Started By
Message
re: Inbounds rule question. If JJ touched the ball while
Posted on 11/9/09 at 4:57 pm to JPLSU1981
Posted on 11/9/09 at 4:57 pm to JPLSU1981
quote:
1. Julio didn't touch the ball.
I think he did. It wasn't crystal clear, but it appeared like he did, and is one reason why there possibly wasn't enough evidence to overturn the call. I stand by my assertion that if it was called a INT on the field it should have stayed a INT, but since it wasn't, it should have stayed an incompletion.
quote:
2. Even IF Julio DID touch it, it's illegal touching and a 5-yard penalty on Alabama because he didn't re-establish himself on the playing field before touching the ball.
What?
Besides the fact that that's wrong (it's simply a loss of down at the LOS, so the same as an incompletion), he was touching the ball as his right foot landed out of bounds. He wasn't out of bounds then came back in, he just was touching the ball then went out of bounds.
This post was edited on 11/9/09 at 5:00 pm
0
Posted on 11/9/09 at 5:06 pm to JPLSU1981
quote:
Even IF Julio DID touch it, it's illegal touching and a 5-yard penalty on Alabama because he didn't re-establish himself on the playing field before touching the ball. That is a penalty.
Wrong; but I'm not surprised. It's LOD from the previous spot, not a 5 yard penalty.
If a pass receiver voluntarily[/b] goes OOB, he cannot be the first player to touch a legal forward pass.
On the other topic, if the ball touches a player who is OOB, the ball is dead. Example: fumble at the sidelines and a player attempts to recover the ball while his feet are OOB. Not a recovery and the ball is dead at that spot.
Posted on 11/9/09 at 5:47 pm to JPLSU1981
No it's not illegal touching, not even close. Unless you are going to say that any reciever who touches a ball while attempting to catch a pass and steps out of bounds is illegal touching. It was done at the same time. His foot lands out of bounds when he touches the ball. The illegal touching agruement is weak.
Posted on 11/9/09 at 5:55 pm to spacewrangler
quote:
The illegal touching agruement is weak.
Personally, I think the "Julio touched it" is pretty weak.
Nonetheless, It is - in fact - illegal touching if he touched the ball first, simple as that. There's no defense to that, it is what it is. An offensive player who is out of bounds cannot be the first person to touch the ball without re-establishing himself in bounds. Every referee knows this.
Let me simplify it for you guys ... Julio was either out of bounds, or he was in bounds. By rule, it HAS to be one of the two as there is no other option. If he was in bounds, then the "julio touched it" is irrelevant (for obvious reasons). If he was out of bounds and touched it, then it is illegal touching. So you tell me ... was he out of bounds, or in bounds, because you can't have it both ways?
There's nothing to argue here. It was a bad call, and everyone knows it.
This post was edited on 11/9/09 at 6:09 pm
Posted on 11/9/09 at 6:19 pm to JPLSU1981
quote:
Nonetheless, It is - in fact - illegal touching if he touched the ball first, simple as that. There's no defense to that, it is what it is. An offensive player who is out of bounds cannot be the first person to touch the ball without re-establishing himself in bounds. Every referee knows this.
Why do you continue to argue this point?
THere was nothing close to "illegal touching" on the play. As Julio is going out of bounds he can try to make a play without danger of a penalty.
THe only way your argument holds water would be if Julio had gone out of bounds and then came back to try and make a play, which that didn't happen.
You need to simplify things for yourself first.
Posted on 11/9/09 at 6:20 pm to SECFan413
So are you saying that Julio Jones was in bounds and making a legal play on the ball? Because if so, that's the whole point ... this whole conversation about "did julio touch the ball" is silly and irrelevant.
It was a bad call, and there's no other way to slice it. Grasping for crap like this to defend it is pointless.
It was a bad call, and there's no other way to slice it. Grasping for crap like this to defend it is pointless.
This post was edited on 11/9/09 at 6:22 pm
Posted on 11/9/09 at 6:23 pm to JPLSU1981
quote:
So are you saying that Julio Jones was in bounds and making a legal play on the ball?
I dont know if he touched it or not, but if he touched it while out of bounds he in no way broke any rules.
He would've had to come back in the field of play and touched the ball for there to be in penalty.
Posted on 11/9/09 at 6:37 pm to SECFan413
That is, indeed, what a few Alabama fans are saying... that an "out of bounds" Julio touched the ball, therefore making it a dead ball. He was either out of bounds, or he wasn't. And if he wasn't, then this whole "Julio touched the ball" thing is irrelevant. Which is my point.
