Dion Lewis Fumble/NOT a fumble

[Silver Blue&Red]

i already have several times in this thread. but here it is again:

You keep posting the same thing, yes.
But where is the definition of "maintain control "?
In my, and obviously many others here(s), opinion, he did maintain control.

ie , Tyree catch: arm and helmet= control.

That's the officials opinion. And this time he went the JAGS way.
It is what it is.

And the still shot you posted, only supports my opinion.

We obviously all have different opinions.
The refs agreed with yours. So your good to go.

 

[Chris Stevenson]

You keep posting the same thing, yes.
But where is the definition of "maintain control "?
In my, and obviously many others here(s), opinion, he did maintain control.

ie , Tyree catch: arm and helmet= control.

That's the officials opinion. And this time he went the JAGS way.
It is what it is.

And the still shot you posted, only supports my opinion.

We obviously all have different opinions.
The refs agreed with yours. So your good to go.

Umm, he 'maintained' control because he never lost control of the ball. Just because it gets re-positioned with how he's controlling it (not losing control/no space of the ball between his hand or body part to show a loss of control), does not mean he lost control.

It's no different if the ball moves within the person's grasp as they make the catch. It can move, it just can't jostle around showing air between the hands and the ball.

If you can show me were the ball was not contacting his hand and hip area, great, I am willing to see it.

 

[Tony Cahncuhd]

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.

He should have pinned it to his helmet and everything would have been fine. What was he thinking? /s

 

[Chris Stevenson]

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."

Exactly. Thank you.

I just made the same point above with regards to how the ball can physically move with a person's arms, but if in the hands, there is no jostling, then it's a catch.

The same thing happened here. The ball was never removed from Lewis's possession.

The excuse of "there is not enough visual evidence" is insulting to every single NFL customer, too. We have visual evidence. It's been posted all over this thread.

 

[Chris Stevenson]

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.

False. The second his knee is down, means he's down.

We've seen a gazillion examples of people saying "he was down" as a runner with the ball, when a player maybe stretched for the marker or simply lost control, after the millisecond the knee, butt, or elbow is down.

Some of you have serious issues. To play contrarian to this degree after being so wrong, and proven wrong, is essentially trolling.

 

[Chris Stevenson]

He should have pinned it to his helmet and everything would have been fine. What was he thinking? /s

LOL!

They don't even see how hypocritical they are being, when their own team lost a SB over a correct call, but how the refs tried to help Jax, even with a clear replay for all to see.

 

[Chris Stevenson]

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.

Sorry, don't agree.

When it first happened, I though the ball dribbled down Lewis's leg and was pissed he fumbled it. The replay shows otherwise. He never lost it. We were robbed and I know why.

 

[Chris Stevenson]

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

Correct. He was in physical contact with the ball, no air in between the ball and his body, the ball never moved once re-posssessed, so it was never loose.

Thanks for agreeing. Only took you about 20 pages.

 

[Chris Stevenson]

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.

That is exactly what happened. Don't let the board bullies intimidate you.

 

[brdmaverick]

False. The second his knee is down, means he's down.

We've seen a gazillion examples of people saying "he was down" as a runner with the ball, when a player maybe stretched for the marker or simply lost control, after the millisecond the knee, butt, or elbow is down.

Some of you have serious issues. To play contrarian to this degree after being so wrong, and proven wrong, is essentially trolling.

@QuantumMechanic , I agree with your overall assessment of the play, but I should clarify Chris Stevenson's point (even though I don't agree with it)....

In his opinion Lewis never lost control, and with that pretext he's right that the second his knee came down (with contact) he would be considered down. If Lewis never lost control as he suggests, then 'surviving the ground' doesn't come into play.

Now, you and I believe he did lose control so the narrative changes (with 'surviving the ground' coming into play)

 

[condon84]

Can you imagine if the roles were reversed, Jax fumble and we recovered it, but then the refs overturned it after replay? This board would have exploded lol.

 

[brdmaverick]

Correct. He was in physical contact with the ball, no air in between the ball and his body, the ball never moved once re-posssessed , so it was never loose.

Thanks for agreeing. Only took you about 20 pages.

I just made the same point above with regards to how the ball can physically move with a person's arms, but if in the hands, there is no jostling, then it's a catch.
The same thing happened here. The ball was never removed from Lewis's possession.

