The ASJ Fumble

[Bartmac36]

There are several pictures of the ball out of his possession in mid air, but i have yet to see a definitive picture of the ball out of his possession when he lands in the EZ. And by that logic, how the hell do you overturn a call like that without any clear evidence?

 

[bigcountry75]

Whether people agree or disagree, the right call was made.

By rule a fumble is the loss of player possession of the ball. ASJ clearly loses possession of the ball while in the air and to regain possession of the ball has to possess the ball in bounds. He landed out of bounds through the endzone which is a touchback. It is no different then him fumbling the ball at the 1 and the ball rolling through the endzone and ASJ diving on the ball out of bounds. It is still a touchback.

 

[Pats2000]

There are several pictures of the ball out of his possession in mid air, but i have yet to see a definitive picture of the ball out of his possession when he lands in the EZ. And by that logic, how the hell do you overturn a call like that without any clear evidence?

If the ball is out of his possession in the air, by definition he can't have control landing on the pylon because he has to re-establish possession in bounds for it to be a touchdown. He instead went out of the endzone, therefore a touchback

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Why was that Jets touchdown overturned? Here was referee Tony Corrente&#39;s explanation: <a href="Zack Cox on Twitter">pic.twitter.com/CYtyw1mjBb</a></p>&mdash; Zack Cox (@ZackCoxNESN) <a href="">October 15, 2017</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[drewskie]

There are several pictures of the ball out of his possession in mid air, but i have yet to see a definitive picture of the ball out of his possession when he lands in the EZ. And by that logic, how the hell do you overturn a call like that without any clear evidence?

Easy. Replys clearly show him losing possession of the ball before breaking the plane.

As such, the rules state that the player must re-establish possession with either one knee or two feet in bounds, which ASJ does not. By rule, if the offensive player fumbles the ball into the end zone out of bounds it is a touch back for the defense.

The onus when you lose possession before breaking the plane means that the replays need to show he (ASJ) regains possession as though he caught the ball in the end zone. Replays do not show him having possession until he lands out of bounds.

 

[JMC00]

It is not a bad call. Maybe a bad rule but not a bad call. It was in fact 100% the correct call. If people don't like it change the rules. Simple as that. The refs are not to blames. The people who agreed on the rules are to blame and all of them equally. (This includes the whole league including the Jets as well).

Nothing else needs to be said. This is just sour grapes. If It went against the Pats I would be mad it happened but I wouldn't say the rule was unfair or applied unfairly.

Honestly I don't know if I want to change the rule. Everything is so easy for the offense these days and the rules favor that side in many instances.

It's a solid rule, why should the team that fumbled the ball through the end zone be rewarded? They aren't rewarded when they fumble it through their own end zone, why should they be if they fumble it through the opposition's end zone

 

[yukon cornelius]

There are several pictures of the ball out of his possession in mid air, but i have yet to see a definitive picture of the ball out of his possession when he lands in the EZ. And by that logic, how the hell do you overturn a call like that without any clear evidence?

how could it even be considered a touchdown when there is clear evidence he did not possess the ball as he crossed the line, and zero clear evidence he ever possessed it in bounds and in the end zone?

can't just ignore the loss of possession/lack of possession as he crosses the plane just because it was initially called a TD

 

[Wordsmyth]

Now if only butthurt Norman Esaison and his whiny ilk would get the memo...

 

[Bartmac36]

Easy. Replys clearly show him losing possession of the ball before breaking the plane.

As such, the rules state that the player must re-establish possession with either one knee or two feet in bounds, which ASJ does not. By rule, if the offensive player fumbles the ball into the end zone out of bounds it is a touch back for the defense.

The onus when you lose possession before breaking the plane means that the replays need to show he (ASJ) regains possession as though he caught the ball in the end zone. Replays do not show him having possession until he lands out of bounds.

Well then i guess i just didnt see the same thing, because i saw nothing that led me to believe that he didnt have possession when he landed in the endzone, if anything it looked to me like he HAD regained it before rolling out of the EZ.

I saw no bobble or movement of the ball of any kinda between the time he hands in the endzone and rolls out of bounds, but people see what they want to i guess

 

[BobDigital]

There are several pictures of the ball out of his possession in mid air, but i have yet to see a definitive picture of the ball out of his possession when he lands in the EZ. And by that logic, how the hell do you overturn a call like that without any clear evidence?

After you fumble it doesn't matter if you gain possession of the ball in the endzone if you don't control it through the entire recovery process and this includes surviving to the ground. Surviving to the ground... I don't know the exact rules for what that entails but how i have always seen it enforced is possession must survive your entire action against the ground particularly if you still have momentum from the direction which you were going. As long as your natural momentum contacts you with the ground (particularly one your first full roll) you need to keep possession. Once momentum stops or you gain control of said momentum to a degree and it is clear you have had the ball the whole way through then it is a TD.

