And a lot of good an explanation will do. They still get the loss and we will continue to see completely unacceptable calls in every single game. The product is a disaster
Runner loses control of the ball on the way into the end zone. Other team never touches it. Ball never hits the ground. He never had control of the ball in the end zone, so it's not a TD, fine. But it shouldn't be a "fumble into the end zone."
It's a fluky situation, but the offense should get the ball at the spot the ball carrier lost it. Or maybe at the 1.
the pass interference call earlier in ther game was ridiculous Â
Runner loses control of the ball on the way into the end zone. Other team never touches it. Ball never hits the ground. He never had control of the ball in the end zone, so it's not a TD, fine. But it shouldn't be a "fumble into the end zone."
It's a fluky situation, but the offense should get the ball at the spot the ball carrier lost it. Or maybe at the 1.
From every single angle I seen, including the still shot in the link in the op, shows that he clearly regained possession. And even if you want to debate whether he did or didn't, the call on the field was a touchdown. So where is the indisputable evidence to overturn it?
RE: Reminds me of this play from a few years ago Â
Runner loses control of the ball on the way into the end zone. Other team never touches it. Ball never hits the ground. He never had control of the ball in the end zone, so it's not a TD, fine. But it shouldn't be a "fumble into the end zone."
It's a fluky situation, but the offense should get the ball at the spot the ball carrier lost it. Or maybe at the 1.
He had control again when he hit the pylon
Jets got screwed. Typical Patriots. Even when they should lose Â
Runner loses control of the ball on the way into the end zone. Other team never touches it. Ball never hits the ground. He never had control of the ball in the end zone, so it's not a TD, fine. But it shouldn't be a "fumble into the end zone."
It's a fluky situation, but the offense should get the ball at the spot the ball carrier lost it. Or maybe at the 1.
From every single angle I seen, including the still shot in the link in the op, shows that he clearly regained possession. And even if you want to debate whether he did or didn't, the call on the field was a touchdown. So where is the indisputable evidence to overturn it?
he juggled the ball going out of bounds but never lost it. absolutely the worst call I've ever seen. Truly unreal that they overturned a TD there.
sure they blew some calls but nothing has changed except more commercials.
This is flat false. Trust me you don't want to go back to the days of no replay. For every bad call there are 5 good ones. The refs suck but the replay process isn't making things worse. Replay is a much needed aid.
Baseball replay is another story entirely. I'm convinced the umpires are missing more calls because they know replay can and will bail them out.
In comment 13649318 81_Great_Dane said:
Quote:
but then there's a problem with the rule.
Runner loses control of the ball on the way into the end zone. Other team never touches it. Ball never hits the ground. He never had control of the ball in the end zone, so it's not a TD, fine. But it shouldn't be a "fumble into the end zone."
It's a fluky situation, but the offense should get the ball at the spot the ball carrier lost it. Or maybe at the 1.
He had control again when he hit the pylon
Watching the replays IMO he loses the ball b4 breaking the plane then it's tough to tell when he gets it back. It's fluky but I'm not sure there's a rule change to be made. In fact, he doesn't really have possession again until it ends up in his right hand after he bobbles it - if he had held it in his left the whole way I'd say TD. But when he falls into the pylon w/o possession its a touchback. Looked right to me
The only thing is maybe they shouldn't have overturned the call on the field being so close, but I'm surprised at the outrage even by the announcers
was that they determined he did not have control of the ball until he went to the ground and lost it. That should result in the no TD, but I don't see how it is ruled a fumble if they are saying he didn't have control.
Had he had complete control before going to the ground, it would have been a TD because at that point he was a runner and would have crossed the plane in control.
RE: The explanation I heard in the Jets post-game radio show Â
was that they determined he did not have control of the ball until he went to the ground and lost it. That should result in the no TD, but I don't see how it is ruled a fumble if they are saying he didn't have control.
Had he had complete control before going to the ground, it would have been a TD because at that point he was a runner and would have crossed the plane in control.
Bit, I don't understand that explanation. The problem was that it was incorrectly ruled a TD on the field. The replay shows he did fumble the ball before being down and before crossing the plane/hitting the pylon. The review actually yielded the correct call, in my opinion.
RE: RE: In hindsight we were better off before replay Â
sure they blew some calls but nothing has changed except more commercials.
This is flat false. Trust me you don't want to go back to the days of no replay. For every bad call there are 5 good ones. The refs suck but the replay process isn't making things worse. Replay is a much needed aid.
Baseball replay is another story entirely. I'm convinced the umpires are missing more calls because they know replay can and will bail them out.
Agree they missed a lot of calls. Just see how many are correctly reversed.
RE: RE: The explanation I heard in the Jets post-game radio show Â
was that they determined he did not have control of the ball until he went to the ground and lost it. That should result in the no TD, but I don't see how it is ruled a fumble if they are saying he didn't have control.
Had he had complete control before going to the ground, it would have been a TD because at that point he was a runner and would have crossed the plane in control.
Bit, I don't understand that explanation. The problem was that it was incorrectly ruled a TD on the field. The replay shows he did fumble the ball before being down and before crossing the plane/hitting the pylon. The review actually yielded the correct call, in my opinion.
He never fumbled. The ball never hit the ground. He might not have had possession, but then the TD just should have been reversed.
RE: RE: The explanation I heard in the Jets post-game radio show Â
was that they determined he did not have control of the ball until he went to the ground and lost it. That should result in the no TD, but I don't see how it is ruled a fumble if they are saying he didn't have control.
Had he had complete control before going to the ground, it would have been a TD because at that point he was a runner and would have crossed the plane in control.
Bit, I don't understand that explanation. The problem was that it was incorrectly ruled a TD on the field. The replay shows he did fumble the ball before being down and before crossing the plane/hitting the pylon. The review actually yielded the correct call, in my opinion.
Had he landed inbounds in the endzone, it would have remained a TD because he regained control on the ground. But, while the ball was out, he hit the pylon which is both the end zone and out of bounds and was not yet down. He landed down out of bounds. So he never re-gained control inbounds.
Ball remains loose while it's in the end zone, never in ball carrier's possession in end zone.
