The ASJ Fumble

[Palm Beach Pats Fan]

The guy had the ball as he crashed through the pylon and the ball had broken the plane.

I did not give you a dislike, but it is clear that he lost possession before reaching the pylon.

the still shot on the first page of the thread makes that clear:

 

[50-yard-line]

Interesting aside to this - had that play happened on the field, out of the endzone, when ASJ hit the ground (he was a RUNNER, then, not a RECEIVER, as the catch had been made):

1. If the ball didn't leave his position, no problem - mark it where he was down.

2. If, when he hit the ground, the ball came loose, it's a fumble.

But the ground can't cause a fumble!
Except, the ground didn't cause the fumble. The fumble happened before the ground, and so it was a free ball until possessed, which it wasn't until he rolled over on the ground.

 

[RelocatedPatFan]

I can tell you that not Jet and Patriot fans seem to have a very passionate opinion on this matter (which several coworkers sought me out on this).

Ultimately, I came to the following conclusions:

• It would be talked about regardless of the teams
• It is perceived as the reason the Jets lost the game
• The game would have been tied (best case scenario, so Jet victory wasn't guaranteed)
• People are more energized by this topic because, it was the Patriots and they won
• Perception that the Patriots get all the breaks is widespread regardless of facts. Cherry pick a couple plays every team is favored. I ask them if their team regularly gets screwed by the refs and 100% unanimous they say yes. I proceed with examples of other penalties and they have no respond, except that it's a known "fact" the Patriots get all the calls.
• Ultimately, I said we still get the W and decide it's not worth talking Patriot football to 99% of the non-Patriot fans

 

[Bartmac36]

Thats actually the best angle ive seen so far to support a fumble call, i hadnt previously seen that one

Okay, so you want to reward players for fumbling through their opponent's end zone?

Also, he lands out of bounds before possessing the ball. Therefore the fumble is through the end zone. The rule isn't really all that complicated.

no, i dont wanna reward playees for fumbling through the endzone. I also dont want players or teams getting screwed out of potential game changing plays because of some ticky tack semantics in the rule book wording.

The official ruling was that he regained possession and then lost it again when rolling out of bounds, hence the angle i was originally referring to. My problem isnt that i think rule was incorrectly enforced. My problem is that if that TINY, MINISCUAL bit of movement on the second "loss of possession" is all it takes to be deemed a loss of possession, then the rule should really be rewritten

 

[Bartmac36]

by the actual letter of the law, the ruling was correct. rule 3, section 2, article 7 has a note for exactly this situation:



the only possible judgment call is what constitutes "possession", and to me, a hand coming off the ball means he didn't have "a firm grip and control of the ball", nor did he have "complete and continuous control of the ball until after his initial contact with the ground".

.

I know that the ruling was correct, by letter of the law. Thats not the problem here. The problem is the letter of the law needs to be changed because that play, IMO, should never be ruled a fumble under any circumstances. you should be able to just look at these plays and say "okay did that pass the eyeball test or didnt it?" And this one clearly doesnt pass the eyeball test for me, and the majority of people outside of patriots nation as well it seems

 

[brdmaverick]

Ugh... did you really have to make me watch a part of that game again?

Tough game, I know, but we got a nice preview of what Edelman could bring to the table. This was his rookie year and he was thrown into action with the Welker injury just a week prior.

He had to two TDs in the game but a 4th and 7 really sums up what Jules is all about.

it's at the 1:56:30 mark. Jules takes a screen that is blown up from the start but Jules being Jules finds away to find the first.

Too bad there was a penalty to take it away and make it 4th and 17, but guess who makes the play again?

 

[drewskie]

I know that the ruling was correct, by letter of the law. Thats not the problem here. The problem is the letter of the law needs to be changed because that play, IMO, should never be ruled a fumble under any circumstances. you should be able to just look at these plays and say "okay did that pass the eyeball test or didnt it?" And this one clearly doesnt pass the eyeball test for me, and the majority of people outside of patriots nation as well it seems

Then that's a different topic of discussion all together, much like I also think the Tuck Rule was stupid but the interpretation was applied correctly against OAK.

 

[DaBronxPats14]

Credit Boston.com Rachel Bowers Article:

“At what point he touched the pylon, it was during the process of trying to recover the ball,’’ Corrente said. “Even though he may have had the ball in his hands the second time, that control does not mean possession until he comes to the ground and shows firm control of the ball at that point.

“When he lost the ball short of the goal line, when he lost the ball, he re-gained control but that doesn’t mean he possesses the ball. He doesn’t possess the ball until he’s completed going to the ground now and re-controlling the ball, which he did not survive the ground, which is why it wasn’t a touchdown. Had he never lost control of the ball in the first place, you would have a touchdown. But because he lost the ball and now has to re-establish control of the ball, that was the period of time.’’

