Zeke's Fumble

[Mannix]

There is a lot of things to blame Zeke for...not this...he did NOT fumble the ball. The refs know that there is ZERO chance of any repercussion from the league office for blowing a call against Dallas.....they probably feel that it will actually curry favor with them....The Goon sure as S doesn't care.

 

[MarcusRock]

Closest I can find so far to explaining it is this, but even "firm" and "control" can be open to interpretation:

PLAYER POSSESSION Article 7A player is in possession when he is in firm grip and control of the ball inbounds (See 3-2-3).

I consider Elliott to have been in firm grip and control of the ball because he still had his right hand wrapped around it. The defender was pulling on it, but that doesn't mean it wasn't in Elliott's grip. However, I acknowledge again that even though I believe that to be the correct interpretation based on years of evidence, I cannot say that those words cannot be interpreted differently.

Can you be in firm grip and control of the ball when another player's act causes the ball to shift in your arms and almost completely out of one of your two hands?

 

[GORICO]

I am biased. Let's get that out there up front.

I watched the replay of the fumble by Zeke, as everyone who watched the game did. I disagree with the comments made about clear evidence.

Now let's also get this out of the way. I think it is a huge mistake for the broadcast to have an official second guessing the call. There is a reason baseball does not allow replays of balls and strikes to occur on the stadium big screens. My belief is this exacerbates the fans angst over missed calls. Especially when the "expert" in the booth seems to either get it wrong, or disagrees with the eye in the sky that is the ultimate arbiter.

To me (remember the bias) Zeke's elbow was down. The "expert" suggested the ball was moving, yet - again, to me - it did not move until he hit the ground. The "expert" said he did not have control. Yet the ball was still in the crook of his arm until he touched down.

I could be wrong. Most here that know me can point to those times with ease. But in that scrum, I don't believe the refs had enough information to make that call to begin with.

I also think the completely asinine thought process of reversing the call leaves out a significant aspect. The fact in a scrum, the refs don't have a clear cut view, and therefore cannot make an accurate call. The refs could not possibly see that fumble from any angle they had. So the automatic cannot reverse the call has a flaw that the refs cannot say they just didn't see it correctly.

In Zeke's defense, he usually is really good at covering up. But he, like every other ball carrier will occasionally put it on the ground. I think this was a bang bang play and there was no ref that could clearly see the ball come out and whether is was down or it was a strip.

I surely think the "expert" is just winging it, and find this aspect of the game as a way to stir up the viewing audience. In other words I believe this is a stupid idea.

But again, I believe Zeke was down and there was no clear cut view by the officials on the field to make the initial call, and the "expert" was incorrect in his elbow touching before the ball slipped out.

Just my opinion.

first of all...Zeke was not out of control of the ball...it was clear to see the difference on replay the ball moving a little and then when it disodged...Zeke had control meaning when it was moving a little in his arm if the guy would have stopped pulling Zeke would have easily maintained control of ball...and it was not until his elbow was clearly down that ball was dislodged....this was clear on replay...so regardless what refs saw or what refs called...replay showed clear evidence
Zeke's elbow was down before ball was dislodged where Zeke was then out of control of ball...it may have been bang bang play but that again should be irrelevant if replay shows clear evidence....plus there have been several real real
bad calls from replay on pass interference where replay officials keep with what is called on field for refs sake and their "little feelings that might get hurt"....bad calls have determined too many games and there should be a mandate
that replay have all the freedom to make good call regardless of refs and their calls.....if football would have started with ability to have replay like we do now....no one would have ever opted to just let refs make the calls on the field..
we are stuck in the minds of yester-year...

 

[GORICO]

It was like this all weekend. "Experts" agreeing with calls on the field even though they were suspect. Officiating as a whole is awful.

foo-- i 100% agree...it should be mandated that replay have full freedom to make the call from slow motion regardless what refs saw or called on field....no the game would not slow down...each team still has same
amount of red flags to throw..it would stop this insane reality of bad calls from refs deciding games...if when football was invented we had same capability for replay as we do now...no one would have ever even
dreamed of just allowing refs to make calls on the field....i think game is so much faster now and refs cannot catch everything so let the camera help us out.....its just the right thing to do

 

[DogFace]

"All of those get trumped by going to the ground... As with Dez Bryant a few years ago ..."