Ball goes over sideline.
Ball carrier regains possession but is out of bounds.
Therefore, since the ball was fumbled, was never in anyone's possession in the end zone, and then went out of bounds before it was regained, it's a fumble out of the end zone. So, technically, the call is correct.
I think the moral of the story for ball carriers going to the corner of the end zone is: DON'T DO THAT.
Regardless of whether the call was technically correct Â
Ball remains loose while it's in the end zone, never in ball carrier's possession in end zone.
Ball goes over sideline.
Ball carrier regains possession but is out of bounds.
Therefore, since the ball was fumbled, was never in anyone's possession in the end zone, and then went out of bounds before it was regained, it's a fumble out of the end zone. So, technically, the call is correct.
I think the moral of the story for ball carriers going to the corner of the end zone is: DON'T DO THAT.
IT WAS NEVER FUMBLED. The ball never hit the ground in bounds.
what makes you think that the ball has to hit the ground for it to be fumbled?
If a Patriot snagged it out of the air before ASJ regained possession, what would it be? An interception? I think not.
'
Quote:
ARTICLE 5. FUMBLE
A Fumble is any act, other than passing, handing, or legally kicking the ball, which results in a loss of player possession. The use of the term Fumble always means that the ball was in possession of a player when the act occurred (8-7).
RE: The ball is clearly in his possession when he hits the pylon. Â
what makes you think that the ball has to hit the ground for it to be fumbled?
If a Patriot snagged it out of the air before ASJ regained possession, what would it be? An interception? I think not.
'
Quote:
ARTICLE 5. FUMBLE
A Fumble is any act, other than passing, handing, or legally kicking the ball, which results in a loss of player possession. The use of the term Fumble always means that the ball was in possession of a player when the act occurred (8-7).
Did a Patriot catch the ball? No. So the issue is whether the ball hit the ground.p
Had possession in the end one. The ball came out at the 1/2 yard line and was not recovered in the end zone, it was recovered out of bounds.
That s the only explanation they can give. By rule that is a touchback.
The Jets have an argument that there was not enough evidence to show he did not have possession in the end zone.
I don t think we will see NFL saying this was a mistake.
There certainly was enough evidence. He lost the ball before he crossed the plane. He was airborne at that point, so he would have to gain control when he landed, which was out of bounds. Had he landed inbounds in the end zone, I think it would be a TD.
Had possession in the end one. The ball came out at the 1/2 yard line and was not recovered in the end zone, it was recovered out of bounds.
That s the only explanation they can give. By rule that is a touchback.
The Jets have an argument that there was not enough evidence to show he did not have possession in the end zone.
I don t think we will see NFL saying this was a mistake.
There certainly was enough evidence. He lost the ball before he crossed the plane. He was airborne at that point, so he would have to gain control when he landed, which was out of bounds. Had he landed inbounds in the end zone, I think it would be a TD.
Even if true, how does that give possession of the ball to NE?
the ball. The ball was jarred loose and he secured it in his arms as he hit the pylon, then the ball stays with him. He never had it hit the ground after the play and he had the ball cradled when he hit the pylon.
But the crux of the issue is that it was called a TD on the field. There isn't evidence to suggest otherwise.
he regained possession so that pic you posted is completely irrelevant. He was still in bounds when he secured the ball for the second time. It's a TD, clear as day.
possession by its very definition means he lost possession which means he fumbled it.
He was in mid-air when he lost and regained possession and was shy of the goal line when he did so and so. As a result, he had to establish himself in bounds at some point.
The refs determined that he landed out of bounds hence, the touchback because it's technically fumbling out of the back of the end zone.
The rule sucks. I'm only commenting that he fumbled it which is inarguable.
he regained possession so that pic you posted is completely irrelevant. He was still in bounds when he secured the ball for the second time. It's a TD, clear as day.
He was not inbounds. He was airborne, which means he isn't inbounds unless he lands inbounds, which he did not.
possession by its very definition means he lost possession which means he fumbled it.
He was in mid-air when he lost and regained possession and was shy of the goal line when he did so and so. As a result, he had to establish himself in bounds at some point.
The refs determined that he landed out of bounds hence, the touchback because it's technically fumbling out of the back of the end zone.
The rule sucks. I'm only commenting that he fumbled it which is inarguable.
I don't even think this rule sucks. I think it was the correct call and the call makes sense. He never had possession inbounds in the end zone. Had he landed out of bounds short of the end zone, the Jets would have maintained possession. But, he hit the pylon, which of considered both the end zone and out of bounds, which means when he landed in control, he was already out of bounds. To make it worse, his body landed on the sideline. Because the pylon is a marker for both, he thus fumbled it out of the end zone. IT is actually one of the less ambiguous rules, in my opinion.
Now, if this was the Giants, I'd be pissed only in that they ruled it a TD on the field. But, I would 100% maintain the same stance that the review resulted on the correct call.
possession by its very definition means he lost possession which means he fumbled it.
He was in mid-air when he lost and regained possession and was shy of the goal line when he did so and so. As a result, he had to establish himself in bounds at some point.
The refs determined that he landed out of bounds hence, the touchback because it's technically fumbling out of the back of the end zone.
The rule sucks. I'm only commenting that he fumbled it which is inarguable.
Unless someone else caught the ball in the air, it's only a fumble if the ball hit the ground. He bobbled it. A bobble is not a fumble.
RE: Regardless of whether the call was technically correct Â
Let's not blame the refs; they ruled that it was a touchdown. Remember the replay now goes to the NFL ref supervisors. They are the ones to blame, not the officials on the field.
the ball. The ball was jarred loose and he secured it in his arms as he hit the pylon, then the ball stays with him. He never had it hit the ground after the play and he had the ball cradled when he hit the pylon.
But the crux of the issue is that it was called a TD on the field. There isn't evidence to suggest otherwise.
he regained possession so that pic you posted is completely irrelevant. He was still in bounds when he secured the ball for the second time. It's a TD, clear as day.
He was not inbounds. He was airborne, which means he isn't inbounds unless he lands inbounds, which he did not.
