The ASJ Fumble

[Joey007]

Yep, right here he's lost it and then he does not secure it again until OOB in the end zone

Well my take on it is it's a good call if we're going purely by the rule book. Fortunately that's all that matters.

We really got lucky there though. That could've easily been not called and no one would've blinked an eye. End zone fumbles like that are always a little ticky tacky.

 

[jmt57]

The reason this will be a controversy tonight and tomorrow is due to Fouts' relentless commentary.

I can understand Fouts initial opinion, but it was ridiculous for him to double down after the time out when the third camera angle became available.

 

[Joey007]

I was wrong about the outcome of the game, but this isn't a good football team right now.

Lol honestly name me good teams right now. I swear everyone has kinda sucked this year. Even KC just dropped one.

 

[Angelpats]

Everyone is asking when did he juggle a second time, which is the least clear but critical aspect of the ruling. If he had maintained possession all the way through the ground, it'd be a touchdown. This clip at 0:22 is the best shot I saw. It shows that as he fell to the ground at 0:22, the ball popped out of his left hand to near his gut where he grabbed it with his right hand. Hence he's juggling the ball while he's rolling out of bounds, hence it's a touchback.

It's quite obvious too. Ball is in the left hand, he lands, the balls pops out and is now in his right hand. Out of bounds.

 

[Ring 6]

It is undeniably clear that:

1) He fumbled in mid air
2) He recovered possession in mid air
3) His knee came down in bounds before any part of his body touched out of bounds (or he touched the pylon)
4) He must maintain possession of the ball all the way through the process of going to the ground

At this point, the only issue is whether or not he did satisfy #4. As I established when I corrected you (and I notice you've moved the goalposts), a slight movement of the ball is not considered loss of possession.

Sorry, I just don't seen any movement of the ball while he completes the process, let alone anything that conclusively goes beyond a "slight movement."

3 is very debatable.

If you want to go find something that isn't relevant but supports your case that's always an option.
However in this case you miss the mark twice.
First that corrente and riveron did not consider it slight and second, even if they did he DID NOT HAVE POSSESSION YET.
He does not regain possession until he survives the ground.
The piece you quote is about a LOSS OF POSSESSION, not about gaining possession.
You are doing exactly what I said applying the wrong rule.

 

[bormio]

He switches hands while rolling and for a brief moment it is loose - hence no control in the EZ.

 

[scott99]

I was thinking it was payback for the Patriots/jets game a few years ago when the Jets missed a long field goal in OT, but the refs gave them 15 yards and another try after calling an unsportsmanlike penalty on Chris Jones for pushing a teammate into the line.

A bizarrely obscure penalty that I don't think has ever been called again

Never EVER been called again. In fact the Jets did the same thing earlier IN THE SAME GAME, and it wasn’t called. **** the haters. Pats won, who cares what people say.

 

[GodBrady]

So, this call kind of bothered me on two levels.

For one, I really don't like the rule of a "fumble through the endzone is a touchback and possession is awarded to the other team". I feel like that's an extreme rule. The counter-argument I always hear is, "well, if this rule didn't exist, offensive players would deliberately fumble forward in hopes of their teammate recovering in the end zone for a touchdown". Uhm... how about you just add a rule that says, in the event that it plays it out like that, the ball goes back to the spot of the fumble? I mean, we already have special rules like this anyway (on 4th down, only the fumbling player can advance the ball.)

Second of all, as many others have said... how on earth do they reverse this to a fumble when the call on-field was a touchdown? There's no way you can convince me that this was "indisputable".

I would be so angry if I was a Jets fan. Sometimes calls go your way and sometimes they go against you.... this call is bad on so many levels though. The rule itself sucks, and the way it was applied here (i.e. called TD on field, overturned) is even worse.

Not a good look for a league... not that I'm complaining.

 

[Biffins]

It is undeniably clear that:

1) He fumbled in mid air
2) He recovered possession in mid air
3) His knee came down in bounds before any part of his body touched out of bounds (or he touched the pylon)
4) He must maintain possession of the ball all the way through the process of going to the ground

At this point, the only issue is whether or not he did satisfy #4. As I established when I corrected you (and I notice you've moved the goalposts), a slight movement of the ball is not considered loss of possession.

Sorry, I just don't seen any movement of the ball while he completes the process, let alone anything that conclusively goes beyond a "slight movement."

