The ASJ Fumble

[DaBronxPats14]

He regained control, but evidently the ball moved too much when he hit the ground after regaining control for it to be considered possession. So you can argue that the rule is ok, but not applied properly in that it should have been ruled that there was sufficient control when hitting the ground after regaining control while in mid air ton constitute possession and therefore a TD.

Once he lost control or was trying to switch hands while either crossing goal line or hitting pylon all bets are off! If a player Does Not Control, Secure and follow through, trouble is written all over it.

 

[Ross12]

Nothing contrarian here, friend. We're trying to explain to people who say "It was a TD because he hit the pylon" or whatever that they're incorrect because they don't understand the rule. It also helps them explain the rule to Jets or other fans they might run into that say "The refs gave the Pats the win because favoritism" (or whatever).

It sounds like you're in the it was a gift (it wasn't) camp. The rule was applied correctly when you look at the replay from all angles.

Not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying that people are arguing the call was wrong to the point that they're getting personal ("you're making a mockery of football", "you should seek counseling") over something that was a very positive occurrence for the team.

I 100% agree that the call was correct. I'm just trying to sort out why the argument continues the way that it does and is so heated.

 

[skinnydog]

this is the official NFL game ball:



in the clip below, you can see the gold "NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE" text and the seam rotate relative to his body. also, the ball starts out contacting his arm close to his wrist, and then slides into the crook of his elbow. that means it's not "pinned to his chest".

click on this link to see a larger version of the gif:

gfycat: The ASF Fumble

This was the best gif I've seen supporting the he did not regain control after the fumble position. Hmm I'd possible rethink my position, but this is the internet and positions are never rethought or opinions changed

 

[archstanton543]

I 100% agree that the call was correct. I'm just trying to sort out why the argument continues the way that it does and is so heated.

Because it gives credence to the "Pats get all the calls" crowd. I know they don't and you know they don't but a lot of people have to deal with other people who now have more ammo to make that argument.

Or are just flat-out wrong like the Patriots 4th and 2 podcasters.

 

[BradyFTW!]

Yes and from the replay it looks like this happened. The ball gets knocked loose, he regains control in mid air, he lifts the pylon and it looks like a knee comes down in the end zone. He hits the ground on his chest and rolls onto his back now out of bounds. At that point he has the ball held firmly to his chest. So please show me a video demonstrating that ASJ did not regain possession of a loose ball and score a touchdown.

Watch any video replay, that's not what happened. The ball came out while he was rolling, he never secured possession through to the ground. That wouldn't be ruled a catch anywhere on the field, and it's also not sufficient to re-establish possession once he's lost it.

 

[BradyFTW!]

You entire explanation makes a mockery of football. I’m comfortable having Blandino an Pereria in my corner on the interpretation. He fumbled, regained control (sorry I said possession above, know what a mistake in word usage) while still in the air, lands in the corner of the end zone at or on the pylon with the bell against his chest, he rolls over and stands up with the ball. Yeah, he checked every box and it should have been ruled that he regained possession and a touchdown. And yes the ball can “move” when he hits the ground so long as he maintains control, the ground does not help him control the ball and the ground doesn’t cause him to lose control. No one outside of New England thinks this should not have been a touchdown.

I think basically everyone agrees it's a bizarre and pretty stupid rule. But that is the rule. It was the correct application of a rule that shouldn't exist because it's stupid and makes no sense. To the extent that people outside New England think this should have been a touchdown, it's because they don't understand the rule and/or they don't care what the rule is.

People are generally stupid and believe whatever the hell they want to believe that falls in line with their stupid pre-existing beliefs and prejudices. These are the same people who think Tom Brady masterminded a conspiracy to deflate footballs by (coincidentally) the exact same amount of pressure that they would lose due to natural causes. These people are morons, and they're being just as dumb about this as they are about Deflategate, because even when objective facts are placed in front of them they still choose to continue yelling their objectively incorrect opinions from the rooftops because they'd rather be passionately wrong than lose out on the outrage high of hating the Patriots.

 

[BradyFTW!]

Personally, I think he came down with his knee in bounds before rolling out:


Whether he has full control of the ball at that point is another question.

This has already been covered at least 5 different times in this thread. If you go back a few pages multiple people explain at length, with citations directly from the NFL rule book, why it doesn't mater where his knee came down. By failing to secure and maintain possession through to the ground he made that irrelevant.

 

[Ross12]

I think basically everyone agrees it's a bizarre and pretty stupid rule. But that is the rule. It was the correct application of a rule that shouldn't exist because it's stupid and makes no sense. To the extent that people outside New England think this should have been a touchdown, it's because they don't understand the rule and/or they don't care what the rule is.

People are generally stupid and believe whatever the hell they want to believe that falls in line with their stupid pre-existing beliefs and prejudices. These are the same people who think Tom Brady masterminded a conspiracy to deflate footballs by (coincidentally) the exact same amount of pressure that they would lose due to natural causes. These people are morons, and they're being just as dumb about this as they are about Deflategate, because even when objective facts are placed in front of them they still choose to continue yelling their objectively incorrect opinions from the rooftops because they'd rather be passionately wrong than lose out on the outrage high of hating the Patriots.

