The ASJ Fumble

[SammyBlueCat]

 

[DaBronxPats14]

Rodney Harrison just said it was a bad call...

Doesn't matter what people think. Like 'Tuck Rule', you can say it was a fumble but it was a tuck and thats a rule and it was enforced just like today. Now if they don't like that rule, they'll go in and change it but it was called correctly. You can see McCourty, Harmon & Van Noy waiving it off and totally knowing that rule.

 

[PatriotReign]

For those having trouble swallowing this call let's just say we're even with the Jets for that ******** pushing penalty on a field goal a few years back.

 

[yukon cornelius]

Rodney Harrison just said it was a bad call...

rodney loves to establish cred by proving he isn't a 'patriots homer'....i'll take corrente's explanation

 

[convertedpatsfan]

Everyone here would be livid if this was called against us. There was no indisputable evidence that he did not recover it prior to going out of bounds...therefore call should have stood.

I agree, I would be livid if this was called against us.

But you're wrong about the indisputable evidence so long as you look at the right things.

There was indisputable evidence he lost possession of the ball. Once this happens, it becomes about whether he re-establishes possession.

There was indisputable evidence he was contacted going to the ground while trying to regain possession. This now adds on the Calvin Johnson rule and he has to maintain contact to the ground.

There was indisputable evidence he did not. When he hits the ground and rolls, you see the ball clearly dislodge again.

So he lost possession. He got hit. He lost the ball when he went to the ground out of bounds. He didn't re-gain possession until he was well out of bounds.

It's an unpopular call, and a painfully technical one. But it's actually pretty straight-forward and obvious.

 

[DaBronxPats14]

Rule is applied more often than you think. Last week Todd Gurley of the Rams lost a fumble as he was extending for the pylon. Fumble hit the pylon and was ruled a touchback..

Earl Thomas makes nifty play to turn would-be Todd Gurley TD into fumble

Very True But, when it applies to Pats it will always be a narrative to run with.

 

[luuked]

Yeah I do....mostly everyone around the league agrees it was a very bad call. If this was against the Patriots, I am sure you would go nuts too.

Didnt you call the game over on our first turnover and then also got kicked out of the live thread ?

 

[XLIX]

I was trying to find the rule on line because all the media keeps talking about ASJ regaining possession which I believe doesn't apply hear.

The rule on a fumble is if there's no possession it stays with the team who had it last unless it's out of the end zone in which case it's a safety or a touchback depending on the situation.

For a fumble recovery to gain possession in bounds you have to demonstrate control and then get two feet in bounds. Since ASJ lost possession before the goal line and then regained possession while airborne and came down out of bounds inside the end zone it's a touchback.

I'm fairly certain I'm correct here unless there's somebody out there who is more up to date on the rules than I am.

Your above description of the rules is mostly correct. Once he fumbles it - and we can all see the ball clearly had a moment of free fall - he has to establish possession in bounds which can be 2 feet, but it can also be one knee. Since he was going to the ground, he must then maintain possession all the way through.

I agree with you that he regained control while he was airborne, but it sure looked to me like the very first part of his body to touch the ground was his knee in bounds, which establishes control. I certainly don't see it as being conclusive that his knee wasn't the first thing to touch.

Then - and here is where the refs and I differ (based on their official explanation) - I don't see any clear movement of the football out of bounds to show he juggled the ball or otherwise did not maintain possession.

In any case, people in this forum should take a week or two off from whining about how all the refs are out to screw over New England.

 

[yukon cornelius]

Your above description of the rules is mostly correct. Once he fumbles it - and we can all see the ball clearly had a moment of free fall - he has to establish possession in bounds which can be 2 feet, but it can also be one knee. Since he was going to the ground, he must then maintain possession all the way through.

I agree with you that he regained control while he was airborne, but it sure looked to me like the very first part of his body to touch the ground was his knee in bounds, which establishes control. I certainly don't see it as being conclusive that his knee wasn't the first thing to touch.

In any case, people in this forum should take a week or two off from whining about how all the refs are out to screw over New England.

except he was also contacted while going to the ground, so he must maintain possession through the act of going to the ground.....and he did not

 

[luuked]

I agree with you that he regained control while he was airborne, but it sure looked to me like the very first part of his body to touch the ground was his knee in bounds, which establishes control. I certainly don't see it as being conclusive that his knee wasn't the first thing to touch.

The knee doesnt matter because he didnt maintain control throughout hitting the ground.

 

[XLIX]

except he was also contacted while going to the ground, so he must maintain possession through the act of going to the ground.....and he did not

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand that's why I said "he must maintain possession all the way though."

 

[libra957]

Lets cut the crap.....it was a great call!

 

[Angelpats]

This is a new one on me. He says he fumbled again after landing.

What people fail to see is that the ball switched hands. For it to be clear control the ball would be in one hand after the fumble but the ball moved to the other hand which means he lost control of it in the process and fully gained control of the ball when he was out of bounds.

 

[XLIX]

FWIW - Pereira and Blandino agree he fumbled but think not clear enough to overturn based on whether or not he lost control going to the ground out of bounds.

This is how I feel as well. I won't be losing any sleep over it, but I just don't see anything that conclusively proved he didn't maintain possession all the way through (once he recovered it in mid-air).

 

[Ring 6]

Yeah I do....mostly everyone around the league agrees it was a very bad call. If this was against the Patriots, I am sure you would go nuts too.

That's because I'm a patriot fan so I'd be upset if a call went against them right or wrong just as you are upset the call went in their favor.

No one understanding and applying the actual rule says it was wrong.

 

[Ring 6]

This is how I feel as well. I won't be losing any sleep over it, but I just don't see anything that conclusively proved he didn't maintain possession all the way through (once he recovered it in mid-air).

The ball moved. It's really not a matter of whether we think he had control it's a matter of the rule book definition of control.

 

[XLIX]

What people fail to see that the ball switched hands. For it to be clear control the ball would be in one hand after the fumble but it moved to the other hand which means he lost control of it in the process.

No such rule exists. You can catch a football with one arm, secure it to your body with both arms, then transition it to the other without ever losing control.

 

[Ring 6]

i think this rule stands......they've reviewed it multiple times

Well you can't change the rule for possession based upon one play. It would apply to every fumble.
I can't see any way that it could be reasonably changed without creating many more issues

 

[XLIX]

The ball moved. It's really not a matter of whether we think he had control it's a matter of the rule book definition of control.

You're making things up out of thin air. It's ok for the ball to move if the player maintains control. In the notes following possession of a loose ball, the rule book states (emphasis added by me):

If a player has control of the ball, a slight movement of the ball will not be considered loss of possession. He must lose control of the ball in order to rule that there has been a loss of possession.

 

[Ring 6]

No such rule exists. You can catch a football with one arm, secure it to your body with both arms, then transition it to the other without ever losing control.

Unless you are doing that while completing the catch and going out of bounds.
In any event the issue here was that after clearly losing possession he was out of bounds before completing the act of regaining control of the ball.