Also I don't see what angle others see showing a clearly secured ball after your picture above and b4 that knee comes down. You can see it loose from behind as he goes down, then from the 2-3 angles I've seen (none from inside), the first time he clearly secures it's in the other hand while rolling to his back already OB
Agreed w/ Fatman if he resecured and the knee comes down inbounds it's a TD. I haven't seen that. But that's again why the overturn was a mistake. But the outrage by announcers, fans etc seems way out of place
How is the overturn a istake, if you saw nothing to show he came down in bounds with the ball secure? The overturn corrected a mistake on the field.
in this case. He regained possession and his shoulder hit the plane before he went out of bounds.
You can't establish possession in the air.
What are you talking about? He had posession, then bobbled it, than regained control with his shoulder hitting the pylon and arguably his knee also coming down in bounds. What else does he need to do?
The pylon is out of bounds, but it also isn't down. He landed out of bounds, not inbounds.
I know this play is different for the reason you state. I have only been arguing with Jeff and Stan who seem indignant that the ball must touch the ground for it to be a fumble.
I think there is something fundamentally wrong with the rule for that play to result in the Patriots getting the ball. But perhaps the committee will tweak the rule in the offseason to account for freak occurrences like this one.
But that's the nature of creating rules. It often takes unforeseeable situations to point out blind spots in rules and carve out exceptions.
This is one rule that doesn't need to be tweaked, in my opinion. The player never had possession of the ball when it crossed the plane and it ended up out of bounds. That's a fumble out of the end zone. It is actually one of the clearer rules and was interpreted correctly in the review. The real travesty would have been allowing the bad call on the field stand.
For me, the rules that need to be tweaked are the ones about completed passes in the end zone for TDs. But, that is a whole other argument.
RE: RE: Good posts TSU, agreed on most if not all counts Â
In comment 13650725 ChaChing said:
Quote:
Also I don't see what angle others see showing a clearly secured ball after your picture above and b4 that knee comes down. You can see it loose from behind as he goes down, then from the 2-3 angles I've seen (none from inside), the first time he clearly secures it's in the other hand while rolling to his back already OB
Agreed w/ Fatman if he resecured and the knee comes down inbounds it's a TD. I haven't seen that. But that's again why the overturn was a mistake. But the outrage by announcers, fans etc seems way out of place
How is the overturn a istake, if you saw nothing to show he came down in bounds with the ball secure? The overturn corrected a mistake on the field.
There were no clear views on replay. Call on the field was TD. Not great evidence to overturn it even if what we can see IMO leans more to no possession & a touchback
RE: Jeff there's a huge picture above shows the ball out of his hands Â
Tho your example of 'a bobble not being marked a fumble' is true you're also picturing an RB bobbling the ball mid run not losing it, forgetting official fumble or not, he's lost possession and re-established it once he's resecured and takes 2 steps
But apply that here, it's also true it's not a TD unless you break the plane of the endline with possession. I get what you say about how they mark fumbles, yet it doesn't matter (tho yes - that's exactly how this has been marked, because it was a fumble regardless of the semantics of your example)
Once bobbled as in the picture, ASJ lost possession so must secure the ball inbounds to reestablish. It's not enough to just rescure midair. While you say he did both, I disagree - there's no clearly secured ball til he flips and moves it to his right hand when OB, nor is it clear he's inbounds even if he did. And even if secured midair, he lands OB in the EZ and never re-establishes possession so it's a touchback
There's no great views, so the overturn was tough. But looking at it I see it much like it was called. I think most people here think since he was a runner, he can just 're-secure' the loss of possession midair and hit the pylon or has broken the plane so it's a TD, which is not the case
From what I see, he regained possession by the time he hit the pylon. Therefore, TD.
you are being obtuse or stubborn. I've provided you the NFL rule defining a fumble. You then said the ball had to hit the ground. I then provided you evidence that a loose ball does not need to hit the ground the be a fumble.
You refuse to acknowledge it. Why? Because you don't like the rule or because you can't admit you are wrong?
ASJ does not have possession of the ball here.
Did you not watch our game against the Skins when RGIII did this and it was ruled a fumble and a touchback?
As such, once the ball crossed the plane there are only four possibilities
1) the ball is repossessed by an offensive player who establishes himself in bounds and it's a touchdown.
2) the ball is repossessed by a defensive player in the end zone and it's a touchback.
