A fumble doesn't require the ball to hit the ground, but a loss of possession. He clearly had the ball punched loose by Malcolm Butler and it was determined that he did not regain control before he was out of bounds. I tend to agree with the call but it cannot get much closer. I'd like to watch the play from this screen grab in slow mo.
This fucking league created a can of worms with this pats* team. There's always some domino effect afterwards with every damn call and play. How fucking horrible is it to see Kraft up in that booth all game?
WTF he did not fumble OUT OF THE ENDZONE. Which is what the rule states. He had the ball move hands and hit the pylon with possession and even if he did juggle it there no clear call to turn it over on video
Fumbling requires you to actually lose possession, which never occurred. Obviously. Do we need to go through every carry in the NFL and call it a fumble every time the ball separated from the players body for a fraction of a second? C'mon man.
....the ball is floating in mid air, and not on his hands, and you believe that picture is maintaining possession? #21 punched it free and by the time he had it back it was determined that his shoulder was in the white paint.
Also don't forget to unilke the NFL on facebook and unfollow on Twitter. They bother more about that stuff than complaining fans, less people to advertise to means less revenue for them and their sponsors.
It's no different than a RB bobbling a handoff before controlling the ball and tucking it. Are we going to start calling all those fumbles? How about when a QB mishandles a snap? No. You're making a ridiculous argument. Just like the refs. But it's not a surprise.
Exactly. In what universe would any similar play be called "Player X recovered his own 'fumble' for the touchdown"? Crazy. Nevermind the flag protest issue - THIS is why the NFL viewership has declined. When you have people in the games thread - with the Jets up 14-0 and driving again - saying "I wonder how the officials are going to bail out the Pats this time?" - and then it happens, you know your league has a problem, or at least people perceive a problem.
You can clearly see him catch the ball again and fall inside the pylon Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Those handoffs don't happen in the endzone, so the designation of a fumble wouldn't change ANYTHING. This instance occured outside of the endzone and was concluded out of bounds in the endzone. Why you can't understand why the two scenarios are different and are harping over the designation of a fumble is ridiculous. http://www.footballzebras.com/2017/10/15/quick-calls-week-6-2017/
Meanwhile, the Victoria's Secret salesgirl continues to ask the most inane questions in the Jets locker room.
And what a surprise - go over to NFL.com and the lead story with a massive picture is "Patriots hold on to win"
It's either a fumble or it's not a fumble. Where it occurs on the field and the consequences of it happening are irrelevant. Never in my life have I seen this ruled a fumble. Probably no one has because, well, it's not. But now there are Pats fans that are going to argue to the death that it was a fumble.
On Tues. they will get an E-Mail saying they got the TD wrong and also the call on Adams in the end zone.
