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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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?