3) the ball is loose and goes out of bounds and is a touchback
4) the ball is touched by a player who cannot establish himself in bounds after possessing the loose ball and that is a touchback.
https://www.si.com/nfl/2014/12/14/robert-griffin-iii-run-overturned-replay-washington-redskins - ( New Window )
Griffin landed out of bounds. And ball may have touched the ground, the video doesn't go that far. Here, ASJ regain possession by the time he hit the pylon. You're describing a different play from what I see.
It's a touchdown for certain and Jets got screwed Â
This is one rule that doesn't need to be tweaked, in my opinion. The player never had possession of the ball when it crossed the plane and it ended up out of bounds. That's a fumble out of the end zone. It is actually one of the clearer rules and was interpreted correctly in the review. The real travesty would have been allowing the bad call on the field stand.
Following the bobble shown in the still pictures above, the ball is cradled in the arms, a knee hits the turf and the runner hits the pylon. When he hits the pylon, the ball isn't loose. It isn't bobbled or moving, and it was preceded with a knee hitting the turf. I'm fine keeping the rule.
What shouldn't be fine is overturning a call on the field without conclusive evidence, and that's what happened. I've too often felt replay has moved from the early days of conclusive evidence to being the opinion of the guy under the hood. Thus, you now see inconsistent reversals of calls - such as the one we saw here or the infamous Bill Leavy reversal in the GB playoff game.
Indisputable visual evidence. That is the standard. It certainly wasn't met. That's why people are apoplectic about this call. There are no conclusive angles or visual evidence to show definitively whether he did or did not regain possession. Whatever was called on the field should have stood. I believe it was a TD since it sure looked like he probably regained possession inbounds before going out, but it doesn't matter what I or anyone else THINKS happens, it's what we can verifiably see happen. Anyone who says he definitely did or didn't regain possession is looking at video that doesn't exist or wasn't available to the officials.
In any event, this is a rule I've hated for a long, long time. Why is the offense penalized so harshly for a fumbled ball going out of the endzone? Anywhere else on the field, offense retains possession. I've always thought the offense should retain possession with the ball placed at the 1 or the spot of the fumble, whichever is further away from the endzone, in these cases. Makes so much more sense than awarding the defense a turnover for a fluke play.
That the RGIII play should also have been a TD. He bobbles the ball, regains possession, drags both of his feet in bounds, and crosses the endzone with the ball inside of the pylon before going out of bounds and losing control of the ball when it hits the ground. That was also an awful misruling, and I felt that way at the time as well (even though I was very thankful for it).
This is one rule that doesn't need to be tweaked, in my opinion. The player never had possession of the ball when it crossed the plane and it ended up out of bounds. That's a fumble out of the end zone. It is actually one of the clearer rules and was interpreted correctly in the review. The real travesty would have been allowing the bad call on the field stand.
Following the bobble shown in the still pictures above, the ball is cradled in the arms, a knee hits the turf and the runner hits the pylon. When he hits the pylon, the ball isn't loose. It isn't bobbled or moving, and it was preceded with a knee hitting the turf. I'm fine keeping the rule.
What shouldn't be fine is overturning a call on the field without conclusive evidence, and that's what happened. I've too often felt replay has moved from the early days of conclusive evidence to being the opinion of the guy under the hood. Thus, you now see inconsistent reversals of calls - such as the one we saw here or the infamous Bill Leavy reversal in the GB playoff game.
I don't think he clearly had the ball until he was out of bounds. When he's landing on the ground, he's trying to secure the ball with his left hand that is hitting the ground. He comes up with the ball in his right hand. From that, it's easy to say the ball is still moving before he hits out of bounds.
RE: He never lost possession and never stopped being the runner Â
so I don't even think landing out of bounds (which he didn't IMO) even matters. He was still the runner and the ball broke the plane. Not much else to discuss.
When the ball is in the air and not in his hands, he clearly doesn't have possession.
the easiest way to discuss this is to think of what should have been the ruling if ASJ were never a runner and if instead he made a diving catch at that exact spot, secured the ball in his hands while in mid-air, knee hits the ground, he then falls into the pylon and out of bounds.
So, If the original call were a touchdown, is there enough visual evidence of not having full control as he went to the ground to overturn that being a catch and touchdown?
This is the best/easiest way to discuss the play because once ASJ lost possession of the ball, everything that happened beforehand is irrelevant for all intents and purposes; since he resecures it in mid-air, he has the same as if he were a receiver securing a ball in mid-air.
He loses possession of the ball mid-air, and though he regains security of the ball and then touches his toes in bounds, the ball then pops back up in the air when he hits the ground out of bounds before again resecuring it.
