It's not tough to make if the rule is he has to regain control and maintain it through the ground in bounds. I didn't know that was the rule, so I was surprised at the overturn. I thought if ASJ resecured the ball that was enough, didn't know that he now had to land in bounds and, like a catch, survive the ground. As Corrente explained the rule I think It was a reasonably straightforward overturn. Maybe he has the rule wrong.
This is easier than you're making it. Here is a simple, and true, statement, which I've found has been the best way to discuss this in the office this morning: "
ASJ NEVER HAD POSSESSION IN THE END ZONE".
He had plenty of possession
before the end zone (so it can't be an incompletion). He had possession
just as he was about to reach the end zone. But once his body crossed the goal line, as he scrambled to re-clutch the ball, his body fell out of bounds. When he finally did get possession, he was out of bounds.
After his fumble, he needed to re-establish possession. That possession requires that he both secure the ball and land in bounds, and the reasons for the latter should be obvious if you consider how catches on the sideline work, or catches in the endzone. And he
never had that possession while in the end zone.
Based on all this discussion, can you guys believe we put people in cages based on eye witness testimony? That's my societal takeaway.
This right here is why you're a great poster.
People have gone overboard in saying this is not a judgment call it is about the rule, or in saying it is obvious what the play was. Pereira and Blandino (plus essentially every color analyst on TV) felt there was ambiguity about what occurred. And, many also think the rules sucks. But those are distinct things.
The Tuck Rule play is one that, a day later, there was very little factual debate about what occurred, but a great deal about whether the rule sucks.
Your retelling of the play, through Pereira and Blandino's discussions, clearly ignores the second bobble. If they didn't look at it long enough to see the second bobble, I'm not going to credit their interpretation of the rules against the facts of the play.
Color analysts are not exactly known for having technocratic levels of clarity on the nuances of the rules (sorry
@ConigliarosPotential ). "The crowd" is not always wise. I'm not sure why you're making an argument of "well there were lots of people who felt differently!" when the frame-by-frame replays are obvious and are posted in this exact thread. We're not low-information people giving a hot take. We can get to a right answer here.