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 chity
quote:
If a player is out of bounds he is ineligible to touch the ball until he completely enters the field of play
What would the punishment be if he touches it anyway? Immediately turned over to other team? Loss of down? 15 yards? Ejection?
I personally think that it should be ruled that if a player who is out of bounds touches a live ball without first re-establishing himself in bounds, the ball is immediately turned over to the opposing team.
I also feel like someone who is out of bounds and re-establishes cannot be the first person to touch the ball.
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 11:22 am to TFS4E
quote:
I’ve also watched football for 30 years and never seen it happen
Here you go:
Packers Ty Montgomery makes a slick ST play (YouTube)
Posted on 11/8/22 at 11:23 am to TFS4E
Ha, beat me to it
Posted on 11/8/22 at 11:26 am to paperwasp
Ok, I stand corrected. I saw it once before ( 
) because I remember that. Still think that was shitty, too. Should be out of bounds where he touched it in that case.
Again, it seems like a concept/interpretation of possession problem. The player possessed the ball (on the kickoff) out of bounds. He chose to do that and shouldn’t have been rewarded IMO.
) because I remember that. Still think that was shitty, too. Should be out of bounds where he touched it in that case. Again, it seems like a concept/interpretation of possession problem. The player possessed the ball (on the kickoff) out of bounds. He chose to do that and shouldn’t have been rewarded IMO.
Posted on 11/8/22 at 11:32 am to TFS4E
I agree, it's a weird rule, and it seems to come down to a special case of changing and maintaining possession.
I think in this case if LSU had actually possessed the ball on the fumble, it would've then been LSU's ball, down at that spot.
Since possession did not change, it was the same result but remained Alabama's ball.
quote:
A player with one foot out of bounds behind a goal line touches a loose ball in the field of play.
RULING: Ball is out of bounds and dead at its most forward point in the field of play. If this loose ball was an untouched free kick, it is a free kick out of bounds and a foul.
I think in this case if LSU had actually possessed the ball on the fumble, it would've then been LSU's ball, down at that spot.
Since possession did not change, it was the same result but remained Alabama's ball.
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 11:40 am to ukraine_rebel
quote:
The rule itself is simple, if someone who is out of bounds touches the ball the play is dead.
Correct.
quote:
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.
I haven't seen it since the game, but IIRC, the LSU player never maintained possession, so it was still Alabama's ball when the play was ruled dead.
Similar to completing a catch, you have to "complete a change of possession." (You can't just fumble around with a loose ball and say it was yours because a knee was down — you have to maintain it.)
Posted on 11/8/22 at 11:42 am to paperwasp
Yeah, and that’s where biases come in. As an LSU fan, I say Brooks possessed the ball just prior to Latu(?) knocking it out of his hand. But I can certainly point to other instances where someone grabs the ball rolls over and it pops out again not being called “possession”. So, we will probably never agree on that.
I’ve seen a lot of “firm possession” or “firm grasp” (can’t remember the exact wording) discussion. A lot of people point to Latu(?) knocking it out as evidence of Brooks not having firm grasp. My counter to that is if I stand in front of you (or kneel) with the ball in both hands outstretched in front of me then let you swing to knock it out of my hands, did I not possess the ball prior to that action because I dropped it?
Maybe that’s a flimsy reasoning? Again, we both have biases here so it’s hard to come to an agreement.
I’ve seen a lot of “firm possession” or “firm grasp” (can’t remember the exact wording) discussion. A lot of people point to Latu(?) knocking it out as evidence of Brooks not having firm grasp. My counter to that is if I stand in front of you (or kneel) with the ball in both hands outstretched in front of me then let you swing to knock it out of my hands, did I not possess the ball prior to that action because I dropped it?
Maybe that’s a flimsy reasoning? Again, we both have biases here so it’s hard to come to an agreement.
Posted on 11/8/22 at 11:43 am to Damone
If the officials thought LSU really had possession prior to the oob touch, they would have awarded to LSU. No single frame photo would show different either. Was what it was.
Posted on 11/8/22 at 11:44 am to ukraine_rebel
The rule is fine. Out of bounds player touches the ball and the play is dead. That was not the problem. The problem is the LSU player had possession. LSU possession, out of bounds player touches the ball, play is dead, LSU ball. The announcers did not talk too much on possession, most of it was concerning if oob player touched the ball. The offical never commented on possession. This is why Kelly went for 2 and said he did npt want to leave the decision in someone elses' hand. He sent a message and I hope we get better officiating in the future.
Posted on 11/8/22 at 11:46 am to paperwasp
quote:
I haven't seen it since the game, but IIRC, the LSU player never maintained possession, so it was still Alabama's ball when the play was ruled dead
If the initial call on the field was a fumble recovery for LSU doesn’t LSU, by definition, have possession? Was there really indisputable evidence to overturn that initial call? Don’t think so.
Posted on 11/8/22 at 12:03 pm to TroyTider
Except that on the field it WAS ruled a fumble and LSU recovery. So to some other's point, there needed to be indisputable evidence that LSU did not "fully possess" the ball prior to AL's touch. So some people, myself included, now understand the letter of the rule; but, my opinion is that we did indeed have "full possession" and it should have been LSU ball.
This post was edited on 11/8/22 at 12:05 pm
Posted on 11/8/22 at 12:11 pm to TFS4E
I think we all agree:
1. It was a weird play
2. It was an highly uncommon ruling
3. No one is likely going to look at it with unbiased eyes
1. It was a weird play
2. It was an highly uncommon ruling
3. No one is likely going to look at it with unbiased eyes
Page 1 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News