The refs ruled that "the runner lost possession of the football prior to crossing the goalline. When he regains possession, he must control it throughout the process of going to the ground. He did not. It is a fumble forward out of bounds in the end zone. It is a touchback."
And here were ref comments about it from the article
Quote:
Mike Carey ✔@MikeCareyRef94
RG3 never repossessed the ball so this play is a touchback. It's like catching a pass.
Quote:
Mike Pereira ✔@MikePereira
As i said on the broadcast, RGIII needs to repossess it after the ball comes loose. It's like catching a pass.
[
Quote:
Dean Blandino ✔@DeanBlandino
In #WASvsNYG RG3 clearly lost control of the ball before GL. It's a fumble. To regain possession he has to hold onto it when he lands.
situation is just a more exaggerated version of what the refs claim happened to ASJ yesterday. The refs are saying that ASJ didn't maintain possession throughout the process as he went to the ground, which means that it doesn't matter that his knee touched in bounds first. I am making no judgment as to whether I agree with that determination.
so on that RG3 play, explain step by step why it wasn't a touchdown.
The really weird thing is, when I saw that play I said he wasn't a TD, and that was the ruling.
Now I'm looking at it, and can't understand what my logic was...looks like a TD now.
RG3 seems to reclaim the ball, and get his toes down in bounds........
Because Bob bobbles the ball in the air...
Doesn't reestablish possession...
And then the ball comes up when he hits the ground.
See:
The refs ass is in the way, but there is clear and convincing evidence that Bob bobbles the ball while out of bounds.
There is no evidence of the same in the Jets game.
Absolutely wrong. Look at the GIF posted above. Clearly regains possession and drags both of his feet as seen from the black filling popping out of the turf. Anything that happens to the ball after he lands out of bounds is irrelevant since he A) had possession B) Re-established himself inbounds C) Crosses the goalline, ending play. It's not a catch so he doesn't have to maintain possession through going to the ground. Once the ball crosses the goal line, it's a TD and nothing else matters.
I encourage you to read what I've written about this subject repeatedly and what I've posted from top NFL officials explaining the rules. When a player repossesses the ball in mid-air it's treated similarly to a catch. He has to maintain possession going the ground.
so on that RG3 play, explain step by step why it wasn't a touchdown.
The really weird thing is, when I saw that play I said he wasn't a TD, and that was the ruling.
Now I'm looking at it, and can't understand what my logic was...looks like a TD now.
RG3 seems to reclaim the ball, and get his toes down in bounds........
Because Bob bobbles the ball in the air...
Doesn't reestablish possession...
And then the ball comes up when he hits the ground.
See:
The refs ass is in the way, but there is clear and convincing evidence that Bob bobbles the ball while out of bounds.
There is no evidence of the same in the Jets game.
Absolutely wrong. Look at the GIF posted above. Clearly regains possession and drags both of his feet as seen from the black filling popping out of the turf. Anything that happens to the ball after he lands out of bounds is irrelevant since he A) had possession B) Re-established himself inbounds C) Crosses the goalline, ending play. It's not a catch so he doesn't have to maintain possession through going to the ground. Once the ball crosses the goal line, it's a TD and nothing else matters.
if it were a run. It's irrelevant as soon as he lost possession of the ball. The ball is floating freely in mid-air. ASJ doesn't get special treatment just because at one point he possessed the ball as a runner.
Any player who then tries to repossess the ball needs to establish possession of the ball as if they were catching the ball out of the air.
It's no different from the Stafford gif I posted either. And it would be the same in an extreme case where a runner got hit and the ball popped up 10 feet in the air. If that very player, or another offensive player, or a defensive player were to dive and try and catch that loose ball near the sidelines, he would have to maintain possession of the ball as he went to the ground.
If you can't see him clearly regain possession, I don't know what to tell you.
He has to maintain possession all the way to the ground. That's the rule. Sorry you don't know that, and sorry you don't know that you don't know that. Must be tedious to be you.
If you can't see him clearly regain possession, I don't know what to tell you.
He has to maintain possession all the way to the ground. That's the rule. Sorry you don't know that, and sorry you don't know that you don't know that. Must be tedious to be you.
If you can't see him clearly regain possession, I don't know what to tell you.
He has to maintain possession all the way to the ground. That's the rule. Sorry you don't know that, and sorry you don't know that you don't know that. Must be tedious to be you.
Which he did.
*sigh* No, he didn't. He bobbled it clearly and obviously.
Watch the whole clip, not just the first half of it.
If you can't see him clearly regain possession, I don't know what to tell you.
