Started By
Message
re: Can we talk about the 1H fumble situation in LSU-Bama?
Posted on 11/9/22 at 12:04 pm to JPLSU1981
Posted on 11/9/22 at 12:04 pm to JPLSU1981
quote:
#1 do you understand the rule?
I spent a lot of time searching the NCAA rulebook and there is no specific rule that addresses this play. The issue of the OOB player touching the unpossessed ball is clear - dead ball.
The issue here is that if Brooks was ruled a runner because when he touched the ball with both hands and no knee on the ground the OOB player does not make him down and he is live.
f Brooks had the ball initially with both hands and knee down the play is dead with LSU posssession if you agree with the Kellan Mond ruling from 2018.
0
Posted on 11/9/22 at 12:24 pm to Bmath
I understand the letter of the rule, but I agree that its "spirit" is unclear. If the purpose of the rule is to prevent someone who is partly out of bounds from possessing a live ball, then why not just have a rule that states a fumble cannot be recovered by a player whose body is partly out of bounds? But the idea that a player who is entirely in bounds cannot recover a fumble just because someone who is partly out of bounds touches the ball before it is definitively possessed makes no sense to me. Why penalize a team for recovering a fumble b/c the fumbler fell or rolled partly out of bounds and then happened to touch the ball when it was still in bounds? I don't get what the rule is trying to prevent, other than a good play by the defense.
Posted on 11/9/22 at 12:26 pm to TiderNAL
The only problem with the play is what could have happened.
Alabama retained possession and finished the half with a fg making the score 7-6 LSU.
Had the ball been awarded to LSU, LSU finishes the half up 7-3, 10-3, or 14-3 (unless there was a pick 6, scoop and score, or some other turnover).
Conceivably Alabama could have achieved the 2 for 1 with possessions to close out the first half and begin the second half, putting LSU in catch up mode.
That rule needs to be cleaned up because the game could have been completely different based on a technicality that honestly, is not a result or intentional strategy of the game.
Don't get me started on the tipped pass in OT.
Alabama retained possession and finished the half with a fg making the score 7-6 LSU.
Had the ball been awarded to LSU, LSU finishes the half up 7-3, 10-3, or 14-3 (unless there was a pick 6, scoop and score, or some other turnover).
Conceivably Alabama could have achieved the 2 for 1 with possessions to close out the first half and begin the second half, putting LSU in catch up mode.
That rule needs to be cleaned up because the game could have been completely different based on a technicality that honestly, is not a result or intentional strategy of the game.
Don't get me started on the tipped pass in OT.
This post was edited on 11/9/22 at 12:27 pm
Posted on 11/9/22 at 12:26 pm to 3down10
look at the DL's fricking finger
Posted on 11/9/22 at 12:32 pm to I-59 Tiger
quote:
You don't honestly think there was a pick on the 2pt play
Did I say that? No. I said I didn't think there was a blatant pick, I said if the refs wanted to fix the game they probably could have called it. My point was if the refs were that biased in Bama's favor, they could have called things which they didn't call. I don't think they deliberately missed the block in the back, either. Refs aren't perfect. They almost never call holding now, except virtually in the case of take downs. All fans think the refs are screwing over their team, it's universal.
Posted on 11/9/22 at 12:47 pm to batture boy
quote:
If the purpose of the rule is to prevent someone who is partly out of bounds from possessing a live ball, then why not just have a rule that states a fumble cannot be recovered by a player whose body is partly out of bounds? But the idea that a player who is entirely in bounds cannot recover a fumble just because someone who is partly out of bounds touches the ball before it is definitively possessed makes no sense to me. Why penalize a team for recovering a fumble b/c the fumbler fell or rolled partly out of bounds and then happened to touch the ball when it was still in bounds? I don't get what the rule is trying to prevent, other than a good play by the defense.
I think most people, if not all, would agree with this.
Posted on 11/9/22 at 1:06 pm to tigernchicago
quote:
look at the DL's fricking finger
The magic finger that bent without deflecting the ball? Could it possibly have bent because he flexed his finger as he stretched reaching for the ball? Just maybe? The magnification and resolution weren't good enough to see the contact. If they were good enough to clearly see (and if he did touch it), the play would have been overturned. As it was, the play just stood as called. If the play had been called a tip on the field, it very well might have held up then, too, since you couldn't see it well enough to tell otherwise. But usually they like to see at least some change in the trajectory of the ball. I can't ever remember a time in many years of watching college football that a tipped ball was called where there was no change in the trajectory of the ball. Can you? Enjoy your win.
Posted on 11/9/22 at 1:09 pm to Tupelo
Flexed his finger? Only one's middle finger flexes backwards when one reaches straight up. The pass grazed it. Plain as day.