He loses the ball actually 2 times when he hits the ground. The first is a small jump right when he hits the first time. You see just as he hits his arm comes up and there is a little air between it and the ball. It is hard to see but there. The 2nd much more obvious point is at the very end of his role the arm possessing the ball hits the ground elbow first and he loses possession clearly for a moment. That part by the letter of the law as I understand it ends all discussion.

Personally I don't feel the least bit bad for ASJ. You see in that same clip he has a free arm celebrating sticking up in the air uselessly while he holds the ball with one hand. Maybe if he uses that arm and hand to grab the ball and prevent the 2nd bounce from happening it is ruled a TD as the first bounce is really hard to over turn on as it is so fast and just for a split second (I would over turn but I understanding airing on the side of caution and only given 90 seconds maybe you can't watch it enough to be sure or slow enough to clearly see).

Instead we see another case of a player celebrating early and it potentially costing him and his team. I love when that happens. Finish the play!

 

[Bartmac36]

here, you see that his right hand comes off of the ball while he's on his back, out of bounds. that means he's still trying to gain control of it while out of bounds:

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

NOW, having said that. If thats not considered possession of the ball, by the letter of the law, then thats a horrifically bad rule. You shouldnt have to duct tape the ball to your forearm in order to be deemed in possession, so i think thats a much bigger issue now than the play itself

 

[archstanton543]

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

NOW, having said that. If thats not considered possession of the ball, by the letter of the law, then thats a horrifically bad rule. You shouldnt have to duct tape the ball to your forearm in order to be deemed in possession, so i think thats a much bigger issue now than the play itself

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.

 

[SacPete1]

But Dobson, err Dorsett needs to do better than he did.
Yes it was interference but it was not physical enough to throw him off and if he doesn't fall/stumble the ball hits him in the numbers with shrine behind him.

Totally agree with this. Dorsett needs to contest this at worst. Its a combination of assertiveness and ball awareness.

You also made mention in another post about Butler getting lucky when he put his hands on the ref after the ASJ called TD. When I saw that I was waiting for the flag and a player DQ which could have been disasterous.

Hopefully 2 good learning points in film review today.

 

[SalemPats]

This time we got a break.

If this was the other way around or man would we be pissed.

 

[drewskie]

Well then i guess i just didnt see the same thing, because i saw nothing that led me to believe that he didnt have possession when he landed in the endzone, if anything it looked to me like he HAD regained it before rolling out of the EZ.

I saw no bobble or movement of the ball of any kinda between the time he hands in the endzone and rolls out of bounds, but people see what they want to i guess

Its because your understanding of repossessing the football is incorrect and that is the case for many people complaining as well.

As another poster just said.... "After you fumble it doesn't matter if you gain possession of the ball in the endzone if you don't control it through the entire recovery process and this includes surviving to the ground. "

Which is precisely my explanation that the play would then be treated as though he was a receiver completing a catch in its entirety...which ASJ does NOT until he is out of bounds.

Its really quite black and white. Its only an uproar because they got a call right for once for NE. And people think the league favors us when the history of calls suggests the complete opposite.

 

[IllegalContact]

This time we got a break.

If this was the other way around or man would we be pissed.

the right call was made.....it would have been the right call regardless of team

 

[JMC00]

This time we got a break.

If this was the other way around or man would we be pissed.

It's not a break when the correct call is made and if it happened to the Pats I wouldn't have any complaints because it was the correct call.

 

[drewskie]

the right call was made.....it would have been the right call regardless of team

Exactly.

Unlike the Shaun O'Hara chokehold against Seymour in SB42... or when Talib committed blatant DPI against Gronk on the 2pt attempt in the most recent AFCC at Denver a couple years ago.

People think that because we are Pats' fans that we can't be objective. This narrative couldn't be farther from the truth. Just shows that people can't put their bias/hatred aside and be objective.

 

[bbobbo]

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

NOW, having said that. If thats not considered possession of the ball, by the letter of the law, then thats a horrifically bad rule. You shouldnt have to duct tape the ball to your forearm in order to be deemed in possession, so i think thats a much bigger issue now than the play itself

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".

.

 

[archstanton543]

You also made mention in another post about Butler getting lucky when he put his hands on the ref after the ASJ called TD. When I saw that I was waiting for the flag and a player DQ which could have been disasterous.

Butler has nothing to worry about. The ref stumbled and fell into Butler. Butler actually prevented him from falling. It was incidental contact.

You can see it in the replays.

 

[Tuck]

I just love that this happened to the Jets.