Yes. He regained possession and then hit the pylon. Some on here are discussing a play that might have happened, but didn't.
The ball was still moving around until after he hit the ground out of bounds. When he's going to the ground in the end zone, he's trying to secure it with his left hand. When he rolls over, it's in his right. Thus he did not reestablish possession until it's in his right - which he is already out of bounds at that point.
If you can't see him clearly regain possession, I don't know what to tell you.
Yes. He regained possession and then hit the pylon. Some on here are discussing a play that might have happened, but didn't.
The ball was still moving around until after he hit the ground out of bounds. When he's going to the ground in the end zone, he's trying to secure it with his left hand. When he rolls over, it's in his right. Thus he did not reestablish possession until it's in his right - which he is already out of bounds at that point.
Not from what I saw. He bobbled it, and then re-established possession before he hit the pylon or was ever in the end zone.
If you can't see him clearly regain possession, I don't know what to tell you.
He has to maintain possession all the way to the ground. That's the rule. Sorry you don't know that, and sorry you don't know that you don't know that. Must be tedious to be you.
Which he did.
*sigh* No, he didn't. He bobbled it clearly and obviously.
Watch the whole clip, not just the first half of it.
If you can't see him clearly regain possession, I don't know what to tell you.
Yes. He regained possession and then hit the pylon. Some on here are discussing a play that might have happened, but didn't.
The ball was still moving around until after he hit the ground out of bounds. When he's going to the ground in the end zone, he's trying to secure it with his left hand. When he rolls over, it's in his right. Thus he did not reestablish possession until it's in his right - which he is already out of bounds at that point.
Not from what I saw. He bobbled it, and then re-established possession before he hit the pylon or was ever in the end zone.
How is it you saw him re-establish possession before hitting the pylon when nobody else did?
that has to be made was, after ASJ hit his knee in bounds, and fell to the ground into the pylon and rolled over, did he MAINTAIN possession of the ball entirely throughout the process. The ball was moving a bit under his wrist, but the ball can move-- but did he continuously maintain possession of the ball?
Again, he has to maintain possession as he goes to the ground as if he were completing a catch-- that requirement should be indisputable at this point.
The refs ruled it a TD on the field. Was there enough visual evidence to overturn it and say that the ball was moving such that he didn't mantain possession throughout the process of going to the ground.
Would anyone have even noticed the slight bobble or even suggested this wasn’t a TD? If this were before the every scoring play is reviewed rule, would any coach in their right mind challenge that play? It looked like a TD, it was called a TD, and all this photo analysis later it still seems to be at least debatable as to whether or not it was a TD. To me, the indisputable visual evidence standard was not met. Poor call, Pats get yet another absurd break to go their way. Hoodie black magic continues.
RE: What if the replay refs hadn’t reversed the call? Â
Would anyone have even noticed the slight bobble or even suggested this wasn’t a TD? If this were before the every scoring play is reviewed rule, would any coach in their right mind challenge that play? It looked like a TD, it was called a TD, and all this photo analysis later it still seems to be at least debatable as to whether or not it was a TD. To me, the indisputable visual evidence standard was not met. Poor call, Pats get yet another absurd break to go their way. Hoodie black magic continues.
Almost no one would have batted an eye.
If I were a Jets fan I'd want to drive to NFL HQ and burn it Â
Objectively speaking, though - I agree with Paul, I think the problem is with the rules of possession in the end zone and not whether or not that was called correctly.
He comes down with the ball securely - but apparently he didn't do enough to be considered maintaining possession, so it's a touchback. I think getting the ball downfield is hard enough, something as minute as that resulting in the other team getting the ball on the 20 is wrong. Not entirely sure how you write the rule to prevent this case, though.
The rules in some instances do not make sense... Â
When making a catch on the sideline, it does not matter if the ball is out of bounds as long as your feet are in. When crossing the goal line even at the sideline, what matters is where the ball is.
RE: If I were a Jets fan I'd want to drive to NFL HQ and burn it Â
Objectively speaking, though - I agree with Paul, I think the problem is with the rules of possession in the end zone and not whether or not that was called correctly.
He comes down with the ball securely - but apparently he didn't do enough to be considered maintaining possession, so it's a touchback. I think getting the ball downfield is hard enough, something as minute as that resulting in the other team getting the ball on the 20 is wrong. Not entirely sure how you write the rule to prevent this case, though.
But, he came down out of bounds and didn't control the ball until he was down. He never possessed the ball in the end zone, or in the field of play after the fumble.