Did Mulder or Scully ever debunk this?

"All of those get trumped by going to the ground... As with Dez Bryant a few years ago ..."



Did Mulder or Scully ever debunk this?

You’re saying Blandino, the head of the refs at the time of the catch, was wrong and he’s right. I’m not.

He said “Dez a few years ago”. It is possible with all the confusion and changing the rule and it’s language back and forth that he’s incorrect?

Let’s go with the language of the rule at the time of the Dez catch and Blandino’s explanation in this example which was before the Dez catch, but under the same rules.
Dean Blandino:
“This is something we’ve worked really hard at to educate people, in terms of the catch process.”

“Let’s look at the play from week one, the Minn. Det. Game where Calvin is GOING TO THE GROUND in the PROCESS of MAKING THE CATCH.
The process of the catch is a 3 part process-control, 2 feet down, and then have the ball long enough to perform an act common to the game. If you can perform all 3 parts, in that order, you HAVE a catch. If not AND you’re GOING TO THE GROUND you must control the ball when you hit the ground. Watch what happens when Calvin hits the ground, the ball comes loose. He did not have BOTH FEET DOWN prior to THE REACH (R-E-A-C-H) for the goaline SO this is all one process. This is an incomplete pass.”
http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-netwo...00000246515/Calvin-Johnson-rule-strikes-again
*Dez did have both feet down


***There is nowhere in the rule book(that you actually use and reference very well) that states going to the ground trumps the rule that makes a receiver a runner and when that happens.

 

[black label]

Zeek failed and presscrap drowned

 

[Runwildboys]

LOL. Reading too much into it? The rule is right there in a different color and it's one sentence. In plain text it says A leading to B. You just keep screaming B because that was what you initially went with until being corrected and yet continue to scream B to save face. Stop repeating your own black and white logic and read the freakin' rule. It's an ACT leading to loss of possession. Something affecting and leading to something else. You told me to read the rule and I posted it. Now you want to just gloss over that it didn't say what you assumed it did?

If a player untouched falls and the ball pops out, falling is the ACT that led to him losing possession. Likewise a defender pulling at the ball is initiating an ACT to cause a loss of possession. Of course you and everyone else want to ignore this because Eli Apple's "act" clearly started before Elliott was down because he caused the ball to move like what McAuley mentioned during the replay. The question that I keep asking is if the act is afforded continuation status if it occurs before and then through the player contacting the ground. I sure as Hades know I'm not going to get that answer here but I'm adding something else to the discussion that no one's thought of (or conveniently doesn't want to think of). I'm way down the road from you on this one while you're back at the starting gate trying not to look like you're wrong after unintentionally revealing you were wrong.

Would it work to equate a fumble to flag football? You can tug at the flag, but until it's released, the runner isn't down. No, that doesn't quite work, because it's too definitive when compared to a ball coming out of someone's hands. But I think we need to move in that direction with the definition.

 

[gimmesix]

Can you be in firm grip and control of the ball when another player's act causes the ball to shift in your arms and almost completely out of one of your two hands?

Is or is not his right hand completely around the ball?

Players hold the ball in one hand all the time and as long as they have the ball in the one hand, it is not a fumble. Prying a hand loose from the ball does not mean that the ball is loose.

 

[MarcusRock]

You’re saying Blandino, the head of the refs at the time of the catch, was wrong and he’s right. I’m not.

He said “Dez a few years ago”. It is possible with all the confusion and changing the rule and it’s language back and forth that he’s incorrect?

It was the same rule all the way back from when the first Calvin Johnson no-catch controversy happened up until last year. If Pereira was wrong with his emphatic statements, show me a sports journalist who debunked him. We both know that's not out there. And it's pretty evident from reading all the catch rules back in 2014 that Going to the Ground trumped the regular catch rules but why don't you have a go at posting rules for once and tell me how it's actually not the case and then I'll come back and correct you again.