He did land inbounds. His right knee looks like it hits, and his shoullder hits the right side of the pylon. Are we watching the same play?
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.
possession by its very definition means he lost possession which means he fumbled it.
He was in mid-air when he lost and regained possession and was shy of the goal line when he did so and so. As a result, he had to establish himself in bounds at some point.
The refs determined that he landed out of bounds hence, the touchback because it's technically fumbling out of the back of the end zone.
The rule sucks. I'm only commenting that he fumbled it which is inarguable.
I don't even think this rule sucks. I think it was the correct call and the call makes sense. He never had possession inbounds in the end zone. Had he landed out of bounds short of the end zone, the Jets would have maintained possession. But, he hit the pylon, which of considered both the end zone and out of bounds, which means when he landed in control, he was already out of bounds. To make it worse, his body landed on the sideline. Because the pylon is a marker for both, he thus fumbled it out of the end zone. IT is actually one of the less ambiguous rules, in my opinion.
Now, if this was the Giants, I'd be pissed only in that they ruled it a TD on the field. But, I would 100% maintain the same stance that the review resulted on the correct call.
A fumble IS NOT a fumble until it hits the ground. How many times have you see a runner bobble a ball while running and regain possession? Are those fumbles. NO.
Again, what is giving you the impression that a fumble has to hit a ground?
A fumble IS NOT a fumble until it hits the ground. How many times have you see a runner bobble a ball while running and regain possession? Are those fumbles. NO.
possession by its very definition means he lost possession which means he fumbled it.
He was in mid-air when he lost and regained possession and was shy of the goal line when he did so and so. As a result, he had to establish himself in bounds at some point.
The refs determined that he landed out of bounds hence, the touchback because it's technically fumbling out of the back of the end zone.
The rule sucks. I'm only commenting that he fumbled it which is inarguable.
I don't even think this rule sucks. I think it was the correct call and the call makes sense. He never had possession inbounds in the end zone. Had he landed out of bounds short of the end zone, the Jets would have maintained possession. But, he hit the pylon, which of considered both the end zone and out of bounds, which means when he landed in control, he was already out of bounds. To make it worse, his body landed on the sideline. Because the pylon is a marker for both, he thus fumbled it out of the end zone. IT is actually one of the less ambiguous rules, in my opinion.
Now, if this was the Giants, I'd be pissed only in that they ruled it a TD on the field. But, I would 100% maintain the same stance that the review resulted on the correct call.
I just watched it again. The ball never hit the pylon, his body did. Plus he had possession when his body hit the pylon. But even if he didn't have possession when his body hit the plyon, there is no way that was a fumble out of the end zone, giving the ball to NE.
If a player is running down the field and bobbles the ball while he's running, but never loses the ball and continues on, are they charged with a fumble? No. If the ball hits the ground or changes possession, it's a fumble. Bobbling a ball does not equal a fumble.
Again, what is giving you the impression that a fumble has to hit a ground?
A fumble IS NOT a fumble until it hits the ground. How many times have you see a runner bobble a ball while running and regain possession? Are those fumbles. NO.
Thank you. A bobble is not a fumble.
Now if the claim is that a ball hitting the pylon while being bobbled is a fumble, that!s not what happened here.
but you are inventing definitions that are inaccurate and found nowhere in the rules.
September 2013, Lions, Bears
And here is the Play-by-play record from Pro Football Reference
Quote:
Matthew Stafford up the middle for 1 yard (tackle by Lance Briggs). Matthew Stafford fumbles (forced by Lance Briggs), recovered by Matthew Stafford at CHI-0, touchdown
And here's the PBP from NFL.com
Quote:
1-1-CHI 1
(6:12) (No Huddle) 9-M.Stafford up the middle to CHI 1 for no gain (55-L.Briggs). FUMBLES (55-L.Briggs), and recovers at CHI 0. TOUCHDOWN.
are more than welcome to complain about it and think the sport should have a different definition of a fumble. But once the player loses possession of the ball, it's a fumble.
but you are inventing definitions that are inaccurate and found nowhere in the rules.
September 2013, Lions, Bears
And here is the Play-by-play record from Pro Football Reference
Quote:
Matthew Stafford up the middle for 1 yard (tackle by Lance Briggs). Matthew Stafford fumbles (forced by Lance Briggs), recovered by Matthew Stafford at CHI-0, touchdown
And here's the PBP from NFL.com
Quote:
1-1-CHI 1
(6:12) (No Huddle) 9-M.Stafford up the middle to CHI 1 for no gain (55-L.Briggs). FUMBLES (55-L.Briggs), and recovers at CHI 0. TOUCHDOWN.
The ball came flying out five feet in the air. Not a bobble. But okay, by that definition, when a ball flies several feet in the air, it doesn't have to hit the ground to be considered a fumble. And again, that wasn't the play today.
are more than welcome to complain about it and think the sport should have a different definition of a fumble. But once the player loses possession of the ball, it's a fumble.
Stafford fumbled the ball when he was hit, it went about a foot over his head, not "five feet" and he regained possession.
Again, read the definition of a fumble.
The ball is loose in mid-air. He doesn't have possession. It's a fumble. The question is whether he regained possession of it which is irrelevant to my comment.
Instead, you want to use invented qualifications to a rule.
You're right, when a player bobbles the ball but doesn't lose it they don't mark it a fumble
But here, we're talking about having possession while breaking the plane. If that same player bobbles the ball right b4 crossing the endline, it's NOT a TD until he regains possession. And it's not regaining possession until you get the ball secured w/ 2 feet / body / knee etc.And a ball going OB out the defensive EZ is a touchback
With ASJ in the ESPN clip, you can see at the 48s mark his right hand reach down and then secure the ball as he's flipping over already OB. That's the first moment it's 'clear' he's re-secured it. At about 56s you can see the ball spinning out his hand, but there's no clear view of possession until the flip OB. For me tho he might have his knee in, he hasn't secured the ball yet (we can't see from these angles). If he had secured it in his left by then he wouldn't have snatched it over to the right while flipping over IMO
I agree it was tough to overturn given the angles we saw as it was close. But IMO the right call as it played out / by rule. To me the Cooks TD vs HOU was much worse if you want to be outraged tho there was no overturn situation, just blown review
but you are inventing definitions that are inaccurate and found nowhere in the rules.