If he never touched the pylon, it would have been a fumble out of bounds and the Jets would have retained possession at about the 1/2 yard line. But, the pylon is the end zone, so his fumble was considered into the end zone and he never had possession while inbounds. By rule, that is a change of possession/touchback.
If you can't see him clearly regain possession, I don't know what to tell you.
He has to maintain possession all the way to the ground. That's the rule. Sorry you don't know that, and sorry you don't know that you don't know that. Must be tedious to be you.
It must be tedious being a complete and total dickhead all the time, but you seem to do a pretty good job of it. I admitted in a post above that I wasn't aware that the fumble rules had the same possession rules as a catch. It doesn't make any sense seeing as how the circumstances are completely different, but not much does in the NFL rulebook.
In any event, your post seemed to be saying that you couldn't see RGIII getting control of the ball and that is what I responded to by saying "possession".
If he never touched the pylon, it would have been a fumble out of bounds and the Jets would have retained possession at about the 1/2 yard line. But, the pylon is the end zone, so his fumble was considered into the end zone and he never had possession while inbounds. By rule, that is a change of possession/touchback.
The pylon is out of bounds
RE: RE: The X factor in this was hitting the pylon. Â
If he never touched the pylon, it would have been a fumble out of bounds and the Jets would have retained possession at about the 1/2 yard line. But, the pylon is the end zone, so his fumble was considered into the end zone and he never had possession while inbounds. By rule, that is a change of possession/touchback.
The pylon is out of bounds
Yes, I know. It is also the end zone. So landing on the pylon puts you across the plane, but out of bounds.
Agreed w/ Fatman if he resecured and the knee comes down inbounds it's a TD. I haven't seen that. But that's again why the overturn was a mistake. But the outrage by announcers, fans etc seems way out of place
Quote:
In comment 13649640 UConn4523 said:
Quote:
in this case. He regained possession and his shoulder hit the plane before he went out of bounds.
You can't establish possession in the air.
What are you talking about? He had posession, then bobbled it, than regained control with his shoulder hitting the pylon and arguably his knee also coming down in bounds. What else does he need to do?
I think there is something fundamentally wrong with the rule for that play to result in the Patriots getting the ball. But perhaps the committee will tweak the rule in the offseason to account for freak occurrences like this one.
But that's the nature of creating rules. It often takes unforeseeable situations to point out blind spots in rules and carve out exceptions.
For me, the rules that need to be tweaked are the ones about completed passes in the end zone for TDs. But, that is a whole other argument.
Quote:
Also I don't see what angle others see showing a clearly secured ball after your picture above and b4 that knee comes down. You can see it loose from behind as he goes down, then from the 2-3 angles I've seen (none from inside), the first time he clearly secures it's in the other hand while rolling to his back already OB
Agreed w/ Fatman if he resecured and the knee comes down inbounds it's a TD. I haven't seen that. But that's again why the overturn was a mistake. But the outrage by announcers, fans etc seems way out of place
How is the overturn a istake, if you saw nothing to show he came down in bounds with the ball secure? The overturn corrected a mistake on the field.
There were no clear views on replay. Call on the field was TD. Not great evidence to overturn it even if what we can see IMO leans more to no possession & a touchback
But apply that here, it's also true it's not a TD unless you break the plane of the endline with possession. I get what you say about how they mark fumbles, yet it doesn't matter (tho yes - that's exactly how this has been marked, because it was a fumble regardless of the semantics of your example)
Once bobbled as in the picture, ASJ lost possession so must secure the ball inbounds to reestablish. It's not enough to just rescure midair. While you say he did both, I disagree - there's no clearly secured ball til he flips and moves it to his right hand when OB, nor is it clear he's inbounds even if he did. And even if secured midair, he lands OB in the EZ and never re-establishes possession so it's a touchback
There's no great views, so the overturn was tough. But looking at it I see it much like it was called. I think most people here think since he was a runner, he can just 're-secure' the loss of possession midair and hit the pylon or has broken the plane so it's a TD, which is not the case
From what I see, he regained possession by the time he hit the pylon. Therefore, TD.
You refuse to acknowledge it. Why? Because you don't like the rule or because you can't admit you are wrong?
ASJ does not have possession of the ball here.
Did you not watch our game against the Skins when RGIII did this and it was ruled a fumble and a touchback?
As such, once the ball crossed the plane there are only four possibilities
1) the ball is repossessed by an offensive player who establishes himself in bounds and it's a touchdown.
2) the ball is repossessed by a defensive player in the end zone and it's a touchback.
