re: Can we talk about the 1H fumble situation in LSU-Bama?

Same thing happened against SC and vandy a few years ago...

2014 USC at Vanderbilt - Pharoh Cooper 16 Yd Reception and Fumble

I said no way that would be overturned. Shocked.

quote:

---

The S.C.player clearly touched the ball before it was recovered.

---

I am as neutral as the come with regards to LSU/Bama, if anything I'd say I lean towards LSU (and was pulling for LSU in the game). With unbiased eyes, the LSU player never fully possesses the ball until after it was touched by the Alabama player. Therefore, the two calls are essentially identical.

quote:

---

The problem we have is the SEC has set precedent of what "possession" looks like, and it was NOT followed in this case.

---

No, the problem is Mond should have never been given credit for possession of the ball. All of these threads complaining about THIS call are really still just complaining about THAT call 4 years ago.

I mean I get the frustration, but you guys won.

None of this possession talk addresses the critical question. It was called a fumble and recovery on the field. At that moment possession was established by the refs. Was there indisputable video evidence to overturn that initial call? Does anyone think there was?

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.

Yes

quote:

---

I say Brooks possessed the ball just prior to Latu knocking it out of his hand

---

Fair enough.

I think to the original point of the thread, we've reached the correct understanding of the rule, it just comes down to who was in possession of the ball when the out-of-bounds touch occurred.

The way I understand it, if the LSU player did in fact maintain possession long enough (as you state), it should have been LSU's ball — the touching of it by Latu simply ended the play.

quote:

---

This is the biggest issue. Not enough evidence to overturn the call when a player is already down and has two hands on the ball and would have kept possession of it if not for the Bama player swiping it out.

---

But using your own words above, one would have to conclude that the play was called correctly. The only thing that is in dispute here is possession, the sequence of events after that is really straightforward with Bama player touching it while out of bounds. You admit here that Bama knocked it lose before LSU could establish possession. LSU fans screaming that it was clear possession are either hopelessly brainwashed or simply don't understand the basic rules of establishing possession. It's simply the exception, not the rule, where you see the instance of two hands touching a ball for a split second before ball is jarred lose by an opposing player getting ruled a possession. Now, people who want to focus on whether it was indisputable proof of non-possession by LSU, that's a legitimate point and really the crux of the issue.

All that said, while I think it's fairly clear it was called correctly as the rules are written, I absolutely hate that play being overturned. Really, this becomes more of a philosophical question than anything and how we define 'indisputable proof.' In my fairly old school eyes on such matters, LSU 'did enough' to get the turnover. I absolutely hate critical plays getting turned over by a team of nerds starring at screens in dark rooms with a dozen angles and speeds. I support a complete overhaul of the definition of 'indisputable proof.' Like, if it can't be overturned by the on-field ref quickly watching 2 or 3 clips shown in real speed, the ruling on the field should stand.