September 2013, Lions, Bears
And here is the Play-by-play record from Pro Football Reference
Quote:
Matthew Stafford up the middle for 1 yard (tackle by Lance Briggs). Matthew Stafford fumbles (forced by Lance Briggs), recovered by Matthew Stafford at CHI-0, touchdown
And here's the PBP from NFL.com
Quote:
1-1-CHI 1
(6:12) (No Huddle) 9-M.Stafford up the middle to CHI 1 for no gain (55-L.Briggs). FUMBLES (55-L.Briggs), and recovers at CHI 0. TOUCHDOWN.
That is different. He didn't fumble it out of the end zone. He fumbled and recovered it while 2 feet were on the ground. So, he established possession in the middle of the field and crosses the goalline.
The JEts play was a touchback because he didn't recover his fumble inbounds and because he hit the pylon it was also considered into the end zone and out of the end zone simultaneously. Stafford's play did not have out of bounds to contend with.
You're right, when a player bobbles the ball but doesn't lose it they don't mark it a fumble
But here, we're talking about having possession while breaking the plane. If that same player bobbles the ball right b4 crossing the endline, it's NOT a TD until he regains possession. And it's not regaining possession until you get the ball secured w/ 2 feet / body / knee etc.And a ball going OB out the defensive EZ is a touchback
With ASJ in the ESPN clip, you can see at the 48s mark his right hand reach down and then secure the ball as he's flipping over already OB. That's the first moment it's 'clear' he's re-secured it. At about 56s you can see the ball spinning out his hand, but there's no clear view of possession until the flip OB. For me tho he might have his knee in, he hasn't secured the ball yet (we can't see from these angles). If he had secured it in his left by then he wouldn't have snatched it over to the right while flipping over IMO
I agree it was tough to overturn given the angles we saw as it was close. But IMO the right call as it played out / by rule. To me the Cooks TD vs HOU was much worse if you want to be outraged tho there was no overturn situation, just blown review ESPN clip - ( New Window )
That might explain the TD. But how does that justify the change in possession?
You're right, when a player bobbles the ball but doesn't lose it they don't mark it a fumble
But here, we're talking about having possession while breaking the plane. If that same player bobbles the ball right b4 crossing the endline, it's NOT a TD until he regains possession. And it's not regaining possession until you get the ball secured w/ 2 feet / body / knee etc.And a ball going OB out the defensive EZ is a touchback
With ASJ in the ESPN clip, you can see at the 48s mark his right hand reach down and then secure the ball as he's flipping over already OB. That's the first moment it's 'clear' he's re-secured it. At about 56s you can see the ball spinning out his hand, but there's no clear view of possession until the flip OB. For me tho he might have his knee in, he hasn't secured the ball yet (we can't see from these angles). If he had secured it in his left by then he wouldn't have snatched it over to the right while flipping over IMO
I agree it was tough to overturn given the angles we saw as it was close. But IMO the right call as it played out / by rule. To me the Cooks TD vs HOU was much worse if you want to be outraged tho there was no overturn situation, just blown review ESPN clip - ( New Window )
That might explain the TD. But how does that justify the change in possession?
It was a change in possession because the pylon is out of bounds and the end zone means the ball was loose, crosses the plane (pylon) and then landed out of bounds (where he landed in possession of the ball), which is a fumble out of the end zone. By rule, that is a touchback/change of possession.
any fumble out of the defensive EZ is a touchback & possession for the D team
I'm surprised so many are pissed about this because it's always been the rule. IIRC it was Cruz or one of our WRs a few yrs back who fumbled a ball out of the endzone right b4 crossing the endline for a TD, it was the other team's ball at the 20
any fumble out of the defensive EZ is a touchback & possession for the D team
I'm surprised so many are pissed about this because it's always been the rule. IIRC it was Cruz or one of our WRs a few yrs back who fumbled a ball out of the endzone right b4 crossing the endline for a TD, it was the other team's ball at the 20
You're right, when a player bobbles the ball but doesn't lose it they don't mark it a fumble
But here, we're talking about having possession while breaking the plane. If that same player bobbles the ball right b4 crossing the endline, it's NOT a TD until he regains possession. And it's not regaining possession until you get the ball secured w/ 2 feet / body / knee etc.And a ball going OB out the defensive EZ is a touchback
With ASJ in the ESPN clip, you can see at the 48s mark his right hand reach down and then secure the ball as he's flipping over already OB. That's the first moment it's 'clear' he's re-secured it. At about 56s you can see the ball spinning out his hand, but there's no clear view of possession until the flip OB. For me tho he might have his knee in, he hasn't secured the ball yet (we can't see from these angles). If he had secured it in his left by then he wouldn't have snatched it over to the right while flipping over IMO
I agree it was tough to overturn given the angles we saw as it was close. But IMO the right call as it played out / by rule. To me the Cooks TD vs HOU was much worse if you want to be outraged tho there was no overturn situation, just blown review ESPN clip - ( New Window )
That might explain the TD. But how does that justify the change in possession?
It was a change in possession because the pylon is out of bounds and the end zone means the ball was loose, crosses the plane (pylon) and then landed out of bounds (where he landed in possession of the ball), which is a fumble out of the end zone. By rule, that is a touchback/change of possession.
The ball never touched the pylon, nor was it lose when he hit the pylon.
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.
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?
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
they just need to hang on to the ball. None of this would matter if they would do that. And ASJ was definitely loose with the ball going toward the endline no matter how you view the call
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.
that after the photo you show, ASJ cradles the ball securely and his knee is down before he hits the pylon. The ball is not loose and he doesn't land out of bounds. He maintained the ball throughout the completion of the play.
The knee landing reestablishes possession.
It's great to keep showing the ball loose as nobody is disputing it, but the key is that he resecures the ball, the knee hits and then he hits the pylon with the ball secured, so I'm not sure why we are looking at these photos as if they are a smoking gun.