3) the ball is loose and goes out of bounds and is a touchback
4) the ball is touched by a player who cannot establish himself in bounds after possessing the loose ball and that is a touchback.
https://www.si.com/nfl/2014/12/14/robert-griffin-iii-run-overturned-replay-washington-redskins - ( New Window )
Griffin landed out of bounds. And ball may have touched the ground, the video doesn't go that far. Here, ASJ regain possession by the time he hit the pylon. You're describing a different play from what I see.
Great argument you have presented
Following the bobble shown in the still pictures above, the ball is cradled in the arms, a knee hits the turf and the runner hits the pylon. When he hits the pylon, the ball isn't loose. It isn't bobbled or moving, and it was preceded with a knee hitting the turf. I'm fine keeping the rule.
What shouldn't be fine is overturning a call on the field without conclusive evidence, and that's what happened. I've too often felt replay has moved from the early days of conclusive evidence to being the opinion of the guy under the hood. Thus, you now see inconsistent reversals of calls - such as the one we saw here or the infamous Bill Leavy reversal in the GB playoff game.
In any event, this is a rule I've hated for a long, long time. Why is the offense penalized so harshly for a fumbled ball going out of the endzone? Anywhere else on the field, offense retains possession. I've always thought the offense should retain possession with the ball placed at the 1 or the spot of the fumble, whichever is further away from the endzone, in these cases. Makes so much more sense than awarding the defense a turnover for a fluke play.
Quote:
This is one rule that doesn't need to be tweaked, in my opinion. The player never had possession of the ball when it crossed the plane and it ended up out of bounds. That's a fumble out of the end zone. It is actually one of the clearer rules and was interpreted correctly in the review. The real travesty would have been allowing the bad call on the field stand.
Following the bobble shown in the still pictures above, the ball is cradled in the arms, a knee hits the turf and the runner hits the pylon. When he hits the pylon, the ball isn't loose. It isn't bobbled or moving, and it was preceded with a knee hitting the turf. I'm fine keeping the rule.
What shouldn't be fine is overturning a call on the field without conclusive evidence, and that's what happened. I've too often felt replay has moved from the early days of conclusive evidence to being the opinion of the guy under the hood. Thus, you now see inconsistent reversals of calls - such as the one we saw here or the infamous Bill Leavy reversal in the GB playoff game.
I don't think he clearly had the ball until he was out of bounds. When he's landing on the ground, he's trying to secure the ball with his left hand that is hitting the ground. He comes up with the ball in his right hand. From that, it's easy to say the ball is still moving before he hits out of bounds.
When the ball is in the air and not in his hands, he clearly doesn't have possession.
So, If the original call were a touchdown, is there enough visual evidence of not having full control as he went to the ground to overturn that being a catch and touchdown?
This is the best/easiest way to discuss the play because once ASJ lost possession of the ball, everything that happened beforehand is irrelevant for all intents and purposes; since he resecures it in mid-air, he has the same as if he were a receiver securing a ball in mid-air.
The really weird thing is, when I saw that play I said he wasn't a TD, and that was the ruling.
Now I'm looking at it, and can't understand what my logic was...looks like a TD now.
RG3 seems to reclaim the ball, and get his toes down in bounds........
But now, if the pylon is out of bounds, why is it a TD if you hit it going in as a runner? Shouldn't you have to be inside it to be in bounds?
If you hit it has a receiver, then you'd have to be ruled out of bounds, right?
Here's a video of the play
http://www.nfl.com/videos/washington-redskins/0ap3000000443375/RGIII-touchdown-call-reversed-players-angry-at-call
He loses possession of the ball mid-air, and though he regains security of the ball and then touches his toes in bounds, the ball then pops back up in the air when he hits the ground out of bounds before again resecuring it.
The refs ruled that "the runner lost possession of the football prior to crossing the goalline. When he regains possession, he must control it throughout the process of going to the ground. He did not. It is a fumble forward out of bounds in the end zone. It is a touchback."
And here were ref comments about it from the article
RG3 never repossessed the ball so this play is a touchback. It's like catching a pass.
As i said on the broadcast, RGIII needs to repossess it after the ball comes loose. It's like catching a pass.
[
In #WASvsNYG RG3 clearly lost control of the ball before GL. It's a fumble. To regain possession he has to hold onto it when he lands.
The really weird thing is, when I saw that play I said he wasn't a TD, and that was the ruling.
Now I'm looking at it, and can't understand what my logic was...looks like a TD now.
RG3 seems to reclaim the ball, and get his toes down in bounds........
Because Bob bobbles the ball in the air...
