The ASJ Fumble

[Ring 6]

Not true. There are no points scored and no possession change when a punt or kickoff goes through the EZ. (Remember, the change of possession happened the moment the kickoff was kicked or the moment the punt crossed the LOS. The receiving team gets the ball because of that, not because the ball went through the EZ.) And nothing bad happens when a pass goes incomplete in or through the EZ.

Technically a kickoff is a free ball so possession doesn't change until it is gained

 

[Pats2000]

Not true. There are no points scored and no possession change when a punt or kickoff goes through the EZ. (Remember, the change of possession happened the moment the kickoff was kicked or the moment the punt crossed the LOS. The receiving team gets the ball because of that, not because the ball went through the EZ.) And nothing bad happens when a pass goes incomplete in or through the EZ.

We were talking in the context of fumbles, or getting sacked in the end zone, stop being obtuse and bringing obvious situations into the conversation that add no value.

 

[Pats2000]

Technically a kickoff is a free ball so possession doesn't change until it is gained

Lol that's true, so that's why a ball going through the end zone on a kickoff is also a touch back. Therefore a change of possession.

 

[QuantumMechanic]

Lol that's true, so that's why a ball going through the end zone on a kickoff is also a touch back. Therefore a change of possession.

The change of possession is because the ball was kicked, not because it went through the EZ. Kick returner fields the ball in the field of play, receiving team's ball. Kick returner lets it go through the EZ, still receiving team's ball. The ball going through the EZ has absolutely nothing to do with who possesses the ball.

 

[Mike the Brit]

Don't know if this picture has been posted yet, but I just saw the turning point clip on Youtube and there was (in my opinion) a pretty clear shot with undisputable evidence (as Corrente's said in his interview after the game) that Sefarian-Jenkins lost control of the ball while rolling out of bounds, thus not completing the process of the catch. See how his right hand comes off the ball:



Below is the full clip including a nullified TD by RGIII which is pretty similar to the fumble of Sefarian-Jenkins

I'm completely convinced. The video at 2:42-2:53 ends the controversy. It's clear and obvious. Dispute the rule, if you like, but there's no question that the rule was correctly applied.

The NFL got something right in relation to the Patriots. Well, what do you know?

 

[Oswlek]

I guess the way I look it is that I'm OK with a team getting punished for failing to protect its own endzone -- if the offense fails to protect its own endzone that's a safety and loss of possession. If the defense fails to protect its own endzone that's a touchdown.

But I just don't see a good rationale for punishing a team with loss of possession for losing the ball in the endzone it is attacking.

The more I think about it that more I think the down counting and putting it at the 5 is the way to go. Bringing it back to the 5 will negate virtually any shenanigans. Even in a situation where the anti-Holy Roller rule doesn't apply, no one is going to intentionally fumble it forward if the ball is going to go back to the 5.

I was thinking something similar, though to the 10 or 20 instead. That way it remains a stricter penalty, but isn't nearly as disproportionate.

 

[GoBlue]

I like the rule and it seemed to be enforced properly. It prevents a team from "fumbling" the ball into the EZ if the runner thinks he's going to be stopped before breaking the plane..Can't see rewarding them with another attempt after asessing a penalty..

 

[Angelpats]

The change of possession is because the ball was kicked, not because it went through the EZ. Kick returner fields the ball in the field of play, receiving team's ball. Kick returner lets it go through the EZ, still receiving team's ball. The ball going through the EZ has absolutely nothing to do with who possesses the ball.

The poster you replied to is also correct. When the ball is kicked and it goes through the end zone it's a change in possession. If a ball is kicked beyond ten yards and the kicking team gets it then possession does not change.

 

[1960Pats]

Maybe this is the update of the tuck rule that will spur the team to another 20 years of domination

I think it's associated with the tuck rule for a reason that @PatsFanSince74 eluded to in his post earlier. In each case they need a point of demarcation to clarify the rule. Back then it was the point of when Brady's arm started forward. This time it was when the ball was re-established as a possession by ASJ.

I don't think that another twenty years is possible. Brady will only be able to go ten.

 

[Pats2000]

The change of possession is because the ball was kicked, not because it went through the EZ. Kick returner fields the ball in the field of play, receiving team's ball. Kick returner lets it go through the EZ, still receiving team's ball. The ball going through the EZ has absolutely nothing to do with who possesses the ball.

Can you think of instances when possession does not change on the kickoff? There's a reason they are both called a touch back