Started By
Message
Can we talk about the 1H fumble situation in LSU-Bama?
Posted on 11/8/22 at 11:06 am
Posted on 11/8/22 at 11:06 am
#1 do you understand the rule?
#2 how do we correct/amend the rule?
(It obviously didn’t affect the outcome of the game as LSU won anyway, but I’m curious what everyone’s thoughts on the rule and how we fix it)
#2 how do we correct/amend the rule?
(It obviously didn’t affect the outcome of the game as LSU won anyway, but I’m curious what everyone’s thoughts on the rule and how we fix it)
This post was edited on 11/8/22 at 11:18 am
26
Posted on 11/8/22 at 11:13 am to JPLSU1981
Well, you shouldn't be saved from a fumble because you touched the ball while half your body is out of bounds.
Posted on 11/8/22 at 11:14 am to JPLSU1981
If a player is out of bounds he is ineligible to touch the ball until he completely enters the field of play.
Posted on 11/8/22 at 11:15 am to JPLSU1981
I don’t honestly understand the spirit of the rule.
Posted on 11/8/22 at 11:17 am to JPLSU1981
LSU player already had possession of the ball, so the out of bounds portion of it should never have come into play.
Posted on 11/8/22 at 11:18 am to JPLSU1981
I’m mad about it but I’ve also watched football for 30 years and never seen it happen. The concept of possession is probably the key point here. Knee down, two hands on the ball, ball punched from hands after. Seems like there’s a point where anything after should be moot.
I guess what I’m saying is maybe the rule doesn’t need to change but the interpretation of possession in that instance does?
Whatever. LSU won. I’m over it.
I guess what I’m saying is maybe the rule doesn’t need to change but the interpretation of possession in that instance does?
Whatever. LSU won. I’m over it.
Posted on 11/8/22 at 11:21 am to JPLSU1981
Am I right in thinking the main issue is in defining the parameters of the ball between fumble and recovery. It seems as though there is an assumption of retained possession by the ball carrier until a full recovery is made. Perhaps there should be a “no man’s land” of sorts while the ball is free. Would that allow the Bama player, in this instance, to have no bearing on the LSU recovery, as his touching was essentially moot?
Posted on 11/8/22 at 11:34 am to JPLSU1981
The rule itself is simple, if someone who is out of bounds touches the ball the play is dead.
Watching the replay frame by frame it looks like 81’s hand first makes contact w ball simultaneously with 3’s knee touching ground, so this is the REC going w the old tie goes to the offense philosophy.
And there’s really nothing to fix, if you’re out of bounds and touch the ball, play over. One option would be ball goes back to original line of scrimmage and any gain wiped out d/t illegal touching.
Watching the replay frame by frame it looks like 81’s hand first makes contact w ball simultaneously with 3’s knee touching ground, so this is the REC going w the old tie goes to the offense philosophy.
And there’s really nothing to fix, if you’re out of bounds and touch the ball, play over. One option would be ball goes back to original line of scrimmage and any gain wiped out d/t illegal touching.
This post was edited on 11/8/22 at 11:36 am
Posted on 11/8/22 at 12:52 pm to JPLSU1981
I don't care if it was technically correct according to the rule, but it was bullcrap. LSU should've had the ball.
Posted on 11/8/22 at 12:54 pm to JPLSU1981
Same thing happened against SC and vandy a few years ago...
2014 USC at Vanderbilt - Pharoh Cooper 16 Yd Reception and Fumble
2014 USC at Vanderbilt - Pharoh Cooper 16 Yd Reception and Fumble
Posted on 11/8/22 at 12:57 pm to JPLSU1981
1 - I sure didn’t understand it at the time. After it was really well explained so it was the correct result per the rule.
2 - I don’t know how to change it. I really hate the rule as it played out. Should have been LSU ball
2 - I don’t know how to change it. I really hate the rule as it played out. Should have been LSU ball
Posted on 11/8/22 at 1:15 pm to JPLSU1981
quote:
#1 do you understand the rule?
I do. 99% of LSU fans do not. Highlighted by the fact your fan base has been dumb enough to try and use still pictures as proof of possessions.
quote:
#2 how do we correct/amend the rule?
There is nothing to fix. This rule has been around since before any of us were born. It's always been this way, it always will be.
If the ball touches anything out of bounds, the ball is out of bounds. It's really that simple.
You can say it was incredible luck for Alabama, and it was. Because Latu had no clue what he was doing, he was just going for the ball.
Posted on 11/8/22 at 1:18 pm to JPLSU1981
1) I understand that there isn’t a rule which adequately addresses that specific scenario.
2) If the WR is deemed OB and ineligible to receive a pass, maybe he shouldn’t be allowed to impact the play. That ineligible player touching the ball was deemed more significant than the fumble or the recovery. It easily could have impacted the game especially considering that it resulted in a 1st down.
And FWIW, I think the ref made the correct call according to the rule that he applied.
2) If the WR is deemed OB and ineligible to receive a pass, maybe he shouldn’t be allowed to impact the play. That ineligible player touching the ball was deemed more significant than the fumble or the recovery. It easily could have impacted the game especially considering that it resulted in a 1st down.
And FWIW, I think the ref made the correct call according to the rule that he applied.
Posted on 11/8/22 at 1:24 pm to JPLSU1981
I think it would be the perfect time for the NCAA rules committee to review and comment. Because the call did not impact the outcome there will not be undue pressure on them for a given result.
Posted on 11/8/22 at 2:54 pm to JPLSU1981
Posted on 11/8/22 at 3:00 pm to JPLSU1981
quote:
#1 do you understand the rule?
yes
quote:
#2 how do we correct/amend the rule?
penalty for touching the ball while out of bounds? or make it that if the ball was clearly going to be recovered by opposing team they get possession.
I think another fumble rule that is stupid is when the offense fumbles through the endzone and defense gets the ball at the 20...when you combine that with this rule it really makes no sense
Posted on 11/8/22 at 3:27 pm to JPLSU1981
This scenario appears in one of this High IQ sports videos..not saying that is Latu was doing it intentionally... But in the video the player on a kickoff moves out of bounds as the ball travels down the sideline..now out of bounds player touched ball making ball out of bounds and a penalty for kicking ball out of bounds
Silly rule but I presume it was due to cover something...I actually called that play as it happened for Latu...I saw that High IQ vid the week before
Silly rule but I presume it was due to cover something...I actually called that play as it happened for Latu...I saw that High IQ vid the week before
Posted on 11/8/22 at 4:12 pm to JPLSU1981
There is one truth in this BS scenario … if it were Bama recovering the ball the interpretation would have flipped
Kelly shut them up with that 2pt magic
F SEC Officials
Kelly shut them up with that 2pt magic
F SEC Officials
Posted on 11/8/22 at 4:53 pm to JPLSU1981
Will never happen again no worries
Posted on 11/8/22 at 5:30 pm to JPLSU1981
I do not care about the rule. I knew the rule beforehand. I want it explained how he had evidence to overturn the call on the field. Only way you get 100% confirmation on anything I seen is all people favoring one team. Sometimes we try to get too perfect with review. If it is not obvious it stands. Neutral parties should not even be able to dispute the evidence.
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News