"Outrage high", that's a good one... I think that fits perfectly.

 

[40yrpatsfan]

The rules when taken together do not justify the result here. Judging a play like this to be a turnover is a wrong outcome. The runner had clear possession, momentarily juggled it in his arms, never let it hit the ground, and it was never possessed by anyone else. During that time he moved from the 3 yard line to the ez then out of bounds.

What happened on the ground out of bounds should have no bearing. Once he re-established control of the ball in his left hand and hit the pylon, that should be a TD, no questions asked/end of story. The bs of having to re-establish possession when he already had re-established control is a complete farce.

 

[BradyFTW!]

The rules when taken together do not justify the result here. Judging a play like this to be a turnover is a wrong outcome. The runner had clear possession, momentarily juggled it in his arms, never let it hit the ground, and it was never possessed by anyone else. During that time he moved from the 3 yard line to the ez then out of bounds.

What happened on the ground out of bounds should have no bearing. Once he re-established control of the ball in his left hand and hit the pylon, that should be a TD, no questions asked/end of story. The bs of having to re-establish possession when he already had re-established control is a complete farce.

According to common sense, you could argue that case and I'd probably agree with you. According to the NFL rule book, everything you just wrote is objectively incorrect. That momentary juggle was a fumble: he lost possession, and then he never re-established it.

 

[archstanton543]

The rules when taken together do not justify the result here. Judging a play like this to be a turnover is a wrong outcome. The runner had clear possession, momentarily juggled it in his arms, never let it hit the ground, and it was never possessed by anyone else. During that time he moved from the 3 yard line to the ez then out of bounds.

What happened on the ground out of bounds should have no bearing. Once he re-established control of the ball in his left hand and hit the pylon, that should be a TD, no questions asked/end of story. The bs of having to re-establish possession when he already had re-established control is a complete farce.

The ball doesn't have to hit the ground to be considered a fumble. If you've been a Pats (and therefore a football) fan for 40+ years, you should know that.

 

[Ring 6]

The rules when taken together do not justify the result here. Judging a play like this to be a turnover is a wrong outcome. The runner had clear possession, momentarily juggled it in his arms, never let it hit the ground, and it was never possessed by anyone else. During that time he moved from the 3 yard line to the ez then out of bounds.

What happened on the ground out of bounds should have no bearing. Once he re-established control of the ball in his left hand and hit the pylon, that should be a TD, no questions asked/end of story. The bs of having to re-establish possession when he already had re-established control is a complete farce.

Do you just not understand the rules or do you understand the call was correct and want the rule changed?

And what do you want it changed to?

 

[meatface]

He lands out of bounds and the ball is still moving. I'm not sure what the issue is.

Is it close? Sure but he's clearly out of bounds and doesn't have control.

Its just not a way people typically fumble out of the endzone so people are upset.

 

[40yrpatsfan]

Plays like this, the 10 second runoff in Detroit a few weeks ago, and Dez Bryant's "incompletion" in Green Bay a couple of years ago undermine the game. People try to justify it by the wording of a rule, but the rule is the obvious problem.

 

[Ring 6]

Once Corrente said it was clearcut, then the problem moved to being a rule problem. Although I think they could have and should have claimed insufficient evidence and deferred to the on field call, all things considered. Judgement error, too much doubt, there's now a question that his knee may have hit in bounds.

Why would they claim
Insufficient evidence when there is sufficient evidence.

The knee was down. That has nothing to do with the call. The call was that the recovery dud not survive the ground, so therefore was completed out of bounds. Cut and dried.

The problem with the rules is considering a juggle like that a fumble, requiring some need to re-establish possession by taking a step or whatever. What is the point of that?

The ball is knocked out of his hands and that makes it a fumble. The rule for gaining possession is the same as a catch. So when he fell to the ground and lost control of the ball possession was still not regained because you gave to survive the ground.

Look at it this way. If the ball is bouncing along the sidelines and a defensive player dives to catch it lands out of bounds after getting a knee down and when he hits the ground the ball pops up 12 feet in the air and lands on him he didn't recover the ball in bounds.
The only difference here is when Jenkins lost control when hitting the ground it didn't pop up 12 feet but the ruling has to be the same.

None that I can see. He re-secured control instantly under his left arm. So long as it doesn't hit the ground or be taken away by a defender, how is that a fumble from a possession standpoint?

He never regained possession per the rule.

The juggle is a complete non-event. To my knowledge, those do not count in the game stats as fumbles.

The "juggle" was butler forcing a fumble. A fumble doesn't have to hit the ground.

If Butler managed to grab it in that instant, yes that turnover would be classified as a fumble, which is the case even it he had it tucked tight, but Butler didn't grab it. Also it never touched the ground, and he hit the pylon with it firmly in his control. That should be end of play, TD, regardless of what happens out of bounds afterwards.