The excuse of "there is not enough visual evidence" is insulting to every single NFL customer, too. We have visual evidence. It's been posted all over this thread.

Ok, now I'm confused on your point because you are contradicting yourself.

How can he re-possess the ball if he never lost possession?

 

[Angelpats]

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.

QM , in this scenario where jack hits the ball up and then Lewis grabs the ball with both hands and begins to fall down. The second after his knee touches the ground the ball pops loose and jack recovers the ball. So ultimately the jags get the ball even though Lewis fumbled it but regained possession? Wouldn’t ,”after contact with the ground”, be reserved for just receivers and not runners.

If you clear this up I’ll agree with you point. Even in this scenario, once Lewis reestablished possession, I think it should be our ball, and doesn’t matter what jack does, but if you say after after he fumbles, he who is a “runner”, is then regarded as a “receiver” and has to survive contact with the ground then you are right.

I’ve seen too many dog piles after a fumble where we see the guy on the bottom with the ball for a second get all covered up but when the piles is clear the other runs out with the ball. The refs usually reward to ball to the guy on the bottom after a review even though we see him for just a second.

 

[brdmaverick]

Wouldn’t ,”after contact with the ground”, be reserved for just receivers and not runners.

no, no, no, no, no......where does this myth come from?

Even though I've recited the ASJ case over and over again people are still confused on this point. ASJ was a runner. The 'surviving the ground' was applied to him as a runner.

 

[scout]

Chris, you should post more .

 

[Angelpats]

Sorry, don't agree.

When it first happened, I though the ball dribbled down Lewis's leg and was pissed he fumbled it. The replay shows otherwise. He never lost it. We were robbed and I know why.

I agree with you man. But I can see how the other side would interpret it differently. I don’t like to call people out and say they are wrong because in the end we won the game so it doesn’t really matter. We should be discussing our 8th super bowl more.

 

[Chris Stevenson]

Ok, now I'm confused on your point because you are contradicting yourself.

How can he re-possess the ball if he never lost possession?

Ahh! He changed how he was handling the ball, but it's not losing the ball. Wow. he just hanged how he was possessing it.

Again, show me a still photo of space between the ball and his body, and you win.

 

[Chris Stevenson]

no, no, no, no, no......where does this myth come from?

Even though I've recited the ASJ case over and over again people are still confused on this point. ASJ was a runner. The 'surviving the ground' was applied to him as a runner.

No, it's because he lost the ball in the end zone, which means it was a touchback. This is why BB doesn't want guys stretching for the pylon, or if they do, they best not fumble it.

Fumbling a ball or not controlling it to show a score, means it's a touchback. That's why that call was missed by so many who just don't get it. But, we've seen plenty of people losing the ball, where it's close to see if the knee was down or not.

In this case, Lewis clearly still had the ball all the way until his knee was down.

With ASJ, it came away from his possession, where with Lewis, it did not. This was the same dumb argument that the trolls made about Cooks's gamer winner vs Houston.

If you can't see the ball hit the ground or there is space from the ball up along the playuer's hands or body, then there is nothing to see to overturn.

The replays we saw were blatantly obvious Lewis did not fumble.

The problem here was they missed the call and then double down to try to help Jax ice the game.

 

[Chris Stevenson]

I agree with you man. But I can see how the other side would interpret it differently. I don’t like to call people out and say they are wrong because in the end we won the game so it doesn’t really matter. We should be discussing our 8th super bowl more.

Agree. This wasn't meant to be such a long thread. After seeing such clear review, where the refs tried to screw us in very sneaky fashion again, I thought it deserved a thread.

Very suspicious a ref with the worst possible view quickly made the call after Jack apparently sold the ref on it.

 

[Chris Stevenson]

@QuantumMechanic , I agree with your overall assessment of the play, but I should clarify Chris Stevenson's point (even though I don't agree with it)....

In his opinion Lewis never lost control, and with that pretext he's right that the second his knee came down (with contact) he would be considered down. If Lewis never lost control as he suggests, then 'surviving the ground' doesn't come into play.

Now, you and I believe he did lose control so the narrative changes (with 'surviving the ground' coming into play)

Can you share with us a photo of where there is space between the ball and his body?