Riveron said on Monday that the rule was properly applied.

“We might not agree with the rule, but that is the rule, so the rule was enforced correctly,’’ he said.

 

[archstanton543]

I know that the ruling was correct, by letter of the law. Thats not the problem here. The problem is the letter of the law needs to be changed because that play, IMO, should never be ruled a fumble under any circumstances. you should be able to just look at these plays and say "okay did that pass the eyeball test or didnt it?" And this one clearly doesnt pass the eyeball test for me, and the majority of people outside of patriots nation as well it seems

But...the ball came loose and is the very definition of a fumble even if it didn't hit the ground.

 

[moejr]

As long as the ruling was correct then we really shouldn't complain. Some of you may be right that the rule may need to be reworked. However the refs made the call by the rule as it is written now. I wish I could find the angle from the back of the endzone. It was a nice shot.

 

[Bartmac36]

Then that's a different topic of discussion all together, much like I also think the Tuck Rule was stupid but the interpretation was applied correctly against OAK.

Well then i think we're on the same page here now

 

[bormio]

Tough game, I know, but we got a nice preview of what Edelman could bring to the table. This was his rookie year and he was thrown into action with the Welker injury just a week prior.

He had to two TDs in the game but a 4th and 7 really sums up what Jules is all about.

it's at the 1:56:30 mark. Jules takes a screen that is blown up from the start but Jules being Jules finds away to find the first.

Too bad there was a penalty to take it away and make it 4th and 17, but guess who makes the play again?

This play can never be posted enough. Edelman's full talent and heart on display.

 

[Bartmac36]

But...the ball came loose and is the very definition of a fumble even if it didn't hit the ground.

Yeah thats my point, the definition of a fumble needs to be updated or something. If he had already established possession while running to the goal line, the ball never hit the ground and the other team never touched the ball, why does that still have to be considered a fumble. The rule itself needs a long, hard re-evaluation IMO

ASJ basically committed what is the equivelant of driving 31 in a 30, and got a death sentence punishment for it. the nfl should never allow rules like that to exist

 

[archstanton543]

Yeah thats my point, the definition of a fumble needs to be updated or something. If he had already established possession while running to the goal line, the ball never hit the ground and the other team never touched the ball, why does that still have to be considered a fumble. The rule itself needs a long, hard re-evaluation IMO.

That's ridiculous. Any time a runner (he was established as a runner at that point) loses possession of the ball (e.g. - the ball is no longer tucked away or in his hands) it's a fumble. Thus it has always been and it already makes sense.

 

[drewskie]

That's ridiculous. Any time a runner (he was established as a runner at that point) loses possession of the ball (e.g. - the ball is no longer tucked away or in his hands) it's a fumble. Thus it has always been and it already makes sense.

IMO the rule as it is currently is fine. The whole point of it is to prevent teams at the 1 yrd line from trying to get into the endzone without actually breaking the plan and not having possession.

 

[Bartmac36]

That's ridiculous. Any time a runner (he was established as a runner at that point) loses possession of the ball (e.g. - the ball is no longer tucked away or in his hands) it's a fumble. Thus it has always been and it already makes sense.

just because it IS doesnt mean it SHOULD be. Like i said, i think the rule needs to be reworked in some form or fashion after this debacle and no amount of explaining the definition of a fumble to me is going to change that.

 

[archstanton543]

just because it IS doesnt mean it SHOULD be. Like i said, i think the rule needs to be reworked in some form or fashion after this debacle and no amount of explaining the definition of a fumble to me is going to change that.

Your in the minority of people who think the definition of a fumble should be changed in light of this, though. And your solution is open to as much interpretation as the rules and definition of what actually occurred in the game Sunday.

 

[Bartmac36]

Your in the minority of people who think the definition of a fumble should be changed in light of this, though. And your solution is open to as much interpretation as the rules and definition of what actually occurred in the game Sunday.

Maybe youre right about that. I just dont think a play as ticky tack as this should be allowed to have such a huge impact on a game. If the ball had shot out the back of the endzone thatd be one thing, but when it never did anything more than bobble in a mans arms...

Simply put, the punishment doesnt fit the crime. It just doesnt feel right at all

 

[PatsDeb]

Confused at first. Until it was explained.

Oh yes, I can see us all now. "Jolly good ole chum!" now that you've explained it all to us. I especially think Joker and Tune would post that.

 

[Boomer B]

Screw the Jets, I'm on to Atlanta