I've always hated this stupid idea of the offense being Â
able to advance the ball on a fumble. Just like they can lose possession on a touch-back where the defense did nothing to obtain physical possession of the ball.
You are making the claim that by resecuring the ball and his knee touching the ground in bounds that he reestablished himself in bounds, regained possession, and so it should be a touchdown.
There is certainly a picture of his knee clearly in bounds and I can't say you're wrong. Nor do I care to.
But because he lost possession of the ball (as indicated in the picture I showed), and resecures it in mid-air (before his knee hit the ground), he must complete the process of going to the ground.
There are Patriots fans that will argue that even though his knee hit the ground in bounds, that the ball was still moving around as he rolled the ground and so he never finished the process of securing the ball before going out of bounds. I don't care enough to argue one way or the other.
Right or wrong, that's not what I'm debating with Jeff (and Stan).
The determination as to whether he regained possession in bounds is part 2. I'm still trying to figure out why some can't acknowledge that he lost possession.
he lost possession, he must regain possession. He has to complete the same requirements that anyone else would who secured possession of a ball in mid-air. He doesn't have any lesser requirements just because he was the one who possessed the ball right before losing possession.
For all intents and purposes, it analogous to a WR making a diving catch in that same spot, who "caught" the ball in mid-air, his knee came down in bounds and then immediately rolled out of bounds. If the ball is still moving, while not secured when the receiver is out of bounds, then it is not a catch because he never established possession in bounds.
Again, I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with the ultimate decision by the refs that there was enough evidence to overturn the call on the field. I'm only trying to establish that he lost possession of the ball.
RE: I've always hated this stupid idea of the offense being Â
able to advance the ball on a fumble. Just like they can lose possession on a touch-back where the defense did nothing to obtain physical possession of the ball.
Originally I said the opposite, but as I think on it more it seems like a real big momentum swing on a random occurrence, esp given anywhere else a fwd fumble OB by the O is just possession where it was fumbled
Good posts TSU, agreed on most if not all counts Â
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
RE: Good posts TSU, agreed on most if not all counts Â
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.
except it looked like the Jets receiver kept possession to the ground.
Damn NFL.
Runner loses control of the ball on the way into the end zone. Other team never touches it. Ball never hits the ground. He never had control of the ball in the end zone, so it's not a TD, fine. But it shouldn't be a "fumble into the end zone."
It's a fluky situation, but the offense should get the ball at the spot the ball carrier lost it. Or maybe at the 1.
Runner loses control of the ball on the way into the end zone. Other team never touches it. Ball never hits the ground. He never had control of the ball in the end zone, so it's not a TD, fine. But it shouldn't be a "fumble into the end zone."
It's a fluky situation, but the offense should get the ball at the spot the ball carrier lost it. Or maybe at the 1.
From every single angle I seen, including the still shot in the link in the op, shows that he clearly regained possession. And even if you want to debate whether he did or didn't, the call on the field was a touchdown. So where is the indisputable evidence to overturn it?
except it looked like the Jets receiver kept possession to the ground.
Damn NFL.
Runner loses control of the ball on the way into the end zone. Other team never touches it. Ball never hits the ground. He never had control of the ball in the end zone, so it's not a TD, fine. But it shouldn't be a "fumble into the end zone."
It's a fluky situation, but the offense should get the ball at the spot the ball carrier lost it. Or maybe at the 1.
He had control again when he hit the pylon
Quote:
but then there's a problem with the rule.
Runner loses control of the ball on the way into the end zone. Other team never touches it. Ball never hits the ground. He never had control of the ball in the end zone, so it's not a TD, fine. But it shouldn't be a "fumble into the end zone."
It's a fluky situation, but the offense should get the ball at the spot the ball carrier lost it. Or maybe at the 1.
From every single angle I seen, including the still shot in the link in the op, shows that he clearly regained possession. And even if you want to debate whether he did or didn't, the call on the field was a touchdown. So where is the indisputable evidence to overturn it?
he juggled the ball going out of bounds but never lost it. absolutely the worst call I've ever seen. Truly unreal that they overturned a TD there.
He has the ball cradled in his arms as he hits the pylon.
How can the NFL keep living with calls like this.
he juggled the ball going out of bounds but never lost it. absolutely the worst call I've ever seen. Truly unreal that they overturned a TD there.
If he juggled the ball going out of bounds, then he might as well have lost it.
This is a perfect example of why I don't watch the NFL any more.
This is flat false. Trust me you don't want to go back to the days of no replay. For every bad call there are 5 good ones. The refs suck but the replay process isn't making things worse. Replay is a much needed aid.
Baseball replay is another story entirely. I'm convinced the umpires are missing more calls because they know replay can and will bail them out.
Quote:
but then there's a problem with the rule.
Runner loses control of the ball on the way into the end zone. Other team never touches it. Ball never hits the ground. He never had control of the ball in the end zone, so it's not a TD, fine. But it shouldn't be a "fumble into the end zone."
It's a fluky situation, but the offense should get the ball at the spot the ball carrier lost it. Or maybe at the 1.
He had control again when he hit the pylon
Watching the replays IMO he loses the ball b4 breaking the plane then it's tough to tell when he gets it back. It's fluky but I'm not sure there's a rule change to be made. In fact, he doesn't really have possession again until it ends up in his right hand after he bobbles it - if he had held it in his left the whole way I'd say TD. But when he falls into the pylon w/o possession its a touchback. Looked right to me
The only thing is maybe they shouldn't have overturned the call on the field being so close, but I'm surprised at the outrage even by the announcers
The problem is the "fumble out of the end zone" rule.
The problem is the "fumble out of the end zone" rule.
What fumble? The ball never hit the ground.
Had he had complete control before going to the ground, it would have been a TD because at that point he was a runner and would have crossed the plane in control.
Had he had complete control before going to the ground, it would have been a TD because at that point he was a runner and would have crossed the plane in control.
Quote:
sure they blew some calls but nothing has changed except more commercials.
This is flat false. Trust me you don't want to go back to the days of no replay. For every bad call there are 5 good ones. The refs suck but the replay process isn't making things worse. Replay is a much needed aid.
