Dion Lewis Fumble/NOT a fumble

[Tony Cahncuhd]

@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)

The words 'surviving the ground' are never mentioned in the official rulebook. It's a construct used by broadcasters. The rules say possession must be maintained until 'after' contact is made with the ground, but they don't specify how long 'after.' I would take that to mean anything other than an instantaneous loss of possession should mean knee down, play over.

No question, it was a close call. But there is valid case to be made for a non-fumble that is supported by the letter of the rulebook. This interpretation can't be dismissed by the visual evidence available to us or the words used in the actual rulebook.

No biggie. People read things differently. Even officials. This might be a sign they need to clarify the language again. Time to ditch this 'surviving the ground' stuff though. It's a stupid term. Nobody died. Nobody uses it in the actual rules.

 

[Silver Blue&Red]

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.

I think you're just disagreeing with everyone at this point.

I agree he has control.

I'm countering with the posters who are saying it was a fumble.

Let me say this ONE. MORE. TIME.

I (meaning me), believe (as opposed to not believe), it was NOT a fumble.

Jeez, this thread has become a 5h!t show. WOW!

 

[Angelpats]

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.

The thing with asj is that he didn’t survive the ground twice. He fumbled twice on that play and when he fully recovered it he was out of bounds and a touchback.

With Lewis. He fumbled it. Got it back. Pinned it on his hip while and after contact with the ground, then jack took it away. I think the problem here is how much time is needed to establish possession while on his hip. I thought it was enough time. Some media folks thought so too but everyone was ok with the call, same as I.

 

[Tony Cahncuhd]

Let's say a receiver catches a ball in the endzone, lands on his back and a defender rips the ball free a half second after he hits the ground. Is that a touchdown?

 

[QuantumMechanic]

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.

No, it’s not. See the rulebook excerpts that @brdmaverick has posted (many times). Google for Tony Corrente’s explanation of the ASJ fumble play in the Jets game. It is stated in black and white in the rulebook that any attempt to possess a forward pass, fumble, or other loose ball while gong to the ground requires the erstwhile possessor to control the ball to and “after the initial contact with the ground”.

 

[brdmaverick]

Let's say a receiver catches a ball in the endzone, lands on his back and a defender rips the ball free a half second after he hits the ground. Is that a touchdown?

This suggests the receiver survived the ground (giving him the TD) and then the ball was removed. I would say this is a TD.

I can recall some plays in which the play unfolds similar to what you are discussing..........such as the Saints two point conversion by Lance Moore in the Super Bowl against the Colts, an Aaron Hernandez TD against the Chargers in Week 2 of the 2011 season, and an Asante Samuel play against Anthony Gonzalez in 2007 (at IND).

I'll try to dig up video of these just to see if they fit the description you are hypothesizing.

Edit: But yes, as @QuantumMechanic points out, the timing can be subjective. If it's a bang-bang play chances are they may rule it incomplete (like with Malcolm Butler on ODB in 2015).

 

[QuantumMechanic]

Let's say a receiver catches a ball in the endzone, lands on his back and a defender rips the ball free a half second after he hits the ground. Is that a touchdown?

Depends on what the ref is thinking that day, because there’s no specific time given in the rules. But if you literally mean 0.5 seconds I believe that’ll be called an incomplete pass a significant number of times.

On the flip side, if he rips it out 2 seconds later that’s going to be a TD close to 100% of the time so long as the ball was firmly under control before being stripped.

 

[brdmaverick]

The thing with asj is that he didn’t survive the ground twice. He fumbled twice on that play and when he fully recovered it he was out of bounds and a touchback.

With Lewis. He fumbled it. Got it back. Pinned it on his hip while and after contact with the ground, then jack took it away. I think the problem here is how much time is needed to establish possession while on his hip. I thought it was enough time. Some media folks thought so too but everyone was ok with the call, same as I.

ok, in my opinion I don't think he survived the ground. But you do, so I agree that your argument is logical with that pretext.

