Zeke's Fumble

[Cowboy4ever]

5 words: Going to the Ground Rule

But for that to be in play, the catch has not been completed. Dez had completed the catch and was tackled to the ground. He had clear possession, he took 3 steps and made a football move, the catch was completed. Going to the ground shouldn't have been the deciding factor. They got it wrong. The fact that everyone but Deano knew it was a catch, the ref on the field ruled it a catch and that they have had to re-write the rule about a dozen times since that play to try and explain their ruling, all shows that they messed it up. And besides, the rules for overturning a call is CLEAR VIDEO EVIDENCE. Again that we are still discussing this 5 years later tells me there was not clear evidence. The Call should have stood as called on the field. To me, it would be the same if a WR caught the ball on the 50 and sprinted to the 10 and tripped and lost the ball, is that an in completion because he went to the ground? Of course not. Dez completed the catch, so going to the ground rules don't apply.

Now this call, it was not a fumble. They missed this one as well. Yes the ball moved but by NFL definition "A fumble is any act, other than a pass or kick, which results in a loss of player possession" He clearly had possession of the ball when his elbow hit the ground. If they want it to mean, "which results in a loss or beginning of a loss of possession", then they should say that.

 

[MarcusRock]

Nice work Marcus. Marcus is the patron saint of NFL Referees and Owners Wealth over-site.

The word is oversight, dunce. All the advantages in the world and yet ....

 

[cowboyec]

Honestly it seems to me that the NFL, with it's new "challenge the PI calls rule" has taken a tougher stance on reversing anything called on the field. They will not reverse a PI call that I have seen. If they are not calling the one against the Eagles Thursday night, they are not going to do much changing at all. I wonder what the stats are. I have not seen one reversed or called with the red flag.

On another note, the Detroit WR's foot came down out of bounds, obvious by replay, but some idea that the toe tip the inbounds on the way down made it a TD. Stupid call. Foot coming down all the way has always been the observed rule if the whole foot comes down. ie - tiptoes at the sidleline - this was not that!

100% right.
have they reversed ANY call?
I haven't seen it....they are staying with the call on the field.

 

[MarcusRock]

You are trying to make something simple complicated. What I'm stating is what a fumble is considered. Go try looking up a "legal" definition of a fumble. It is simply losing control of the ball. Control is something that is established by having a grip on the football, which Elliott clearly does with the right hand if not with the left. The process of losing control is not a fumble. It is not a fumble until control is lost ... because again, that is the definition of the word.

If the ball had been out of Elliott's grip before he hit the ground, it would have been a fumble. If it was not, which is pretty clear, then it should not have been ruled a fumble, despite what a former official might believe. The NFL got it wrong on this call, just like it has gotten other calls wrong. It happens.

Do you side with the league on every call despite evidence to the contrary?

No, my issue actually is quite simple but you're needing to make it black and white, which it isn't. That's why I bring up the question of the ball starting to come loose as a player touches down. The rules don't address a ball starting to come out and being down happening in the middle of that process where the ball does come out. This is called thinking beyond. I haven't actually said whether this is a good/bad call or not because to me the question of continuation is still out there. As for the actual definition of a fumble I think you need to read a little closer:

SECTION 7 BACKWARD PASS AND FUMBLE
ARTICLE 3. FUMBLE. A fumble is any act, other than a pass or kick, which results in a loss of player possession.​

Did you catch that? It is an act that results in the loss of player possession. It is not simply losing possession or "grip" as you put it. It is any act that leads to such. Could another player coming in and prying the ball away from your body be construed as "any act?" That is what happened here. Again, the unclear part is what happens if an act is started (which it clearly was), the player touches down, but the loss of possession still happens. That is what I am asking in the face of blind, "No, no. They're cheating us" nonsense. Again, you cite nothing and just rattle off what you "think" rules are when your own definition of a fumble is not the definition of a fumble. And people are supposed to trust your judgment on this matter? That's why I go and do the work.

By the way, I'm the one who actually provides the evidence 'round these parts. I don't side with the league, I investigate blind whining and present video of what actually happened. I put the Bridgewater pass at the end of the first half to bed with the evidence I provided.

 

[MarcusRock]

But for that to be in play, the catch has not been completed. Dez had completed the catch and was tackled to the ground. He had clear possession, he took 3 steps and made a football move, the catch was completed. Going to the ground shouldn't have been the deciding factor. They got it wrong. The fact that everyone but Deano knew it was a catch, the ref on the field ruled it a catch and that they have had to re-write the rule about a dozen times since that play to try and explain their ruling, all shows that they messed it up. And besides, the rules for overturning a call is CLEAR VIDEO EVIDENCE. Again that we are still discussing this 5 years later tells me there was not clear evidence. The Call should have stood as called on the field. To me, it would be the same if a WR caught the ball on the 50 and sprinted to the 10 and tripped and lost the ball, is that an in completion because he went to the ground? Of course not. Dez completed the catch, so going to the ground rules don't apply.