Baseball replay is another story entirely. I'm convinced the umpires are missing more calls because they know replay can and will bail them out.
Agree they missed a lot of calls. Just see how many are correctly reversed.
Quote:
was that they determined he did not have control of the ball until he went to the ground and lost it. That should result in the no TD, but I don't see how it is ruled a fumble if they are saying he didn't have control.
Had he had complete control before going to the ground, it would have been a TD because at that point he was a runner and would have crossed the plane in control.
Bit, I don't understand that explanation. The problem was that it was incorrectly ruled a TD on the field. The replay shows he did fumble the ball before being down and before crossing the plane/hitting the pylon. The review actually yielded the correct call, in my opinion.
He never fumbled. The ball never hit the ground. He might not have had possession, but then the TD just should have been reversed.
Quote:
was that they determined he did not have control of the ball until he went to the ground and lost it. That should result in the no TD, but I don't see how it is ruled a fumble if they are saying he didn't have control.
Had he had complete control before going to the ground, it would have been a TD because at that point he was a runner and would have crossed the plane in control.
Bit, I don't understand that explanation. The problem was that it was incorrectly ruled a TD on the field. The replay shows he did fumble the ball before being down and before crossing the plane/hitting the pylon. The review actually yielded the correct call, in my opinion.
The fact that he didn't have it in his arm OUTSIDE the end zone is meaningless because he got it back into his arm again.
The final ruling is absolutely bullshit wrong.
Ball remains loose while it's in the end zone, never in ball carrier's possession in end zone.
Ball goes over sideline.
Ball carrier regains possession but is out of bounds.
Therefore, since the ball was fumbled, was never in anyone's possession in the end zone, and then went out of bounds before it was regained, it's a fumble out of the end zone. So, technically, the call is correct.
I think the moral of the story for ball carriers going to the corner of the end zone is: DON'T DO THAT.
Use a little common sense for fuck's sake.
This is the most outrageously bad call I have ever seen.
This call was a travesty. It's a travesty of a mockery of a sham of a mockery of a travesty of two mockeries of a sham
Ball remains loose while it's in the end zone, never in ball carrier's possession in end zone.
Ball goes over sideline.
Ball carrier regains possession but is out of bounds.
Therefore, since the ball was fumbled, was never in anyone's possession in the end zone, and then went out of bounds before it was regained, it's a fumble out of the end zone. So, technically, the call is correct.
I think the moral of the story for ball carriers going to the corner of the end zone is: DON'T DO THAT.
IT WAS NEVER FUMBLED. The ball never hit the ground in bounds.
Refs do what they want when they want to do it. The league is a fraud.
If a Patriot snagged it out of the air before ASJ regained possession, what would it be? An interception? I think not.
'
A Fumble is any act, other than passing, handing, or legally kicking the ball, which results in a loss of player possession. The use of the term Fumble always means that the ball was in possession of a player when the act occurred (8-7).
This is the most outrageously bad call I have ever seen.
It's up there but not the worst I've seen.
This was the worst I have seen - ( New Window )
If a Patriot snagged it out of the air before ASJ regained possession, what would it be? An interception? I think not.
'
Quote:
ARTICLE 5. FUMBLE
A Fumble is any act, other than passing, handing, or legally kicking the ball, which results in a loss of player possession. The use of the term Fumble always means that the ball was in possession of a player when the act occurred (8-7).
Did a Patriot catch the ball? No. So the issue is whether the ball hit the ground.p
That s the only explanation they can give. By rule that is a touchback.
The Jets have an argument that there was not enough evidence to show he did not have possession in the end zone.
I don t think we will see NFL saying this was a mistake.
Therefore, replay must defer to the ruling on the field which was a touchdown.
I guess we can't blame Blandino for the NFL fuckups anymore...
Up by 8 i'd be up by 16.
That s the only explanation they can give. By rule that is a touchback.
The Jets have an argument that there was not enough evidence to show he did not have possession in the end zone.
I don t think we will see NFL saying this was a mistake.
Quote:
Had possession in the end one. The ball came out at the 1/2 yard line and was not recovered in the end zone, it was recovered out of bounds.
That s the only explanation they can give. By rule that is a touchback.
The Jets have an argument that there was not enough evidence to show he did not have possession in the end zone.
I don t think we will see NFL saying this was a mistake.
There certainly was enough evidence. He lost the ball before he crossed the plane. He was airborne at that point, so he would have to gain control when he landed, which was out of bounds. Had he landed inbounds in the end zone, I think it would be a TD.
Even if true, how does that give possession of the ball to NE?
But the crux of the issue is that it was called a TD on the field. There isn't evidence to suggest otherwise.
He was in mid-air when he lost and regained possession and was shy of the goal line when he did so and so. As a result, he had to establish himself in bounds at some point.
The refs determined that he landed out of bounds hence, the touchback because it's technically fumbling out of the back of the end zone.
The rule sucks. I'm only commenting that he fumbled it which is inarguable.
He was in mid-air when he lost and regained possession and was shy of the goal line when he did so and so. As a result, he had to establish himself in bounds at some point.
The refs determined that he landed out of bounds hence, the touchback because it's technically fumbling out of the back of the end zone.
The rule sucks. I'm only commenting that he fumbled it which is inarguable.
Now, if this was the Giants, I'd be pissed only in that they ruled it a TD on the field. But, I would 100% maintain the same stance that the review resulted on the correct call.
He was in mid-air when he lost and regained possession and was shy of the goal line when he did so and so. As a result, he had to establish himself in bounds at some point.
The refs determined that he landed out of bounds hence, the touchback because it's technically fumbling out of the back of the end zone.
The rule sucks. I'm only commenting that he fumbled it which is inarguable.
Unless someone else caught the ball in the air, it's only a fumble if the ball hit the ground. He bobbled it. A bobble is not a fumble.
Use a little common sense for fuck's sake.
Let's not blame the refs; they ruled that it was a touchdown. Remember the replay now goes to the NFL ref supervisors. They are the ones to blame, not the officials on the field.
