Seeking Rule Clarification (NFL)

[FormerUmp]

I'm sure a lot of you are familiar with this play. I'm just looking for what officially the right call would have been here.

In my opinion, we have a clear fumble recovered by Jacksonville. My question is about whether or not the Jacksonville player should have been allowed a potential return as he wasn't touched after he gained possession of the ball, or do you still go back to the reason he was on the ground to begin with and rule him down by contact?

I've seen people argue that it shouldn't have been a turnover at all because Lewis "re-possessed" it when he pinned it against his leg, but I believe he would have to "survive the ground" at that point?

Ultimately I'd just like to know what the right answer is instead of seeing clueless people argue back and forth. Any help would be much appreciated. Thank you.

[JRutledge]

Ask an NFL official.

Peace

[scrounge]

figured it wouldn't be long till you trotted this out...

[FormerUmp]

Like I said, I'm just looking for an answer.

I happen to think it was a well-officiated game. Others don't and this is a play that both sides bring up as and example of how they got "screwed."

Patriots fans say it wasn't a fumble at all and they shouldn't have lost possession. Jaguars fans say it was a clear fumble with a clear recovery and Jack would have returned it for a touchdown had the play been allowed to continue.

I'm simply trying to understand the rules involved.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by FormerUmp

I'm simply trying to understand the rules involved.

How many here actually believe this?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Rich

How many here actually believe this?

I don't.

Peace

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by FormerUmp

Like I said, I'm just looking for an answer.

I happen to think it was a well-officiated game. Others don't and this is a play that both sides bring up as and example of how they got "screwed."

Patriots fans say it wasn't a fumble at all and they shouldn't have lost possession. Jaguars fans say it was a clear fumble with a clear recovery and Jack would have returned it for a touchdown had the play been allowed to continue.

I'm simply trying to understand the rules involved.

If you are really looking for an answer, why are you coming here? Seriously, unless I am missing something, there are no NFL active officials on this site.

I think this was a tough play that usually you do not see in that manner. So understanding the rule is not going to change anything during a slow-motion replay. I had to see it a few times to even agree that it was a fumble and that location was from the other side of the sideline official.

Peace

[scrounge]

Originally Posted by Rich

How many here actually believe this?

not for a nanosecond

[FormerUmp]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

If you are really looking for an answer, why are you coming here? Seriously, unless I am missing something, there are no NFL active officials on this site.

I think this was a tough play that usually you do not see in that manner. So understanding the rule is not going to change anything during a slow-motion replay. I had to see it a few times to even agree that it was a fumble and that location was from the other side of the sideline official.

Peace

So should he have still been free to get up and run because he doesn't appear to have been touched after he actually gained possession? Or does all the contact as part of the initial tackle still leave him down by contact?

[ajmc]

What even happened to "clear & Convincing evidence the call on the field was incorrect", before overturning?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by FormerUmp

So should he have still been free to get up and run because he doesn't appear to have been touched after he actually gained possession? Or does all the contact as part of the initial tackle still leave him down by contact?

With the benefit of replay, probably. But it is also possible that he was touched by the legs when there was possession gained on the ground (not conclusive). But there is a case IMO that there was not a loss in possession in the first place. I think they ultimately made a good call.

If I recall, the call was made that they had a turnover with a strip, but the official must have ruled him down by contact.

So if you want an explanation, really cannot give you any such other than what I remember. I am not an official person with the NFL or even know what the official thinks he saw. I just know that the play was ruled a turnover live and replay confirmed that call.

Peace

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

If you are really looking for an answer, why are you coming here? Seriously, unless I am missing something, there are no NFL active officials on this site.

Maybe there will be some time in the future. Aren't threads immortal? I don't assume a question will be answered by a contemporary.

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by FormerUmp

Like I said, I'm just looking for an answer.

The quickest way to get a good response to this would be to send a Tweet to Mike Pereira. For all I know, he already has addressed it. I don't know that anybody here can answer it adequately.

Originally Posted by Rich

How many here actually believe this?

It does remind me of the "question" a coach would ask before he starts in complaining about something.

[FormerUmp]

Originally Posted by Welpe

The quickest way to get a good response to this would be to send a Tweet to Mike Pereira. For all I know, he already has addressed it. I don't know that anybody here can answer it adequately.



It does remind me of the "question" a coach would ask before he starts in complaining about something.

Speaking of Mike Pereira, here's an interesting Peter King article about this play and the expectations fans have of officials in the age of replay where he quotes Pereira talking about this play.

https://www.si.com/nfl/2018/01/24/my...lay-peter-king

[FormerUmp]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

With the benefit of replay, probably. But it is also possible that he was touched by the legs when there was possession gained on the ground (not conclusive). But there is a case IMO that there was not a loss in possession in the first place. I think they ultimately made a good call.

If I recall, the call was made that they had a turnover with a strip, but the official must have ruled him down by contact.

So if you want an explanation, really cannot give you any such other than what I remember. I am not an official person with the NFL or even know what the official thinks he saw. I just know that the play was ruled a turnover live and replay confirmed that call.

Peace

That's along the lines of what I was thinking. If you think it was a fumble, he likely should have been able to return it. There are also a lot of people who would argue that it wasn't a turnover at all. Basically a lot happening at almost the same time.