Started By
Message
2
Posted on 11/3/14 at 8:00 am to TheNorthPlace
I heard a whistle blow about half a second after the ball was punched out. Would that even have negated the fumble since it was blown afterwards?
Posted on 11/3/14 at 8:16 am to OBReb6
quote:
I heard a whistle blow about half a second after the ball was punched out. Would that even have negated the fumble since it was blown afterwards?
Rule is if a fumble occurs and an immediate reaction and recovery follows it does not matter. Happened in the UGA game when Chubb fumbled and they went into it at length.
Basically, if the play doesn't respond to/stop for the whistle in the split second and immediate and clearcut recovery is made by a team, fumble is still a viable outcome
Posted on 11/3/14 at 8:22 am to TheNorthPlace
quote:
You just said it would have been forth and inches, on a 2nd and 1 play?
I had to look it up and I was wrong first time I posted. I wouldn't have brought that up since it supports my argument that he was making a play with high risk (and reward) when he could have held it on a broken should ahve been sack play and gotten 3rd + 4th and short opportunities.
quote:
Whistle blew anyway
As my earlier post points out, whistle blowing does not affect that play (which I don't remember but I'll take you at your word anyways)
Only reason I am playing some devil's advocate here is because I hate when my teams play the "other etam got lucky" or "refs stole the game" card. In the MSU vs AU game there sure was some questionable calls which absolutely killed momentum when down 7 making a comeback. Doesn't change the fact that we coughed up two turnovers, couldn't find consistency when our D made stops and clearly lost the game. We lost that game, no one else.
Posted on 11/3/14 at 10:35 am to GenesChin
Yeah and you're ugly
Posted on 11/3/14 at 10:42 am to GenesChin
quote:
whistle blowing does not affect that play
You obviously don't watch enough football
Posted on 11/3/14 at 10:45 am to DMagic
#hottake
Posted on 11/3/14 at 10:49 am to OMReb21
The whistle being blown on that particular play did not cause any players to affect play and immediate fumble and recover were not caused by fumble. As mentioned earlier, the rule on this is for situations like the Chub fumble in UGA game which was a clear fumble and despite being ruled down by ref. UFs reaction to fumble and immediate recovery allowed Booth to overturn down by contact.
Considering Wallace was reaching for the 1st and now down by contact hard to argue forward progress.
Y'all fought a hell of a game and I'm not wxicited to deal with this OM team next year even at home.
Considering Wallace was reaching for the 1st and now down by contact hard to argue forward progress.
Y'all fought a hell of a game and I'm not wxicited to deal with this OM team next year even at home.
Posted on 11/3/14 at 10:51 am to Rebelgator
My hot take from Saturday
Posted on 11/3/14 at 11:13 am to DMagic
Too hot
Posted on 11/3/14 at 11:16 am to GenesChin
I still thought that it was forward progress. Not sure if the whistle was blown or not, but I thought the play should have been stopped before that. It was a great game between two good teams, just sad that it had to end in THAT manner.
Posted on 11/3/14 at 2:36 pm to OMReb21
quote:
I still thought that it was forward progress
I have been trying to figure out the reasoning on why OM fans think this now for awhile. Not as a flame but just curiosity since from where AU fans sit, it seems clearcut
What part of the following is incorrect
Facts as AU fans see it
--Bo Wallace hit and wrapped up by ankles
--Bo Wallace falls forward and lands initially on player
-- Bo Wallace as he lands on player shows to try and reach for 1st down marker in which ball is dislodged
When I view the clip (provided below as a gif) I see Bo Wallace twisting down (and forward) to the ground and in this process reaching for a 1st down. During that reach, the ball was almost immediately dislodged, before he was even close to finish falling (which again was forward).
If Bo had reached and been given a 1st down, I wouldn't even think to argue forward progress as he clearly would be going forward. Bo was making a forward move by reaching, he was on top of a player and still seemingly falling forward.
What part do i have wrong on that?
This post was edited on 11/3/14 at 2:37 pm
Posted on 11/3/14 at 2:38 pm to GenesChin
As I mentioned earlier, 9/10 times a guy reaches he doesn't lose the ball. This is the 1/10 times the opposing player is where he is supposed to be and able to make a play on the ball. Just trying to understand how ya'll see this play from your perspective
Posted on 11/3/14 at 2:49 pm to HamzooReb
quote:Please do. I wanna go to Atlanta.
I think we win out.
Posted on 11/3/14 at 2:54 pm to GenesChin
Both were 100% fumbles. Forward progress should not have been called.
Just can't believe the way we lost.
Just can't believe the way we lost.
Posted on 11/3/14 at 3:09 pm to SouthMSReb
quote:
Just can't believe the way we lost.
Definitely is a tough loss. I hated winning in the fashion. Not fun to win because a kid fumbled due to injury not a play on the ball. At the bar a group of people were actively discussing how we almost wanted it to called a TD because we didn't want to win that way. Take our chance with 2 minutes & 3 TO over seeing a kid get injured like that any day. Even if it would potentially mean a loss
Page 2 of 2
Latest Ole Miss News
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News