But the crux of the issue is that it was called a TD on the field. There isn't evidence to suggest otherwise.
THIS ^^^^ is the correct answer. End of story.
Quote:
he regained possession so that pic you posted is completely irrelevant. He was still in bounds when he secured the ball for the second time. It's a TD, clear as day.
He was not inbounds. He was airborne, which means he isn't inbounds unless he lands inbounds, which he did not.
He did land inbounds. His right knee looks like it hits, and his shoullder hits the right side of the pylon. Are we watching the same play?
Quote:
possession by its very definition means he lost possession which means he fumbled it.
He was in mid-air when he lost and regained possession and was shy of the goal line when he did so and so. As a result, he had to establish himself in bounds at some point.
The refs determined that he landed out of bounds hence, the touchback because it's technically fumbling out of the back of the end zone.
The rule sucks. I'm only commenting that he fumbled it which is inarguable.
I don't even think this rule sucks. I think it was the correct call and the call makes sense. He never had possession inbounds in the end zone. Had he landed out of bounds short of the end zone, the Jets would have maintained possession. But, he hit the pylon, which of considered both the end zone and out of bounds, which means when he landed in control, he was already out of bounds. To make it worse, his body landed on the sideline. Because the pylon is a marker for both, he thus fumbled it out of the end zone. IT is actually one of the less ambiguous rules, in my opinion.
Now, if this was the Giants, I'd be pissed only in that they ruled it a TD on the field. But, I would 100% maintain the same stance that the review resulted on the correct call.
A fumble IS NOT a fumble until it hits the ground. How many times have you see a runner bobble a ball while running and regain possession? Are those fumbles. NO.
A fumble IS NOT a fumble until it hits the ground. How many times have you see a runner bobble a ball while running and regain possession? Are those fumbles. NO.
Quote:
possession by its very definition means he lost possession which means he fumbled it.
He was in mid-air when he lost and regained possession and was shy of the goal line when he did so and so. As a result, he had to establish himself in bounds at some point.
The refs determined that he landed out of bounds hence, the touchback because it's technically fumbling out of the back of the end zone.
The rule sucks. I'm only commenting that he fumbled it which is inarguable.
I don't even think this rule sucks. I think it was the correct call and the call makes sense. He never had possession inbounds in the end zone. Had he landed out of bounds short of the end zone, the Jets would have maintained possession. But, he hit the pylon, which of considered both the end zone and out of bounds, which means when he landed in control, he was already out of bounds. To make it worse, his body landed on the sideline. Because the pylon is a marker for both, he thus fumbled it out of the end zone. IT is actually one of the less ambiguous rules, in my opinion.
Now, if this was the Giants, I'd be pissed only in that they ruled it a TD on the field. But, I would 100% maintain the same stance that the review resulted on the correct call.
I just watched it again. The ball never hit the pylon, his body did. Plus he had possession when his body hit the pylon. But even if he didn't have possession when his body hit the plyon, there is no way that was a fumble out of the end zone, giving the ball to NE.
Quote:
Again, what is giving you the impression that a fumble has to hit a ground?
A fumble IS NOT a fumble until it hits the ground. How many times have you see a runner bobble a ball while running and regain possession? Are those fumbles. NO.
Thank you. A bobble is not a fumble.
Now if the claim is that a ball hitting the pylon while being bobbled is a fumble, that!s not what happened here.
Kinda makes you wonder, huh...
September 2013, Lions, Bears
And here is the Play-by-play record from Pro Football Reference
And here's the PBP from NFL.com
(6:12) (No Huddle) 9-M.Stafford up the middle to CHI 1 for no gain (55-L.Briggs). FUMBLES (55-L.Briggs), and recovers at CHI 0. TOUCHDOWN.
September 2013, Lions, Bears
And here is the Play-by-play record from Pro Football Reference
Quote:
Matthew Stafford up the middle for 1 yard (tackle by Lance Briggs). Matthew Stafford fumbles (forced by Lance Briggs), recovered by Matthew Stafford at CHI-0, touchdown
And here's the PBP from NFL.com
Quote:
1-1-CHI 1
(6:12) (No Huddle) 9-M.Stafford up the middle to CHI 1 for no gain (55-L.Briggs). FUMBLES (55-L.Briggs), and recovers at CHI 0. TOUCHDOWN.
The ball came flying out five feet in the air. Not a bobble. But okay, by that definition, when a ball flies several feet in the air, it doesn't have to hit the ground to be considered a fumble. And again, that wasn't the play today.
Then there would be no such thing as a bobble.
Stafford fumbled the ball when he was hit, it went about a foot over his head, not "five feet" and he regained possession.
Again, read the definition of a fumble.
The ball is loose in mid-air. He doesn't have possession. It's a fumble. The question is whether he regained possession of it which is irrelevant to my comment.
Instead, you want to use invented qualifications to a rule.
But here, we're talking about having possession while breaking the plane. If that same player bobbles the ball right b4 crossing the endline, it's NOT a TD until he regains possession. And it's not regaining possession until you get the ball secured w/ 2 feet / body / knee etc.And a ball going OB out the defensive EZ is a touchback
With ASJ in the ESPN clip, you can see at the 48s mark his right hand reach down and then secure the ball as he's flipping over already OB. That's the first moment it's 'clear' he's re-secured it. At about 56s you can see the ball spinning out his hand, but there's no clear view of possession until the flip OB. For me tho he might have his knee in, he hasn't secured the ball yet (we can't see from these angles). If he had secured it in his left by then he wouldn't have snatched it over to the right while flipping over IMO
I agree it was tough to overturn given the angles we saw as it was close. But IMO the right call as it played out / by rule. To me the Cooks TD vs HOU was much worse if you want to be outraged tho there was no overturn situation, just blown review
ESPN clip - ( New Window )
September 2013, Lions, Bears
And here is the Play-by-play record from Pro Football Reference
Quote:
Matthew Stafford up the middle for 1 yard (tackle by Lance Briggs). Matthew Stafford fumbles (forced by Lance Briggs), recovered by Matthew Stafford at CHI-0, touchdown
And here's the PBP from NFL.com
Quote:
1-1-CHI 1
(6:12) (No Huddle) 9-M.Stafford up the middle to CHI 1 for no gain (55-L.Briggs). FUMBLES (55-L.Briggs), and recovers at CHI 0. TOUCHDOWN.
