says how long someone needs to maintain firm possession after a fumble. It seems subjective. Just heard peter king and cowherd say they thought he reestablished possession too. If someone can produce the “time” required to establish firm control then I’ll consider their point. I was fine with the call as it stands though. It just if it was call our way I’d be fine with that too.

you're right, the rulebook tries to eliminate subjectivity as much as possible, but "long enough" is something that will always be subjective, which is why we end up having debates like this.

you don't see required times listed in the rulebook because there would be no way for a referee to judge that in real time ("my mental clock said he had it for 0.35 seconds before losing it").

.

 

[Angelpats]

you're right, the rulebook tries to eliminate subjectivity as much as possible, but "long enough" is something that will always be subjective, which is why we end up having debates like this.

you don't see required times listed in the rulebook because there would be no way for a referee to judge that in real time ("my mental clock said he had it for 0.35 seconds before losing it").

.

That’s why I don’t think there’s a right or wrong answer. If it was called either way on the field i don’t think the refs would have reversed it.

 

[QuantumMechanic]

I looked like he had possession too. I don’t recall any time limit in the rulebook that says how long someone needs to maintain firm possession after a fumble. It seems subjective. Just heard peter king and cowherd say they thought he reestablished possession too. If someone can produce the “time” required to establish firm control then I’ll consider their point. I was fine with the call as it stands though. It just if it was call our way I’d be fine with that too.

It is subjective, so you're not going to find any time limit in the rulebook. Further, if a fall to the ground is involved you have to hold it all through that.

Let's throw the whole pin to the hip thing right out.

Let's pretend that Jack knocked the ball up instead of down and that instead of pinning the ball to his hip while falling Lewis grabbed the ball with two hands and hugged it to his chest as he started to go down. To be considered down by contact Lewis would have to keep holding the ball during his entire fall as well as "after initial contact with the ground". If the ball came loose too soon (yep - that's a subjective judgement by the official), whether on its own or because a defender immediately ripped it out, it's still a live ball.