Jets / Patriots

[UJustGotChaeld]

I thought it was a touchdown, but it obviously worked out for the Pats.

I am surprised they reversed it even though the rule is clear it was not a touch down. Most people just don't understand the actual rule which is why it became controversial.

 

[rj144]

Yes it is. Eventually doesn't count as he was already out of bounds when he got control. He had to regain control and survive the ground, he did not do so.


http://www.sportingnews.com/nfl/new...own-video-nfl-news/1n3wilm3tjk5n1htspuiyjmckn

It's semantics but he did survive the ground after he was out of bounds. Like I said, if he landed on the ground in bounds, it's a touchdown.

 

[Ikuza]

I am surprised they reversed it even though the rule is clear it was not a touch down. Most people just don't understand the actual rule which is why it became controversial.

By the rule, it was the correct call.

But as a football fan, it was straight up bullshit.

 

[UJustGotChaeld]

It's semantics but he did survive the ground after he was out of bounds. Like I said, if he landed on the ground in bounds, it's a touchdown.

No, the ball came out. That's not semantics. It's not a touchdown anywhere he landed.

 

[rj144]

No, the ball came out. That's not semantics. It's not a touchdown anywhere he landed.

You mean when he hit the ground? I don't think it ever came out of his hands completely. I might be wrong...

 

[MarkyMcFly]

I mean, as much as I hate to say it...it looks like It was called right. Just look at it logically. He doesn't have possession as he's crossing the goal line so it can't be a touchdown. He doesn't regain possession until he's already on the ground and out of bounds. An out of bounds player can not recover at fumble, it just makes the ball "out of bounds".

When a ball is fumbled and goes out of the endzone, it's the other teams ball as a touch back.

 

[rj144]

I mean, as much as I hate to say it...it looks like It was called right. Just look at it logically. He doesn't have possession as he's crossing the goal line so it can't be a touchdown. He doesn't regain possession until he's already on the ground and out of bounds. An out of bounds player can not recover at fumble, it just makes the ball "out of bounds".

When a ball is fumbled and goes out of the endzone, it's the other teams ball as a touch back.

Exactly what I was saying.

 

[rj144]

No, the ball came out. That's not semantics. It's not a touchdown anywhere he landed.

The ball never came out:



By survive the ground in this context, it means to go to the ground with possession of the ball in bounds, not out of bounds.

 

[UJustGotChaeld]

You mean when he hit the ground? I don't think it ever came out of his hands completely. I might be wrong...

It moved. Just like a pass catch going out of bounds he needs to maintain control through the ground, no ball movement.

 

[UJustGotChaeld]

The ball never came out:



By survive the ground in this context, it means to go to the ground with possession of the ball in bounds, not out of bounds.

No, your context is wrong. Think of a player catching the ball with tip toes in bounds. They fall out of bounds. Any ball movement is an incomplete pass. Since the pass was already established, in this case it becomes a fumble .. with him regaining control for the 3rd time on the play out of bounds resulting in a touch back. I quoted and sourced the rule and it's explanation already.

 

[UJustGotChaeld]

I mean, as much as I hate to say it...it looks like It was called right. Just look at it logically. He doesn't have possession as he's crossing the goal line so it can't be a touchdown. He doesn't regain possession until he's already on the ground and out of bounds. An out of bounds player can not recover at fumble, it just makes the ball "out of bounds".

When a ball is fumbled and goes out of the endzone, it's the other teams ball as a touch back.

Exactly. I don't know why it was controversial, other than people do not know the rule.

 

[rj144]

It moved. Just like a pass catch going out of bounds he needs to maintain control through the ground, no ball movement.

A ball can move. As long as at some point it's secured in the act of catching it before going out of bounds.

 

[rj144]

No, your context is wrong. Think of a player catching the ball with tip toes in bounds. They fall out of bounds. Any ball movement is an incomplete pass. Since the pass was already established, in this case it becomes a fumble .. with him regaining control for the 3rd time on the play out of bounds resulting in a touch back. I quoted and sourced the rule and it's explanation already.

If going out of bounds, any movement means he hasn't established possession before going out of bounds. Like I said, one has to establish control before going out of bounds.

 

[UJustGotChaeld]

A ball can move. As long as at some point it's secured in the act of catching it before going out of bounds.

And he was out of bounds when it was finally secured. I don't know why it's something you are struggling to understand. When he hit the ground the ball moved. He then was out of bounds, and then finished securing it.

 

[rj144]

And he was out of bounds when it was finally secured. I don't know why it's something you are struggling to understand. When he hit the ground the ball moved. He then was out of bounds, and then finished securing it.

That's exactly what I've been saying.

 

[UJustGotChaeld]

That's exactly what I've been saying.

Then why are you arguing?

Then why did you say that's not the rule and not why it was called a touchback? It IS the rule, it IS why they called it a touchback.

That's not really the rule, or why it was called a touchback. He did maintain control of the ball on the ground eventually.

 

[rj144]

Then why are you arguing?

Then why did you say that's not the rule and not why it was called a touchback? It IS the rule, it IS why they called it a touchback.

Because, like I said it was semantics. You originally said he had to maintain possession through the ground which is what I was saying wasn't quite right. He did maintain possession. When he hit the ground, he bobbled it which implied he didn't have possession until he was on the ground so he didn't have possession as he crossed the goal line.

Now, this new term "surviving the ground" usually means that if you dive catching the ball in bounds you must possess the ball fully through the ground. It turns out in this context (like I said it depends on context) surviving the ground also means not bobbling the ball if landing out of bounds. Also, catching on a dive and surviving the ground demonstrates the completion of a catch. Bobbling out of bounds implies no possession in bounds, so it's used in a different context. It's subtle but really completely different uses of the term.

Originally, I thought you were talking about the usual context of surviving the ground.