The JEts play was a touchback because he didn't recover his fumble inbounds and because he hit the pylon it was also considered into the end zone and out of the end zone simultaneously. Stafford's play did not have out of bounds to contend with.
But here, we're talking about having possession while breaking the plane. If that same player bobbles the ball right b4 crossing the endline, it's NOT a TD until he regains possession. And it's not regaining possession until you get the ball secured w/ 2 feet / body / knee etc.And a ball going OB out the defensive EZ is a touchback
With ASJ in the ESPN clip, you can see at the 48s mark his right hand reach down and then secure the ball as he's flipping over already OB. That's the first moment it's 'clear' he's re-secured it. At about 56s you can see the ball spinning out his hand, but there's no clear view of possession until the flip OB. For me tho he might have his knee in, he hasn't secured the ball yet (we can't see from these angles). If he had secured it in his left by then he wouldn't have snatched it over to the right while flipping over IMO
I agree it was tough to overturn given the angles we saw as it was close. But IMO the right call as it played out / by rule. To me the Cooks TD vs HOU was much worse if you want to be outraged tho there was no overturn situation, just blown review ESPN clip - ( New Window )
That might explain the TD. But how does that justify the change in possession?
Quote:
You're right, when a player bobbles the ball but doesn't lose it they don't mark it a fumble
But here, we're talking about having possession while breaking the plane. If that same player bobbles the ball right b4 crossing the endline, it's NOT a TD until he regains possession. And it's not regaining possession until you get the ball secured w/ 2 feet / body / knee etc.And a ball going OB out the defensive EZ is a touchback
With ASJ in the ESPN clip, you can see at the 48s mark his right hand reach down and then secure the ball as he's flipping over already OB. That's the first moment it's 'clear' he's re-secured it. At about 56s you can see the ball spinning out his hand, but there's no clear view of possession until the flip OB. For me tho he might have his knee in, he hasn't secured the ball yet (we can't see from these angles). If he had secured it in his left by then he wouldn't have snatched it over to the right while flipping over IMO
I agree it was tough to overturn given the angles we saw as it was close. But IMO the right call as it played out / by rule. To me the Cooks TD vs HOU was much worse if you want to be outraged tho there was no overturn situation, just blown review ESPN clip - ( New Window )
That might explain the TD. But how does that justify the change in possession?
I'm surprised so many are pissed about this because it's always been the rule. IIRC it was Cruz or one of our WRs a few yrs back who fumbled a ball out of the endzone right b4 crossing the endline for a TD, it was the other team's ball at the 20
I'm surprised so many are pissed about this because it's always been the rule. IIRC it was Cruz or one of our WRs a few yrs back who fumbled a ball out of the endzone right b4 crossing the endline for a TD, it was the other team's ball at the 20
But there was no fumble.
Quote:
In comment 13649620 ChaChing said:
Quote:
You're right, when a player bobbles the ball but doesn't lose it they don't mark it a fumble
But here, we're talking about having possession while breaking the plane. If that same player bobbles the ball right b4 crossing the endline, it's NOT a TD until he regains possession. And it's not regaining possession until you get the ball secured w/ 2 feet / body / knee etc.And a ball going OB out the defensive EZ is a touchback
With ASJ in the ESPN clip, you can see at the 48s mark his right hand reach down and then secure the ball as he's flipping over already OB. That's the first moment it's 'clear' he's re-secured it. At about 56s you can see the ball spinning out his hand, but there's no clear view of possession until the flip OB. For me tho he might have his knee in, he hasn't secured the ball yet (we can't see from these angles). If he had secured it in his left by then he wouldn't have snatched it over to the right while flipping over IMO
I agree it was tough to overturn given the angles we saw as it was close. But IMO the right call as it played out / by rule. To me the Cooks TD vs HOU was much worse if you want to be outraged tho there was no overturn situation, just blown review ESPN clip - ( New Window )
That might explain the TD. But how does that justify the change in possession?
It was a change in possession because the pylon is out of bounds and the end zone means the ball was loose, crosses the plane (pylon) and then landed out of bounds (where he landed in possession of the ball), which is a fumble out of the end zone. By rule, that is a touchback/change of possession.
The ball never touched the pylon, nor was it lose when he hit the pylon.
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.
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?
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
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 )
The knee landing reestablishes possession.
It's great to keep showing the ball loose as nobody is disputing it, but the key is that he resecures the ball, the knee hits and then he hits the pylon with the ball secured, so I'm not sure why we are looking at these photos as if they are a smoking gun.
You are making the claim that by resecuring the ball and his knee touching the ground in bounds that he reestablished himself in bounds, regained possession, and so it should be a touchdown.
There is certainly a picture of his knee clearly in bounds and I can't say you're wrong. Nor do I care to.
But because he lost possession of the ball (as indicated in the picture I showed), and resecures it in mid-air (before his knee hit the ground), he must complete the process of going to the ground.
There are Patriots fans that will argue that even though his knee hit the ground in bounds, that the ball was still moving around as he rolled the ground and so he never finished the process of securing the ball before going out of bounds. I don't care enough to argue one way or the other.
Right or wrong, that's not what I'm debating with Jeff (and Stan).
The determination as to whether he regained possession in bounds is part 2. I'm still trying to figure out why some can't acknowledge that he lost possession.
For all intents and purposes, it analogous to a WR making a diving catch in that same spot, who "caught" the ball in mid-air, his knee came down in bounds and then immediately rolled out of bounds. If the ball is still moving, while not secured when the receiver is out of bounds, then it is not a catch because he never established possession in bounds.
Again, I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with the ultimate decision by the refs that there was enough evidence to overturn the call on the field. I'm only trying to establish that he lost possession of the ball.
Originally I said the opposite, but as I think on it more it seems like a real big momentum swing on a random occurrence, esp given anywhere else a fwd fumble OB by the O is just possession where it was fumbled
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
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.