 

[MarcusRock]

Is or is not his right hand completely around the ball?

Players hold the ball in one hand all the time and as long as they have the ball in the one hand, it is not a fumble. Prying a hand loose from the ball does not mean that the ball is loose.

Players hold the ball in one hand all the time, but Zeke did not. He used 2. To me, that was his chosen form of "firm grip and control." So when you're holding the ball in 2 hands and a defender moves it and pries it almost completely away from one hand before the runner touches down, he has broken the runner's "firm grip and control" according to the rule you posted. The ball was moving as Zeke touched down and the defender completed the rip. It appears to me the officials granted continuation (it's just not written that they do this) because if all Zeke had to do was be down and still have a "majority grip" or something, then it's easy to overturn. But the ball was clearly moving (McAuley said it too) and Zeke was clearly losing grip. How people say they can't see that with Zeke's left hand by ground's impact are choosing not to see it, IMO.

 

[MarcusRock]

Would it work to equate a fumble to flag football? You can tug at the flag, but until it's released, the runner isn't down. No, that doesn't quite work, because it's too definitive when compared to a ball coming out of someone's hands. But I think we need to move in that direction with the definition.

I think the definition is fine. What they need is a Note to the rule or an Approved Ruling (A.R.) that highlights this scenario to answer the question of continuation of an act that clearly starts before touching down and is completed by that attempt afterwards. If there's an easy place to submit a suggestion to NFL rules, I'd do it. But they'd have to call it the MarcusRock Fumble Rule.

 

[atlantacowboy]

There is a lot of things to blame Zeke for...not this...he did NOT fumble the ball. The refs know that there is ZERO chance of any repercussion from the league office for blowing a call against Dallas.....they probably feel that it will actually curry favor with them....The Goon sure as S doesn't care.

Uh yeah......the league office is the one doing the review. So, there's that.......turns out, he fumbled the ball.

 

[silvernblu]

Especially when you're going to hold out for big money. Emmitt Smith didn't put the ball on the ground in critical moments.

I can still envision Emmitt running with a separated shoulder. That was a grown *** man!

 

[aikemirv]

There is no evidence of the ball moving before he touched down. There may be evidence of his arm moving upward but that is not the ball moving in his arm - huge difference.

And runners rarely ever HOLD the ball with 2 hands against their body, they hold with one (dominant) and secure (cover) with the other

 

[gimmesix]

Players hold the ball in one hand all the time, but Zeke did not. He used 2. To me, that was his chosen form of "firm grip and control." So when you're holding the ball in 2 hands and a defender moves it and pries it almost completely away from one hand before the runner touches down, he has broken the runner's "firm grip and control" according to the rule you posted. The ball was moving as Zeke touched down and the defender completed the rip. It appears to me the officials granted continuation (it's just not written that they do this) because if all Zeke had to do was be down and still have a "majority grip" or something, then it's easy to overturn. But the ball was clearly moving (McAuley said it too) and Zeke was clearly losing grip. How people say they can't see that with Zeke's left hand by ground's impact are choosing not to see it, IMO.

OK, all I need to know.

 

[DogFace]

It was the same rule all the way back from when the first Calvin Johnson no-catch controversy happened up until last year. If Pereira was wrong with his emphatic statements, show me a sports journalist who debunked him. We both know that's not out there. And it's pretty evident from reading all the catch rules back in 2014 that Going to the Ground trumped the regular catch rules but why don't you have a go at posting rules for once and tell me how it's actually not the case and then I'll come back and correct you again.

I’ll go with Blandino, head of officials at the time, and his explanation. Remember he’s the guy you used as an example until this contradiction.

You have the right to your opinion about what is evident and I disagree. The rule is very clear
Control-2 feet-time. There’s no mention of “except when”

Going to the ground is for the player that hasn’t satisfied the 3 requirements exactly like Johnson in the example. That’s when going to the ground is applied. Because he didn’t get two feet down—in this case.