Now this call, it was not a fumble. They missed this one as well. Yes the ball moved but by NFL definition "A fumble is any act, other than a pass or kick, which results in a loss of player possession" He clearly had possession of the ball when his elbow hit the ground. If they want it to mean, "which results in a loss or beginning of a loss of possession", then they should say that.

You might want to have a looksie at this video from Mike Pereira from when the Jesse James no-catch happened. When it happens, Going to the Ground takes precedence over the regular catch rule. This is why Dez taking 3 steps did not matter at all back then. This is what catch theorists can't refute so I dust it off whenever this finely aged whine comes up.

 

[DogFace]

5 words: Going to the Ground Rule

That’s for receivers.

Dez became a runner after the 3 step process was complete. Per the rule at the time.
1. Control
2. Two feet
3. Time to make a football move

Don’t forget Blandino’s example!

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

Case closed again

 

[Runwildboys]

No, my issue actually is quite simple but you're needing to make it black and white, which it isn't. That's why I bring up the question of the ball starting to come loose as a player touches down. The rules don't address a ball starting to come out and being down happening in the middle of that process where the ball does come out. This is called thinking beyond. I haven't actually said whether this is a good/bad call or not because to me the question of continuation is still out there. As for the actual definition of a fumble I think you need to read a little closer:

SECTION 7 BACKWARD PASS AND FUMBLE
ARTICLE 3. FUMBLE. A fumble is any act, other than a pass or kick, which results in a loss of player possession.​

Did you catch that? It is an act that results in the loss of player possession. It is not simply losing possession or "grip" as you put it. It is any act that leads to such. Could another player coming in and prying the ball away from your body be construed as "any act?" That is what happened here. Again, the unclear part is what happens if an act is started (which it clearly was), the player touches down, but the loss of possession still happens. That is what I am asking in the face of blind, "No, no. They're cheating us" nonsense. Again, you cite nothing and just rattle off what you "think" rules are when your own definition of a fumble is not the definition of a fumble. And people are supposed to trust your judgment on this matter? That's why I go and do the work.

By the way, I'm the one who actually provides the evidence 'round these parts. I don't side with the league, I investigate blind whining and present video of what actually happened. I put the Bridgewater pass at the end of the first half to bed with the evidence I provided.

That definition is incredibly vague.

We all know the ground can't cause a fumble, so what about the combination of hitting the ground and having the ball pulled at? Players pull at the ball all the time without successfully causing a fumble, so I don't think the fact that it was being pulled at before he hit the ground can qualify as causing the fumble, since it didn't come free until after he hit the ground.

They need to better define what constitutes a fumble, or at what point it's considered loose.

 

[xwalker]

I won't speculate as to whether or not the ground caused him to lose his grip, because I don't know for certain, but I'm about 98% sure the ball wasn't slipping through his hands until after the elbow hit.

He had the ball in both hands and pulled up against his body.

The ball and his hands moved relative to his body but the ball didn't move in his hands until after his elbow was down.

 

[gimmesix]

No, my issue actually is quite simple but you're needing to make it black and white, which it isn't. That's why I bring up the question of the ball starting to come loose as a player touches down. The rules don't address a ball starting to come out and being down happening in the middle of that process where the ball does come out. This is called thinking beyond. I haven't actually said whether this is a good/bad call or not because to me the question of continuation is still out there. As for the actual definition of a fumble I think you need to read a little closer:

SECTION 7 BACKWARD PASS AND FUMBLE
ARTICLE 3. FUMBLE. A fumble is any act, other than a pass or kick, which results in a loss of player possession.​

Did you catch that? It is an act that results in the loss of player possession. It is not simply losing possession or "grip" as you put it. It is any act that leads to such. Could another player coming in and prying the ball away from your body be construed as "any act?" That is what happened here. Again, the unclear part is what happens if an act is started (which it clearly was), the player touches down, but the loss of possession still happens. That is what I am asking in the face of blind, "No, no. They're cheating us" nonsense. Again, you cite nothing and just rattle off what you "think" rules are when your own definition of a fumble is not the definition of a fumble. And people are supposed to trust your judgment on this matter? That's why I go and do the work.

By the way, I'm the one who actually provides the evidence 'round these parts. I don't side with the league, I investigate blind whining and present video of what actually happened. I put the Bridgewater pass at the end of the first half to bed with the evidence I provided.

You are still reading too much into it. The player not being in possession of the ball is the action. It's the fumble. If I'm about to drop something and it is still in my hand, I have not dropped it yet. This is the way a fumble works. If the ball is still in the player's hand(s), it is not a fumble. A fumble is not the process of losing the ball. It is losing the ball, lack of control. That means it has to be completely loose. In this case, you can clearly see that Elliott's right hand is around the ball. It is not moving loosely in his hand. No rule is needed to address the ball starting to come out because it isn't a fumble until it is out. There has to be "a loss of player possession" for it to be a fumble.

 

[Runwildboys]

He had the ball in both hands and pulled up against his body.

The ball and his hands moved relative to his body but the ball didn't move in his hands until after his elbow was down.