I'm not making an argument either way that he was in bounds or out of bounds, because it obviously does not matter. But if he was in fact out of bounds - like the Alabama fans are saying - hence making it a supposed dead ball, then that is, by rule, illegal touching.
quote:
Eligibility Lost by Going Out of Bounds
ARTICLE 4. No eligible offensive receiver who goes out of bounds during a
down shall touch a legal forward pass in the field of play or end zones or while
airborne until it has been touched by an opponent or official (A.R. 7-3-4-I-III).
[Exception: This does not apply to an eligible offensive player who attempts
to return inbounds immediately after going out of bounds due to contact by an
opponent (A.R. 7-3-4-IV)].
I'm not making an argument either way that he was in bounds or out of bounds, because it obviously does not matter. But if he was in fact out of bounds - like the Alabama fans are saying - hence making it a supposed dead ball, then that is, by rule, illegal touching.
This post was edited on 11/9/09 at 6:44 pm
Posted on 11/9/09 at 6:39 pm to JPLSU1981
quote:
An offensive player who is out of bounds cannot be the first person to touch the ball without re-establishing himself in bounds. Every referee knows this.
People are mixing two scenarios:
A receiver who voluntarily goes OOB, returns to the field, and is the first to touch a legal forward pass commits an illegal touching foul. The only way he can "re-establish himself" is if a defender touches the ball. The OM/AL play a couple of years ago is a prime example.
If the receiver, or any other player, is OOB and touches a loose ball, the ball becomes dead.
Posted on 11/9/09 at 7:03 pm to el tigre
quote:
If Jones touched it first, maybe but i'm not sure. But he didn't touch it first, if he ever touched it at all.
He doesn't have to touch it first, he just has to touch if before peterson has possession. You don't gain possession as soon as the ball touches your hands. If that was the case, every ball batted out of the hands of a receiver would be a fumble.
Posted on 11/9/09 at 7:27 pm to Teague
quote:
You don't gain possession as soon as the ball touches your hands. If that was the case, every ball batted out of the hands of a receiver would be a fumble.
You are so right.
One of the most difficult concepts for fans to grasp is the fact a receiver is not a runner.
Posted on 11/9/09 at 8:02 pm to JPLSU1981
You are wrong. the penalty applies if a player runs out of bounds and is the first person to touch the ball after he establishes himself inbounds. If he is established as out of bounds and touches an uncontrolled pass the play is considered incomplete pass. Because a player is out of bounds and makes a touch it is not a penalty. Just as a player trying to recover a fumble while he is out of bounds does not get a penalty. He does not get the recovery either it is simply a dead ball.
Posted on 11/9/09 at 8:49 pm to wertyders
This is the rule. Sorry you guys don't like it, but it is nonetheless the rule. So if you continue to argue that he was out of bounds, touched the ball, and the ball is dead, then you are in affect arguing that is was an illegal touch. The rule is not ambiguous. It's very clear.
quote:
Eligibility Lost by Going Out of Bounds
ARTICLE 4. No eligible offensive receiver who goes out of bounds during a
down shall touch a legal forward pass in the field of play or end zones or while
airborne until it has been touched by an opponent or official (A.R. 7-3-4-I-III).
[Exception: This does not apply to an eligible offensive player who attempts
to return inbounds immediately after going out of bounds due to contact by an
opponent (A.R. 7-3-4-IV)].
This post was edited on 11/9/09 at 8:52 pm
Posted on 11/9/09 at 8:52 pm to JPLSU1981
quote:
JPLSU1981
quote:
This is the rule. Sorry you guys don't like it, but it is nonetheless the rule. So if you continue to argue that he was out of bounds, touched the ball, and the ball is dead, then you are in affect arguing that is was an illegal touch. The rule is not ambiguous. It's very clear.
:fig:Posted on 11/9/09 at 8:58 pm to Charles Bronson
I'm not really sure what these idiots are trying to argue. It's pretty clear-cut. They're just arguing for the sake of arguing, or they're simply confused, which is quite possibly true.
Julio out of bounds = can't touch the ball, illegal touch by rule.
Julio in bounds = doesn't matter, it's just a regular play ... INT stands
This is not rocket science, guys.
This post was edited on 11/9/09 at 9:10 pm
Posted on 11/9/09 at 9:05 pm to Charles Bronson
1. They would have to say this is the reason.
2. The guys on the field were thinking about this as they had no fricking clue what happened. So the fact they upheld the ruling on the field because of insufficient evidence is stupid since the guys on the field didn't know to begin with.
2. The guys on the field were thinking about this as they had no fricking clue what happened. So the fact they upheld the ruling on the field because of insufficient evidence is stupid since the guys on the field didn't know to begin with.
Page 2 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News