Doesn't reestablish possession...
And then the ball comes up when he hits the ground.
See:
The refs ass is in the way, but there is clear and convincing evidence that Bob bobbles the ball while out of bounds.
There is no evidence of the same in the Jets game.
Quote:
so on that RG3 play, explain step by step why it wasn't a touchdown.
The really weird thing is, when I saw that play I said he wasn't a TD, and that was the ruling.
Now I'm looking at it, and can't understand what my logic was...looks like a TD now.
RG3 seems to reclaim the ball, and get his toes down in bounds........
Because Bob bobbles the ball in the air...
Doesn't reestablish possession...
And then the ball comes up when he hits the ground.
See:
The refs ass is in the way, but there is clear and convincing evidence that Bob bobbles the ball while out of bounds.
There is no evidence of the same in the Jets game.
Absolutely wrong. Look at the GIF posted above. Clearly regains possession and drags both of his feet as seen from the black filling popping out of the turf. Anything that happens to the ball after he lands out of bounds is irrelevant since he A) had possession B) Re-established himself inbounds C) Crosses the goalline, ending play. It's not a catch so he doesn't have to maintain possession through going to the ground. Once the ball crosses the goal line, it's a TD and nothing else matters.
Quote:
In comment 13651581 BillKo said:
Quote:
so on that RG3 play, explain step by step why it wasn't a touchdown.
The really weird thing is, when I saw that play I said he wasn't a TD, and that was the ruling.
Now I'm looking at it, and can't understand what my logic was...looks like a TD now.
RG3 seems to reclaim the ball, and get his toes down in bounds........
Because Bob bobbles the ball in the air...
Doesn't reestablish possession...
And then the ball comes up when he hits the ground.
See:
The refs ass is in the way, but there is clear and convincing evidence that Bob bobbles the ball while out of bounds.
There is no evidence of the same in the Jets game.
Absolutely wrong. Look at the GIF posted above. Clearly regains possession and drags both of his feet as seen from the black filling popping out of the turf. Anything that happens to the ball after he lands out of bounds is irrelevant since he A) had possession B) Re-established himself inbounds C) Crosses the goalline, ending play. It's not a catch so he doesn't have to maintain possession through going to the ground. Once the ball crosses the goal line, it's a TD and nothing else matters.
LOL you can see regaining possession on a GIF?
Any player who then tries to repossess the ball needs to establish possession of the ball as if they were catching the ball out of the air.
It's no different from the Stafford gif I posted either. And it would be the same in an extreme case where a runner got hit and the ball popped up 10 feet in the air. If that very player, or another offensive player, or a defensive player were to dive and try and catch that loose ball near the sidelines, he would have to maintain possession of the ball as he went to the ground.
LOL you can see regaining possession on a GIF?
If you can't see him clearly regain possession, I don't know what to tell you.
Quote:
LOL you can see regaining possession on a GIF?
If you can't see him clearly regain possession, I don't know what to tell you.
He has to maintain possession all the way to the ground. That's the rule. Sorry you don't know that, and sorry you don't know that you don't know that. Must be tedious to be you.
Quote:
LOL you can see regaining possession on a GIF?
If you can't see him clearly regain possession, I don't know what to tell you.
Yes. He regained possession and then hit the pylon. Some on here are discussing a play that might have happened, but didn't.
Quote:
In comment 13651662 Sarcastic Sam said:
Quote:
LOL you can see regaining possession on a GIF?
If you can't see him clearly regain possession, I don't know what to tell you.
He has to maintain possession all the way to the ground. That's the rule. Sorry you don't know that, and sorry you don't know that you don't know that. Must be tedious to be you.
Which he did.
Quote:
In comment 13651671 Cap'n Bluebeard said:
Quote:
In comment 13651662 Sarcastic Sam said:
Quote:
LOL you can see regaining possession on a GIF?
If you can't see him clearly regain possession, I don't know what to tell you.
He has to maintain possession all the way to the ground. That's the rule. Sorry you don't know that, and sorry you don't know that you don't know that. Must be tedious to be you.
Which he did.
*sigh* No, he didn't. He bobbled it clearly and obviously.
Watch the whole clip, not just the first half of it.
Quote:
In comment 13651662 Sarcastic Sam said:
Quote:
LOL you can see regaining possession on a GIF?
If you can't see him clearly regain possession, I don't know what to tell you.
Yes. He regained possession and then hit the pylon. Some on here are discussing a play that might have happened, but didn't.