I believe that too, but one hand was obscured from view in the video. It shouldn't matter though, since it only requires one hand to maintain possession.

 

[DCBlueStar]

The referees didn't even call it a fumble at first. They waited for the Saints players to keep yelling at them that it was a fumble... so how did they see a fumble they never saw in the first place? lmao. Just dumb. Thanks the those whiny *** Saints fans, no one will get the benefit of the doubt vs NO for a while. Refs are running scared around them.

I am a big believer in complaining about refs being the reason you lost the game is a loser mentality.

So I'll say... the Cowboys ABSOLUTELY lost that game themselves... but that call was terrible.

 

[DCBlueStar]

He had the ball in both hands and pulled up against his body.

The ball and his hands moved relative to his body but the ball didn't move in his hands until after his elbow was down.

Precisely. It just baffles me how quickly fans can turn on a player and blame him for a thing that actually didn't occur.

He had his arms wrapped around the ball. Never lost control. His arms only moved because the Saints defender was pulling on the ball. Which was still in his hands.

 

[Blast From The Past]

It doesn't really matter what you or I think. It matters how it was called. And it was called a fumble. He should have held the ball all the way through the process and left the pile with the ball in his hands. Zeke even said as much.

That is true it only matters what is called on the field. Of course Zeke is gonna say that, what else could he say? I guess it's better to stay in possession of the ball to make absolutely sure you don't give it away.

 

[SultanOfSix]

It wasn’t a fumble. His elbow was down and he still has the ball in his arms even if it was starting to be pulled out, so he still has possession. Saying he should’ve held on to the ball after the fact is a red herring to the argument. It’s like saying if Dak threw a TD in the previous play the fumble would’ve never happened. We’re not talking about if scenarios. We’re talking about what actually happened. He did hold onto the ball long enough for it not to be a fumble. Imagine no players being around Zeke and the same scenario happened where he was tackled from behind and his elbow hit the ground and the ball came lose in the same exact way. It would not be a fumble.

 

[MarcusRock]

That’s for receivers.

Dez became a runner after the 3 step process was complete. Per the rule at the time.
1. Control
2. Two feet
3. Time to make a football move

"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?

 

[MarcusRock]

You are still reading too much into it. The player not being in possession of the ball is the action. It's the fumble. If I'm about to drop something and it is still in my hand, I have not dropped it yet. This is the way a fumble works. If the ball is still in the player's hand(s), it is not a fumble. A fumble is not the process of losing the ball. It is losing the ball, lack of control. That means it has to be completely loose. In this case, you can clearly see that Elliott's right hand is around the ball. It is not moving loosely in his hand. No rule is needed to address the ball starting to come out because it isn't a fumble until it is out. There has to be "a loss of player possession" for it to be a fumble.

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.

 

[gimmesix]

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.

This is still incorrect because the act has to cause the player to lose possession. Apple pulling at the ball did not cause that to happen until Elliott's elbow was down. However, I'm not going to be able to convince you of this without finding the evidence I need, so I'm not going to sit here and argue the point. Once I find it, I'll post it.

 

[gimmesix]

This is still incorrect because the act has to cause the player to lose possession. Apple pulling at the ball did not cause that to happen until Elliott's elbow was down. However, I'm not going to be able to convince you of this without finding the evidence I need, so I'm not going to sit here and argue the point. Once I find it, I'll post it.

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.

 

[DandyDon52]

Especially since speed isn't a part of his game anymore. If you're just going to ram into piles hold onto the ball

I watched the 1st half again, and on runs elliot was stuffed, short gains, all 3 he should have taken outside, and he could have got the 1 or more.
because he has gained weight and lost speed, he is trying to power thru, and your right he need to hold on to the ball more.
side note, the ball was pulled out, by a db I think lavon bell #24 , and a DB should not be able to pull the ball out.

I think it is because Ewok was lifting drinks with umbrellas instead of lifting weights in TC.
He thinks he is so good all he has to do is show up and play for games, and then party all off season.
They showed some things kamara does to improve his balance, and he seems like a guy who works on it year round.
ewok 1.9 avg
kamara 4.0 avg per run
That is the difference between a guy who is dedicated, and a entitled party boy.
It was a defensive game running wasnt easy for either guy, but you see who did the best, and by a wide margin.

 

[DandyDon52]

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.

the bottom line is one of the smaller players on the field pulled the ball out, because ewok is not in top shape, he is in cabo party boy shape.
Also give credit to the db who thought to pull on the ball at that moment, it was a smart move and quick thinking.
Ewok never anticipated that.

Also looking at still pics and realtime video are 2 different things. You want it to be down so you see down, NO fans see not down because it is what they
want.
Witten also had the ball punched out rather easily, by another smart NO player, and those were 2 key plays in the game.
I think their players out smarted our players and coaches, and they were more ready, and they had more desire to win.
Cowboys just showed up to play and expected to win, and now they know that they cant do that and expect to win, or hopefully they know.

I think the bottom line on the fumble is the ball did come out, it was close, NO got the initial call, and there was not conclusive evidence to overturn.