I am sorry but neither 2) or 3) are undeniably clear either........ It's unclear if he regained control in mid-air, he was pawing at it for sure. And for 3) it's also unclear if he got a knee inbound. And btw 4) the ball popped out of his left hand when he was rolling on the ground and he grabbed it again with his right hand, hence he recovered the ball out of bounds.

 

[sambam94]

I've stated my opinion, I stand by it, I have no problem admitting my team benefitted from a bad call (although it seems like most fans would rather die than admit that).

Pretty much everyone in the country outside New England (and Tony Corrente) agrees with me and that's good enough for me, so I have spoken my last piece on the matter.

watch the 22 second mark, ball clearly is loose...for the 2nd time. I thought it was a bad call until I replayed

 

[Biffins]

The reason this will be a controversy tonight and tomorrow is due to Fouts' relentless commentary.

I can understand Fouts initial opinion, but it was ridiculous for him to double down after the time out when the third camera angle became available.

Yeah I agree. If Fouts explained clearly the decision, there wouldn't be a controversy. Fouts made up his mind early and was yapping away with his biased crap.

 

[Ring 6]

Well my take on it is it's a good call if we're going purely by the rule book. Fortunately that's all that matters.

We really got lucky there though. That could've easily been not called and no one would've blinked an eye. End zone fumbles like that are always a little ticky tacky.

Butler also could have not stripped him. Oh wait that's making a play not getting lucky.

 

[GodBrady]

Yes I am sure all the people in here saying it was a fumble would be saying the exact same thing.

I've noticed many fans of all teams (and certainly this one) would rather die than admit their team benefitted from a bad call. I've never been like that. I can gladly call something a bad call even if it benefits my team and not lose an ounce of sleep over it.

Very well said. I sincerely doubt we'd see these spirited and passionate defenses of the call on the field if the Jets were the beneficiary here.

 

[bormio]

So, this call kind of bothered me on two levels.

For one, I really don't like the rule of a "fumble through the endzone is a touchback and possession is awarded to the other team". I feel like that's an extreme rule. The counter-argument I always hear is, "well, if this rule didn't exist, offensive players would deliberately fumble forward in hopes of their teammate recovering in the end zone for a touchdown". Uhm... how about you just add a rule that says, in the event that it plays it out like that, the ball goes back to the spot of the fumble? I mean, we already have special rules like this anyway (on 4th down, only the fumbling player can advance the ball.)

Second of all, as many others have said... how on earth do they reverse this to a fumble when the call on-field was a touchdown? There's no way you can convince me that this was "indisputable".

I would be so angry if I was a Jets fan. Sometimes calls go your way and sometimes they go against you.... this call is bad on so many levels though. The rule itself sucks, and the way it was applied here (i.e. called TD on field, overturned) is even worse.

Not a good look for a league... not that I'm complaining.

The original ref did not even see a fumble at all - once they saw that on replay - the original call was nonoperative. Then it was a matter of when control was regained.

 

[Bartmac36]

I've stated my opinion, I stand by it, I have no problem admitting my team benefitted from a bad call (although it seems like most fans would rather die than admit that).

Pretty much everyone in the country outside New England (and Tony Corrente) agrees with me and that's good enough for me, so I have spoken my last piece on the matter.

This. I got killed in the post game thread but i feel the exact same way. The biases are taking full control over this fanbase but it doesnt change how i feel one bit.

At the end of the day a win is a win

 

[RobertWeathers]

I dunna know.

He had possession. Lost possession. Regained possession seemingly in the EZ.

If that happened to us I'd be pissed for days.

Since we benefited I'll sleep great.

We lost on a bs rule call there in 2013 so we're even

 

[PatriotsNumero1Fan]

Already talk here in ny how the jests got screwed. Those final moments for our offense sucked.

 

[Joey007]

Butler also could have not stripped him. Oh wait that's making a play not getting lucky.

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

 

[JMC00]

After there was conclusive evidence that Jenkins fumbled prior to crossing the goal line, the onus was then on there needing to be conclusive evidence that he regained it before touching out of bounds.

The people saying "you can't overturn that" seem to be ignoring that there was conclusive evidence he lost control before crossing the goal line. So why should the call stand? The call of a TD should then be predicated on if there was conclusive evidence he regained it before going out of bounds

 

[Kdo5]

If it had happened to us, we'd be raving about how terrible the call was and that it was inconclusive. I don't think they should have overturned it but obviously I am glad they did.