Let’s look at the play from week one, the Minn. Det. Game where Calvin is GOING TO THE GROUND in the PROCESS of MAKING THE CATCH.
The process of the catch is a 3 part process-control, 2 feet down, and then have the ball long enough to perform an act common to the game. If you can perform all 3 parts, in that order, you HAVE a catch. If not AND you’re GOING TO THE GROUND you must control the ball when you hit the ground. Watch what happens when Calvin hits the ground, the ball comes loose. He did not have BOTH FEET DOWN prior to THE REACH (R-E-A-C-H) for the goaline SO this is all one process. This is an incomplete pass.”

I feel it’s very clear. You think another rule applies.
I’m pretty sure we won’t come to an agreement so I’ll leave it at that.

 

[MarcusRock]

There is no evidence of the ball moving before he touched down. There may be evidence of his arm moving upward but that is not the ball moving in his arm - huge difference.

And runners rarely ever HOLD the ball with 2 hands against their body, they hold with one (dominant) and secure (cover) with the other

The ball doesn't move? Lol. Look at the ball here. When the video starts, Zeke is coming forward with the point of the ball. At the point where the pause happens, the ball has turned to where you can actually see the laces in between their hand traffic. On Zeke's right arm, the ball goes from being pinned to his right forearm to being turned sideways (such that you can see the laces), plus Zeke's hand turns to where you can now see his pinkie finger versus not seeing it when the loop starts. What Apple did was get ahold of the other point of the ball and dug it out. It's physically impossible for the ball to be pinned to Zeke's forearm if someone's digging the other point of the ball out away from your arm. We know this because the ball DOES come out. Tell me again that the ball didn't move here. Hilarious.

 

[MarcusRock]

I’ll go with Blandino, head of officials at the time, and his explanation. Remember he’s the guy you used as an example until this contradiction.

You have the right to your opinion about what is evident and I disagree. The rule is very clear
Control-2 feet-time. There’s no mention of “except when”

Going to the ground is for the player that hasn’t satisfied the 3 requirements exactly like Johnson in the example. That’s when going to the ground is applied. Because he didn’t get two feet down—in this case.

Let’s look at the play from week one, the Minn. Det. Game where Calvin is GOING TO THE GROUND in the PROCESS of MAKING THE CATCH.
The process of the catch is a 3 part process-control, 2 feet down, and then have the ball long enough to perform an act common to the game. If you can perform all 3 parts, in that order, you HAVE a catch. If not AND you’re GOING TO THE GROUND you must control the ball when you hit the ground. Watch what happens when Calvin hits the ground, the ball comes loose. He did not have BOTH FEET DOWN prior to THE REACH (R-E-A-C-H) for the goaline SO this is all one process. This is an incomplete pass.”

I feel it’s very clear. You think another rule applies.
I’m pretty sure we won’t come to an agreement so I’ll leave it at that.

What did the actual rulebook say at the time? I would side-step too if I were you. We both know you're not going to actually try to explain the rulebook here. Challenge avoided. Tsk, tsk.

 

[aikemirv]

The ball doesn't move? Lol. Look at the ball here. When the video starts, Zeke is coming forward with the point of the ball. At the point where the pause happens, the ball has turned to where you can actually see the laces in between their hand traffic. On Zeke's right arm, the ball goes from being pinned to his right forearm to being turned sideways (such that you can see the laces), plus Zeke's hand turns to where you can now see his pinkie finger versus not seeing it when the loop starts. What Apple did was get ahold of the other point of the ball and dug it out. It's physically impossible for the ball to be pinned to Zeke's forearm if someone's digging the other point of the ball out away from your arm. We know this because the ball DOES come out. Tell me again that the ball didn't move here. Hilarious.

What is hilarious is you. Look at his fingers - they don't lose control of that ball until his shoulder is on the turf - you can actually see them lose the ball- are you blind? Arm moving does not equate to ball moving. If the ball moved in his hands his fingers would shift - THEY DO NOT!

 

[MarcusRock]

What is hilarious is you. Look at his fingers - they don't lose control of that ball until his shoulder is on the turf - you can actually see them lose the ball- are you blind? Arm moving does not equate to ball moving. If the ball moved in his hands his fingers would shift - THEY DO NOT!

And the left hand?