re: The 4th down overturn for Bowers. Right call?

It was definitely an impressive play. However the forward progress stops when the ball leaves the field of play. It is next to impossible to determine exactly at what point that happened. Definitely not enough to overturn the call on the field.
Out of Bounds at Forward Point
ARTICLE 4. a. If a live ball is declared out of bounds and the ball does not
cross a boundary line, it is out of bounds at the ball’s most forward point when
it was declared dead (A.R. 4-2-4-I) (Exception: Rule 8-5-1-a, A.R. 8-5-1-I).

d. The most forward point of the ball when declared out of bounds between
the goal lines is the point of forward progress. (A.R. 8-2-1-I and A.R.
8-5-1-VII) (Exception: When a ball carrier is airborne as they cross the
sideline (including a striding runner), forward progress is determined by
the position of the ball as it crosses the sideline (A.R. 8-2-1-II-III and
V-IX).

The situation is for all intents and purposes is a striding runner, the hand planted does not mean he wasn't airborne.

Had the call on the field gone the other direction, I would sadly say the same. not enough evidence to overturn.

I understand your logic, but it isn't the same. This is determining the point of forward progress when going out of bounds. I posted the rules that specifically addresses the situation above.

Who Cares?

SEC! SEC! SEC!

Ya gotta know the rules. Thankfully, the refs did, which isn't always a given.

quote:

---

Honestly don't think so. Never saw the ball cross the line.

---

Which rules specifically? I am the only person quoting the rules.. Rule 4-2-4-d says forward progress ended when the ball crossed the sideline.

quote:

---

It is the d section that applies. I just added the a section for context... It's NCAA Rule 4-2-4-d

The specific sentence is:

(Exception: When a ball carrier is airborne as they cross the
sideline (including a striding runner), forward progress is determined by
the position of the ball as it crosses the sideline

---

Nope. I still don't see it.
Where in the rule book does it say a player with contact in bounds is out of bounds. You haven't shown that in the rules.

Every definition of contact in bounds is used to qualify a catch, fumble recovery, etc..

Keep trying.

That rule is about determining forward progress, not when the play is dead. (Though they really are the same thing at that point) How am I quoting the wrong rule? What rule do you think is more pertinent?

In my mind, it all comes down to the definition of airborne. I am pretty sure that if it was not for arguing against this rule, we would all agree he was airborne. So it comes down to is there a technical definition of when a player is airborne. Had it not been for the addition if saying a striding runner (presumably with their back foot still on the ground inbound) is included, then I would lean towards technically he wasn't airborne. But in this example, I don't see a difference between a hand and a foot with the rest of the body in the air out of bounds.

Remember that this rule is specific to determining forward progress for someone that is going out of bounds. The only argument that can be made is if he was airborne or not. Everything else is black and white. I can see both sides to airborne or not as well. The definition of airborne says not in contact with the ground but they also said this includes a striding runner. The intent seems to be that when someone is irreversibly going out of bounds, the forward progress stops when the ball crosses the sideline, not when they touch OB.

Yes