..and that's fine if you don't agree with a logical argument. I have a hard time with the crowd that acknowledges a sequence of he fumbled, but regained it when he pinned it against his leg, and suggest that surviving the ground doesn't matter

 

[Chris Stevenson]

Let's say a receiver catches a ball in the endzone, lands on his back and a defender rips the ball free a half second after he hits the ground. Is that a touchdown?

yes. td

 

[QuantumMechanic]

The thing with asj is that he didn’t survive the ground twice. He fumbled twice on that play and when he fully recovered it he was out of bounds and a touchback.

Not quite. He fumbled once because he never regained possession. It was one single long fumble out of bounds.

Remember the sequence:
Catches pass, starts running.
Dives for EZ.
Ball comes loose in his hands (start of fumble).
Re-controls ball (ball is still considered loose by rule because he hasn’t hit the ground yet).
Lands IN BOUNDS in the end zone with control at the moment he lands (ball is still considered loose by rule because we have to see if he controls it after initial contact).
Impact jars the ball loose (ball still considered loose due to failure to survive the ground).
Slides OOB. At this point the ball is dead OOB (regardless of where it physically is) because a part of his body is OOB and he is touching the ball.
Re-controls ball, but by this time he is OOB and the play is already dead.

 

[QuantumMechanic]

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.

His being in the EZ had nothing to do with the fumble/non fumble call. The exact same call would have been made in the field of play. The refs would have ruled the ball was ultimately fumbled OOB though (because it was in the field of play) it would have stayed Jets ball. The ball would be spotted where it went OOB unless the anti-Holy Roller rule applied, in which case it would have been brought back to the spot of the fumble since in that situation the ball can only advance if actually recovered by the fumbler.

 

[Angelpats]

ok, in my opinion I don't think he survived the ground. But you do, so I agree that your argument is logical with that pretext.

..and that's fine if you don't agree with a logical argument. I have a hard time with the crowd that acknowledges a sequence of he fumbled, but regained it when he pinned it against his leg, and suggest that surviving the ground doesn't matter

I think why this debate has lasted this long is because it’s been taught to us that as long as a runner has possession and is down by contact it is still the runners ball even if a millisecond after contact he loses the ball. I have more to say but I really want us to talk about the super bowl matchup more.

 

[Chris Stevenson]

His being in the EZ had nothing to do with the fumble/non fumble call. The exact same call would have been made in the field of play. The refs would have ruled the ball was ultimately fumbled OOB though (because it was in the field of play) it would have stayed Jets ball. The ball would be spotted where it went OOB unless the anti-Holy Roller rule applied, in which case it would have been brought back to the spot of the fumble since in that situation the ball can only advance if actually recovered by the fumbler.

not necessarily true. he would have landed IN BOUNDS and not been so concerned about the pylon, being bounced out of bounds, with final possession happening out of bounds. he cut to the corner for the angle, but that was to touch the pylon. in the middle of the field at the 50, he would have still bobbled it, but he would have been down with possession and touched down for the final tackle.

 

[JMC00]

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

 

[Chris Stevenson]

no..not that one! lewis!!!

get it?

lewis
never lost control

 

[Actual Pats Fan]

Then Jeff Reinbold on Sky Sports doesn't know what he is talking about.

There is no doubt whatsoever that Lewis fumbled the ball (bobbling/juggling the ball is considered a fumble because the player has lost possession).

OK, so...

Give us our rings from SB42.

Tyree did not have possession.

Against his helmet? Ha. Like, against his leg, right?

 

[bbobbo]

here is the reverse angle shot, slowed down. i doubt it will change minds either way, but just thought i would put it out there.

 

[Chris Stevenson]

here is the reverse angle shot, slowed down. i doubt it will change minds either way, but just thought i would put it out there.

That does not help.

 

[XLIX]

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 made a typographical error so please allow me to clarify:

Just because a player is in contact with the ball does not necessarily mean he possesses it. There is clearly a point where the ball completely detaches from his torso and he is barely touching it with only the very tips of his fingers. Even though his fingertips happen to be grazing the ball, this nevertheless constitutes loss of control; i.e. loss of possession.

Just watch the .gif that was posted. It proves he lost control of the ball beyond any doubt whatsoever.

 

[XLIX]

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?

I've been asking him that for about 8 pages now.... like I said, his own posts are not internally consistent. He will literally say Lewis "re-possessed the ball" in the same post as saying he lost possession in the first place.