The ball was still moving around until after he hit the ground out of bounds. When he's going to the ground in the end zone, he's trying to secure it with his left hand. When he rolls over, it's in his right. Thus he did not reestablish possession until it's in his right - which he is already out of bounds at that point.
Quote:
In comment 13651671 Cap'n Bluebeard said:
Quote:
In comment 13651662 Sarcastic Sam said:
Quote:
LOL you can see regaining possession on a GIF?
If you can't see him clearly regain possession, I don't know what to tell you.
Yes. He regained possession and then hit the pylon. Some on here are discussing a play that might have happened, but didn't.
The ball was still moving around until after he hit the ground out of bounds. When he's going to the ground in the end zone, he's trying to secure it with his left hand. When he rolls over, it's in his right. Thus he did not reestablish possession until it's in his right - which he is already out of bounds at that point.
Not from what I saw. He bobbled it, and then re-established possession before he hit the pylon or was ever in the end zone.
Quote:
In comment 13651673 Sarcastic Sam said:
Quote:
In comment 13651671 Cap'n Bluebeard said:
Quote:
In comment 13651662 Sarcastic Sam said:
Quote:
LOL you can see regaining possession on a GIF?
If you can't see him clearly regain possession, I don't know what to tell you.
He has to maintain possession all the way to the ground. That's the rule. Sorry you don't know that, and sorry you don't know that you don't know that. Must be tedious to be you.
Which he did.
*sigh* No, he didn't. He bobbled it clearly and obviously.
Watch the whole clip, not just the first half of it.
I did.
Quote:
In comment 13651686 jeff57 said:
Quote:
In comment 13651671 Cap'n Bluebeard said:
Quote:
In comment 13651662 Sarcastic Sam said:
Quote:
LOL you can see regaining possession on a GIF?
If you can't see him clearly regain possession, I don't know what to tell you.
Yes. He regained possession and then hit the pylon. Some on here are discussing a play that might have happened, but didn't.
The ball was still moving around until after he hit the ground out of bounds. When he's going to the ground in the end zone, he's trying to secure it with his left hand. When he rolls over, it's in his right. Thus he did not reestablish possession until it's in his right - which he is already out of bounds at that point.
Not from what I saw. He bobbled it, and then re-established possession before he hit the pylon or was ever in the end zone.
Again, he has to maintain possession as he goes to the ground as if he were completing a catch-- that requirement should be indisputable at this point.
The refs ruled it a TD on the field. Was there enough visual evidence to overturn it and say that the ball was moving such that he didn't mantain possession throughout the process of going to the ground.
Almost no one would have batted an eye.
Objectively speaking, though - I agree with Paul, I think the problem is with the rules of possession in the end zone and not whether or not that was called correctly.
He comes down with the ball securely - but apparently he didn't do enough to be considered maintaining possession, so it's a touchback. I think getting the ball downfield is hard enough, something as minute as that resulting in the other team getting the ball on the 20 is wrong. Not entirely sure how you write the rule to prevent this case, though.
Objectively speaking, though - I agree with Paul, I think the problem is with the rules of possession in the end zone and not whether or not that was called correctly.
He comes down with the ball securely - but apparently he didn't do enough to be considered maintaining possession, so it's a touchback. I think getting the ball downfield is hard enough, something as minute as that resulting in the other team getting the ball on the 20 is wrong. Not entirely sure how you write the rule to prevent this case, though.
Quote:
In comment 13651662 Sarcastic Sam said:
Quote:
LOL you can see regaining possession on a GIF?
If you can't see him clearly regain possession, I don't know what to tell you.
He has to maintain possession all the way to the ground. That's the rule. Sorry you don't know that, and sorry you don't know that you don't know that. Must be tedious to be you.
It must be tedious being a complete and total dickhead all the time, but you seem to do a pretty good job of it. I admitted in a post above that I wasn't aware that the fumble rules had the same possession rules as a catch. It doesn't make any sense seeing as how the circumstances are completely different, but not much does in the NFL rulebook.
In any event, your post seemed to be saying that you couldn't see RGIII getting control of the ball and that is what I responded to by saying "possession".
Santana Moss got tossed for yelling at triplett
The pylon is out of bounds
Quote:
If he never touched the pylon, it would have been a fumble out of bounds and the Jets would have retained possession at about the 1/2 yard line. But, the pylon is the end zone, so his fumble was considered into the end zone and he never had possession while inbounds. By rule, that is a change of possession/touchback.
The pylon is out of bounds
Santana Moss got tossed for yelling at triplett
Yes, it was mentioned, but it wasn't the same play.
Profound.