The ASJ Fumble

[bbobbo]

#6 low sideline view

here's just the part where he loses control and is trying to secure the ball. you can clearly see his right hand come off of the ball:

 

[TheBostonStraggler]

"Jump call"? You mean the pushing from the second level call? Or do you mean something else?

I think that's the one Arch -- the flag that, I believe, was the only time that penalty was called that season (2 years ago?). It gave the Jets a second chance at a walk off FG that they initially missed. It was selective penalty enforcement at its finest.

Btw, I like the screen name and movie ("Carson! Bill Carson!!").

 

[archstanton543]

Btw, I like the screen name and movie ("Carson! Bill Carson!!").

Thanks! It's my second favorite movie and my vote for Best Western Ever.

 

[40yrpatsfan]

#6 low sideline view

here's just the part where he loses control and is trying to secure the ball. you can clearly see his right hand come off of the ball:

He was a runner, not a receiver in the act of a catch. The ball never hit the ground. I don't see how this could be viewed as a fumble. If you're running it over the goal line in the clear and tossing it from hand to hand as you cross the goal line, it's a TD. Even as he's out of bounds and his hands leave the ball, it never touches the ground.

 

[IcyPatriot]

Watching the replay as a Jet's fan is like watching Titanic and thinking maybe this time the ship might ........ ugh!

 

[JMC00]

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

4 and 5 are about as conclusive as it gets. 5 shows he clearly lost control before crossing and 4 show ball was still moving as he hit out of bounds before he secured it

 

[TheBostonStraggler]

Thanks! It's my second favorite movie and my vote for Best Western Ever.

Tough to argue The Good, The Bad, The Ugly isn't the best western. It's a movie that falls into the category of Americana.
Other personal favorites: Butch Cassidy & the Sundance Kid ("who are those guys?"), Fistful of Dollars ("my mule don't like people laughing"), Unforgiven ("I'll come back and kill every one of you sons of bitc_es").

 

[Ring 6]

He was a runner, not a receiver in the act of a catch. The ball never hit the ground. I don't see how this could be viewed as a fumble. If you're running it over the goal line in the clear and tossing it from hand to hand as you cross the goal line, it's a TD. Even as he's out of bounds and his hands leave the ball, it never touches the ground.

You are arguing without knowing the rule. When you lose control of the ball you lose control of the ball. It doesn't have to hit the ground.
When you are regaining control of the ball the rule is exactly the same as the catch rule.
It's a fumble that goes into the end zone and out of bounds before he regains control got reciver it.

 

[bbobbo]

He was a runner, not a receiver in the act of a catch. The ball never hit the ground. I don't see how this could be viewed as a fumble. If you're running it over the goal line in the clear and tossing it from hand to hand as you cross the goal line, it's a TD. Even as he's out of bounds and his hands leave the ball, it never touches the ground.

yes, he was a runner, but he fumbled before reaching the goal-line, and doesn't regain definitive control until he's out of bounds. here's the original fumble:

 

[bormio]

He was a runner, not a receiver in the act of a catch. The ball never hit the ground. I don't see how this could be viewed as a fumble. If you're running it over the goal line in the clear and tossing it from hand to hand as you cross the goal line, it's a TD. Even as he's out of bounds and his hands leave the ball, it never touches the ground.

No it is not - you must have possession in the EZ. He had possession before the EZ, lost it, and never got it back until he was OOB.

 

[bormio]

yes, he was a runner, but he fumbled before reaching the goal-line, and doesn't regain definitive control until he's out of bounds. here's the original fumble:

When he heads to the ground he is trying to grab it with his LEFT hand - when he rolls over, it is in his RIGHT hand - and he double clutched it with his right. It was not possessed until he was OOB.

 

[JMC00]

He was a runner, not a receiver in the act of a catch. The ball never hit the ground. I don't see how this could be viewed as a fumble. If you're running it over the goal line in the clear and tossing it from hand to hand as you cross the goal line, it's a TD. Even as he's out of bounds and his hands leave the ball, it never touches the ground.

Because of this




And the fact that he didn't regain possession until he was out of bounds

 

[40yrpatsfan]

No it is not - you must have possession in the EZ. He had possession before the EZ, lost it, and never got it back until he was OOB.

I wouldn't agree that a sub-second bobble in the air by a runner constitutes "loss of possession". In the act of a catch, yes, but as a runner no.

 

[40yrpatsfan]

When it moved to his left hand, he had it re-secured. The fact that it moved again as he was rolling on the ground shouldn't matter, this wasn't a catch it was a run. As soon as he hits the pylon, before hitting the ground, it was a TD.

 

[bormio]

I wouldn't agree that a sub-second bobble in the air by a runner constitutes "loss of possession". In the act of a catch, yes, but as a runner no.

He lost possession with the original fumble in the field of play - his hands are completely off the ball. He must regain possession securely before going OOB in the EZ - he did not. By rule - a touchback. The rule is crystal clear.

 

[JMC00]

I wouldn't agree that a sub-second bobble in the air by a runner constitutes "loss of possession". In the act of a catch, yes, but as a runner no.

It wasn't a sub second bobble, he completely lost control of the ball and never established regaining possession before he went out of bounds.

No clue why that's hard for you to understand

 

[bormio]

When it moved to his left hand, he had it re-secured. The fact that it moved again as he was rolling on the ground shouldn't matter, this wasn't a catch it was a run. As soon as he hits the pylon, before hitting the ground, it was a TD.

The rule is the rule - in going to the ground during a recovery you must maintain control. Corrente specifically said the recovery did not survive going to ground - he said it was obvious. He said it was an easy call on replay.

 

[Betterthanmost]

When it moved to his left hand, he had it re-secured. The fact that it moved again as he was rolling on the ground shouldn't matter, this wasn't a catch it was a run. As soon as he hits the pylon, before hitting the ground, it was a TD.

I can guarantee that you don't know the pylon is considered to be out of bounds and confusing it with the rule for an established runner. This is what is creating the confusion. Respected coaches and tv analyst are missing this point as well and all I hear is that he hits the pylon so it is a TD.

 

[Ring 6]

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.

Actually punts and kickoffs ARE a change of possession.

With your suggested rule why not fumble through the end zone any time you can't score?

 

[TheBostonStraggler]

No it is not - you must have possession in the EZ. He had possession before the EZ, lost it, and never got it back until he was OOB.

The technical aspects of the rule(s) turns out to be an interesting discussion.

1) If a runner loses control of the ball before crossing the goal line, then the ball crosses the goal line before the runner reestablishes control, what is the rule exactly?
-- Is it simply he must regain control for an instant, whether the control is in mid air/off the ground?
-- Or is it the runner now must regain control of the ball then establish himself in bounds (elbow, knee, two feet touch the ground in bounds)?

2) What is the rule exactly on the replay?
-- Was the call on the field the runner had control of the ball as he crossed the goal line (simply a TD, play is over, everything that happened afterward was moot because it's a dead ball? Or was the call on the field the runner lost control of the ball but the runner regained possession in the end zone?
-- If the call on the field was a 'simple TD' because the runner possessed the ball crossing the goal line(??), does that mean two completely separate aspects of replay determination come into play?
- If replay determines the runner did lose possession before crossing the goal line thereby overturning the 'simple TD' call on the field, does the replay call then become a second and wholly separate aspect that falls under a 'whatever is 50.1% likeliest' (versus the normal "conclusive" evidence)?