The ASJ Fumble

[A Defiant Goose]

In fact, a touchback for the opposing team is the perfect result. Think of it. It's the defense's endzone. What happens when someone punts or kicks the ball off through their endzone? They get the ball and it's a touchback. Same concept for a fumble.

 

[Ring 6]

If the offense fumble the ball and it goes OOB an inch before the plane the offense keeps the ball on the 1-inch line. But if it goes OOB an inch after the plane the defense gets the ball. Makes no sense to me. Have it be essentially the same result if it went OOB an inch before the plane. Since there's already the precedent of bad things happening in the EZ resulting in the ball being marked at the 1, that's what I'd do here. An offensive fumble through the EZ makes it the offense's ball on the 1.

It's been that way for 100 years.
Why would you reward the offense for fumbling?
If it's 3rd and 8 from the 12 and you are getting tackled at the 6 just chuck the ball throug the end zone and it's first and goal at the 1.
That doesn't make sense.

 

[n6249c]

Was that why Butler was so pissed when the play was over?

I'd think he was pissed because he saw it called a TD.

 

[yukon cornelius]

You do realize that a safety is when the ball is dead in your own endzone, right? That's the whole point of a safety -- to reward the defense for trapping you in your own endzone.

So there's no rationale whatsoever for making an offensive fumble through the other team's endzone be safety. So the fact that it's not currently a safety isn't any "break" for the offense, because it being a safety would be orders of magnitude dumber than what currently happens.

 

[Betterthanmost]

What happened on this play is badly being explained. I initially thought the Jets got screwed too, but it is actually easy to explain if reporters and so called experts explain it well.
A couple of misconception out there:
1. A fumble constitute the ball touching the ground.
2. what touching the pylon mean for an established runner.The pylon is considered out of bounds except for an established runner.

Now, he lost possession of the ball, he needed to re-established himself in the field of play to score after the ball came loose in the air. No part of his body came down in the field of play. The pylon is not a factor here because that rule is for an established runner. He was not.

 

[QuantumMechanic]

In fact, a touchback for the opposing team is the perfect result. Think of it. It's the defense's endzone. What happens when someone punts or kicks the ball off through their endzone? They get the ball and it's a touchback. Same concept for a fumble.

Not analogous because in your scenario the touchback doesn't change possession.

Offense punts the ball and it goes OOB at the defense's 1-inch line -- receiving team's ball at the 1-inch line. Offense punts the ball and it goes OOB at the defense's negative 1-inch line -- receiving team's ball at the 20. Yes, the ball comes out to the 20, but it stays the receiving team's ball.

If the rule for punts was that if the ball went through the receiving team's endzone it was the kicking team's ball on its own 20, then I'd agree the current fumble rule would make sense (actually, I'd really argue that both rules were dumb in that case).

I think the best thing for an offensive fumble through the defensive team's EZ would be offense's ball at the 1. But if you wanted to penalize the offense more, I could live with it being at the 2pt try spot or even at the 5, or the 10 (conceptualize it as a 10 yard loss-of-down penalty on the offense). But I think the loss of possession is ludicrous and needs to be changed.

 

[A Defiant Goose]

Not analogous because in your scenario the touchback doesn't change possession.

The punt or kickoff that resulted in the touchback does change possession

 

[upstater1]

IMO to overturn the call this dramatically it has to be a more obvious offense, even if the replay shows it likely. It's like in hockey where they take away goals because some skate was two inches over the line 45 seconds before. Technically it's correct, but the call at the moment should carry more weight.

But it does make up for horrible pass interference non calls. I don't think a Jets cornerback covering Gronk bothered to turn around all day.

I'm still stunned that no one is mentioning that the replays show the sideline and field angle. CBS showed an endzone angle from the goalposts coming out of the break, and it was clear the ball was not in his possession when he hit the ground.

I don't know why they didn't replay that angle. Makes no sense.

Corrente clearly refers to that angle, and it was the last replay shown to him. He says it was clear as day.

All this bluster and people aren't even talking about the same replay.

 

[QuantumMechanic]

The punt or kickoff that resulted in the touchback does change possession

But possession does not change because of where the ball went OOB. In the fumble case, possession does change because of where the ball went OOB. Major difference and makes the situations not analogous.

 

[archstanton543]

I don't know why they didn't replay that angle. Makes no sense.

I know why. *looks at the 9 pages and counting of comments on a Pats fan board*

 

[TB12TheGoat]

Never forget Ben Watson and the greatest hustle play in any sport ever

 

[ThatllMoveTheChains!!!]

The rule is the rule. Yes, if the offense fumbles through the EZ it is the defense's ball on the 20 and when it happens the ref should enforce it that way.

That doesn't make the rule any less stupid. It is stupid that an offensive fumble through the EZ gives the ball to the defense.

It makes sense if you think of it from the standpoint that if a player wants to gamble trying to get into the end zone there should be a consequence if they fumble it.

 

[archstanton543]

It makes sense if you think of it from the standpoint that if a player wants to gamble trying to get into the end zone there should be a consequence of they fumble it.

Like this.

 

[yukon cornelius]

I know why. *looks at the 9 pages and counting of comments on a Pats fan board*

and the worst part about it: not a single like for my fonzie reset

 

[skinnydog]

The ball moved from his left hand to his right across his body. He didn't have control when he hit the ground watch that clip again. Especially the second slo-mo replay and watch the ball.

Moving the ball from one hand to the other does not mean you lose control.

 

[archstanton543]

Moving the ball from one hand to the other does not mean you lose control.

But he did lose control. Had he not done that he ball would have went flying.

 

[bormio]

The canard about "inconclusive" and going with the original call does not apply - this is a rare case. The original call was no fumble, crossed goal line = TD. The ref did not care after that. But when the replay showed a fumble, then when control was regained became crucial. The original ref MADE NO CALL ON THAT. They had to go to replay and see what happened - they had to make a ruling on that - they could not just defer to the original call.

 

[JMC00]

I think the confusion is that this isn't a coach's challenge, where you're only allowed to challenge one aspect of the play. On a scoring review, all aspects are reviewed. So it's not focused on just whether there was conclusive evidence it was a TD or not.

And while reviewing all aspects of the play, it went beyond whether he was down or not. He clearly fumbled, then he clearly went to the ground with contact, so he had to maintain control of the ball, which he clearly didn't.

It's the Calvin Johnson catch all over again. You can hate the outcome, hate the rule, but you can't say it was incorrectly applied.

Correct.

Ref and Replay central see that he clearly fumbles the ball before crossing the goal line and the ball ends up out of bounds through the end zone. Which them they had to see if he conclusively recovered it in bounds, which he didn't. Therefore it's a fumble through the end zone.

I just hate how people are ignoring that he fumbled the ball before crossing the goal line.

 

[Jackson 2]

i wished this call didn't happen. we still would've beaten them. it was totally unnecessary.

Not me. I loved it.

 

[bbobbo]

there were 6 different camera angles shown on the television broadcast. the 4th one they showed--the high end-zone view--is the one that shows he lost control of the ball while out of bounds. here they all are:

#1 live play

#2 QB view

#3 reverse sideline view

#4 high end-zone view

#5 corner end-zone view

last clip and loop of OOB juggling in the next post.
.