This is just a butchering of the rule book.

 

[Ring 6]

Plays like this, the 10 second runoff in Detroit a few weeks ago, and Dez Bryant's "incompletion" in Green Bay a couple of years ago undermine the game. People try to justify it by the wording of a rule, but the rule is the obvious problem.

The only correct call is one that applies the rule properly.

 

[40yrpatsfan]

Why would they claim
Insufficient evidence when there is sufficient evidence.

The knee was down. That has nothing to do with the call. The call was that the recovery dud not survive the ground, so therefore was completed out of bounds. Cut and dried.


The ball is knocked out of his hands and that makes it a fumble. The rule for gaining possession is the same as a catch. So when he fell to the ground and lost control of the ball possession was still not regained because you gave to survive the ground.

Look at it this way. If the ball is bouncing along the sidelines and a defensive player dives to catch it lands out of bounds after getting a knee down and when he hits the ground the ball pops up 12 feet in the air and lands on him he didn't recover the ball in bounds.
The only difference here is when Jenkins lost control when hitting the ground it didn't pop up 12 feet but the ruling has to be the same.




He never regained possession per the rule.


The "juggle" was butler forcing a fumble. A fumble doesn't have to hit the ground.



This is just a butchering of the rule book.

If they'd seen the knee down as he hits the pylon with the ball secured, that would have re-established possession, thus a td

 

[40yrpatsfan]

If they'd seen the knee down as he hits the pylon with the ball secured, that would have re-established possession, thus a td

The "juggle" was caused by Butler but it's irrelevant what caused it, if he simply juggled it the same bad rule would have considered it a fumble requiring subsequent contact with the ground to re-establish possession. Completely stupid.

 

[BradyFTW!]

Once Corrente said it was clearcut, then the problem moved to being a rule problem. Although I think they could have and should have claimed insufficient evidence and deferred to the on field call, all things considered. Judgement error, too much doubt, there's now a question that his knee may have hit in bounds.

It doesn't matter if his knee hit in bounds. By rule, that is irrelevant to whether or not he re-established possession. There is nothing subject to interpretation here: by rule and based on what the replay clearly, irrefutably showed, it was 100% the correct call. The issue here has absolutely nothing to do with a judgment call--all the information needed to make the call they made was clear as day in the replay footage--and everything to do with the fact that you simply don't like the rule.

The problem with the rules is considering a juggle like that a fumble, requiring some need to re-establish possession by taking a step or whatever. What is the point of that? None that I can see. He re-secured control instantly under his left arm. So long as it doesn't hit the ground or be taken away by a defender, how is that a fumble from a possession standpoint? The juggle is a complete non-event. To my knowledge, those do not count in the game stats as fumbles. If Butler managed to grab it in that instant, yes that turnover would be classified as a fumble, which is the case even it he had it tucked tight, but Butler didn't grab it. Also it never touched the ground, and he hit the pylon with it firmly in his control. That should be end of play, TD, regardless of what happens out of bounds afterwards.

The point is that he lost possession of the football. The moment you no longer have possession of the football, it's now a live ball, and the rules absolutely have to make a clear distinction re: what constitutes a loss of possession. Which they do, and I have no problem at all with the rule re: loss of possession. No distinction is going to be 100% perfect and foolproof, but the way the NFL currently defines it is pretty close, I think. It's the runner's job to secure the ball, and if he doesn't then it's the runner's job to clearly re-establish possession. But ASJ didn't do that, because Harmon and Butler made heads-up plays and got good shots on the arm he was using to cradle the ball. It was a good defensive play, and it put ASJ in a difficult position that he failed to recover from.

I also have less of a problem than most with the rule re: what it takes to re-establish possession. Momentarily getting a hand on the ball before losing it as you go to the ground--which is what ASJ did--should not under any circumstances count as establishing possession, because if it did WR would become one of the easiest positions in sports. As long as you got a hand on the ball then fell over it would be a catch, regardless of whether or not you actually secured the ball or held it all the way through to the ground.

Which is all to say I've got no issue with the fact that the play was ruled a fumble out of bounds. That was both the correct call by rule and a totally reasonable call IMO. Whatever fix you would propose that you might think is a better rule would likewise have edge cases where would give weird results that you might not like, that's unavoidable.

Where the rules went totally off the rails and parted ways with anything resembling common sense is that fumbling out of bounds on the 1 inch line gives you the ball on the one inch line, but fumbling the ball an inch beyond that is suddenly a turnover. A more sensible rule would be to call it a touchback of sorts and make the Jets take it back to the 10 or 15 or 20 or so.

 

[BradyFTW!]

If they'd seen the knee down as he hits the pylon with the ball secured, that would have re-established possession, thus a td

No. That is simply not correct, it's objectively not what the rule book says. I dunno why you keep repeating it, maybe it's a reading comprehension issue, but the rule book is very clear on this point. The exact text of the rule has already been given to you multiple times in this thread, so either you somehow lack the ability to read it or you've just decided to lie even after being corrected by the one and only definitive source on this topic.