Enjoy your L.
Enjoy your L.
Posted on 11/9/22 at 1:19 pm to WylieTiger
My biggest problem with the play is that the call on the field was a fumble recovery (now I understand the ref who made the call on the field likely wasn’t even considering the factor of an out of bounds player touching the ball and its effect on the play; but the call is the call). So to overturn that they had to find conclusive evidence the LSU player did not possess the ball before the out of bounds Alabama player touched it. Considering he had two hands on the ball with a knee down, that seems a difficult conclusion to reach. Same as to whether the LSU player tipped the throw in OT. Replay was not conclusive and the call on the field has to stand.
Posted on 11/9/22 at 1:20 pm to Tupelo
I personally think the ball was barely tipped, but that’s a call that I can live with because it’s REALLY hard to know for certain, and I’m okay with call on field (no tip) standing.
That was a close one.
That was a close one.
This post was edited on 11/9/22 at 1:22 pm
Posted on 11/9/22 at 1:44 pm to WylieTiger
Truthfully, have you ever seen a tipped pass called in a college game where the trajectory of the ball wasn't clearly affected? Because I haven't, and I've watched a lot of games.
Posted on 11/9/22 at 1:48 pm to JPLSU1981
My issue is it allowed continuation after the play was dead. You cant say the bama played swiped it away from the lsu player, it was dead with lsu holding it. The end.
Posted on 11/9/22 at 2:22 pm to lewis and herschel
quote:
My issue is it allowed continuation after the play was dead. You cant say the bama played swiped it away from the lsu player, it was dead with lsu holding it. The end.
That's not what they said, they didn't let the play continue. The ruling was that the out of bounds Bama player touched the ball prior to the LSU player gaining full possession. Just because the LSU player touched the ball with both hands didn't mean that he had control of it. The ball was dead once it was touched by the out of bounds player. Since it was touched by an ineligible player, the ball was dead at that point, and possession remained with the last team that possessed the ball (Alabama).
Posted on 11/9/22 at 2:30 pm to Tupelo
Having both hands on something means you posessess it. The fumbling team should never benefit from this.
Posted on 11/9/22 at 2:57 pm to lewis and herschel
quote:
Having both hands on something means you posessess it. The fumbling team should never benefit from this.
By rule a ball must be “firmly grasped” to he possessed.
But that is irrelevant, because the ruling on the field was that he did not possess it at that time. That happened around 1:20ish left in second.
Ruling was fumble recovered by LSU AT 1:17 left in second quarter.
Posted on 11/9/22 at 3:14 pm to TroyTider
quote:
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.
Reasonable minds can differ on whether he had possession when the Bama player touched the ball, they called it a fumble/recovery on the field. How can you say there is indisputable evidence that the LSU player didn't have possession??
Posted on 11/9/22 at 3:16 pm to LSUgrad88
quote:
So to overturn that they had to find conclusive evidence the LSU player did not possess the ball before the out of bounds Alabama player touched it
You’re mistaken here. What was the COMPLETE call? On the field, it was ruled that: Brooks had established possession of the ball at 1:17 seconds (end of play).
The replay official would need clear evidence that Brooks had possessed it earlier to overturn the officials. Since the ball is batted and it wasn’t the rule on the field, replay appropriately thinks there is plausible evidence that it may have not been firmly in Brooks grasp until 1:17 as ruled on the field.
Posted on 11/9/22 at 3:19 pm to Mac
quote:
How can you say there is indisputable evidence that the LSU player didn't have possession??
As I just stated in response to another post. On the field, it was ruled that: Brooks had established possession of the ball at 1:17 seconds (end of play).
So you’re looking at it wrong. The replay official would be required to find indisputable evidence that it was clearly possessed prior to being hit since that was not the ruling on the field.
Posted on 11/9/22 at 3:28 pm to JPLSU1981
It wasn’t a miss call, that rule doesn’t apply to the play and it isn’t even why they reviewed it initially. The league office cheated for Alabama again but not even the refs could save them Saturday.
This post was edited on 11/9/22 at 3:31 pm
Posted on 11/9/22 at 3:34 pm to lewis and herschel
quote:
Having both hands on something means you posessess it. The fumbling team should never benefit from this.
Apparently not, since the TV Officiating Expert immediately called what the ruling was going to be, then the Replay Officials independently came to the same conclusion. Just having two hands on the ball doesn't mean possession,does a receiver possess the ball as soon as both hands touch it, or does he have to "make a football move" as they always say?
This post was edited on 11/9/22 at 3:42 pm
Page 5 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News