- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Trying more to understand this fumble non recovery
Posted on 11/6/22 at 6:28 am
Posted on 11/6/22 at 6:28 am
The receiving rule
So why can a receiver who caught a ball in bounds fumbled went out of bounds not have to re establish himself inbounds before being able to obtain possession or even touch ball. This is literally the dumbest rule I think I’ve ever seen with this fumble
quote:
any receiver who has by any means gone out of bounds may not catch, or be the first to touch, any pass. Re-establishing himself in bounds makes the pass complete, but his touching of the pass remains illegal.
So why can a receiver who caught a ball in bounds fumbled went out of bounds not have to re establish himself inbounds before being able to obtain possession or even touch ball. This is literally the dumbest rule I think I’ve ever seen with this fumble
This post was edited on 11/6/22 at 6:29 am
32
Posted on 11/6/22 at 6:30 am to burke985
That rule needs to be addressed immediately. There’s absolutely no reason LSU shouldn’t have gotten the ball there.
Posted on 11/6/22 at 6:31 am to burke985
It’s an illegal touch, therefore it’s a dead ball. If he would’ve reestabished himself then it would’ve been a legal touch
Posted on 11/6/22 at 6:33 am to burke985
Compare last night’s play and the Kellen Mond play and tell me there isn’t intentional ambiguity in the rulebook to control outcomes.
One hand on top of the ball for a split second versus 2 hands on either side of the ball for a touch longer than a split second.
One hand on top of the ball for a split second versus 2 hands on either side of the ball for a touch longer than a split second.
Posted on 11/6/22 at 6:33 am to burke985
And the LSU players touched the ball first and to me already had possession with a knee down.
Posted on 11/6/22 at 6:38 am to burke985
Geezus, man, the rule you cite has absolutely nothing to do with the play.
This is simple AF, and the replay refs made a great call. When a player is out of bounds, he is part of the sidelines, and when a live ball touches the sidelines the play is over.
Was that a live ball? YES
Was the Bama player part of the sidelines by reason of being in contact with it? YES
Did that live ball touch the sidelines? YES
The play is over.
Should that be the rule? I think so. I didn’t realize it was the rule, but it makes sense.
This is simple AF, and the replay refs made a great call. When a player is out of bounds, he is part of the sidelines, and when a live ball touches the sidelines the play is over.
Was that a live ball? YES
Was the Bama player part of the sidelines by reason of being in contact with it? YES
Did that live ball touch the sidelines? YES
The play is over.
Should that be the rule? I think so. I didn’t realize it was the rule, but it makes sense.
Posted on 11/6/22 at 6:49 am to burke985
The rule, in context of the situation that occurred last night, is a textbook example of tautology.
What this rule is saying (AGAIN, in the instance illustrated last night) is that a player who is clearly out of bounds may -and can- affect the play of players who remain inbounds in such a way as to win the advantage for the out of bounds player.
What the frick is the point of a boundary in such an instance?!?
Complete and utter cognitive dissonance to all but the feeble-minded…
What this rule is saying (AGAIN, in the instance illustrated last night) is that a player who is clearly out of bounds may -and can- affect the play of players who remain inbounds in such a way as to win the advantage for the out of bounds player.
What the frick is the point of a boundary in such an instance?!?
Complete and utter cognitive dissonance to all but the feeble-minded…
This post was edited on 11/6/22 at 6:51 am
Posted on 11/6/22 at 6:56 am to burke985
If you’re out of bounds you shouldn’t be able to affect the play. If he isn’t allowed to affect the play from out of bounds, it’s our ball.
Also, when your finger tips the ball, it’s a tipped ball.
Also, when your finger tips the ball, it’s a tipped ball.
Posted on 11/6/22 at 7:00 am to burke985
If that was the right call to reverse it, it's a horrible rule.
Posted on 11/6/22 at 7:06 am to burke985
Look. I hate that it worked out the way it did, but by the book, it was a correct call.
When a player who is out of bounds touches the ball, the play is dead. Period. The LSU player didn't show complete possession of the ball.
By the book, it was the correct call. Get over it.
When a player who is out of bounds touches the ball, the play is dead. Period. The LSU player didn't show complete possession of the ball.
By the book, it was the correct call. Get over it.
Posted on 11/6/22 at 7:08 am to burke985
I have never seen anything like that in nearly 40 years of watching LSU football. They had all the angles to say it was a fumble and recovery by LSU and still the SEC office in ALABAMA still gave the ball back to the gumps. This just proves what every team in the conference knows the sec refs are owned by bama.
This post was edited on 11/6/22 at 7:09 am
Posted on 11/6/22 at 7:09 am to burke985
I understand the rule but good God it's got to be changed. I think this is a great example of the reality that when you are making rules for a game you can't anticipate all possible circumstances. Nobody in their right mind intended for that to be the result of the rule but there it is
Posted on 11/6/22 at 7:11 am to burke985
if nobody is in possession, and an ineligible player touches the ball in bounds, shouldn't that at least be a penalty?
how can that work to the advantage of the offending player/team? he had already lost complete possession
again some sort of amendment is needed here
how can that work to the advantage of the offending player/team? he had already lost complete possession
again some sort of amendment is needed here
Posted on 11/6/22 at 7:17 am to burke985
All you need to understand is Birmingham
Posted on 11/6/22 at 7:22 am to burke985
I don’t really give a shite what the rule is (though it’s awful regardless). Greg Brooks had two hands on the ball with a knee down.
Down. Easy. LSU ball.
Should have been easy anyway
Down. Easy. LSU ball.
Should have been easy anyway
Posted on 11/6/22 at 7:37 am to burke985
Ball on ground, two hands on ball while ball is on ground. Our payer is on ground. Our ball. Does not matter if other player poked it. Our player is on ground, ball is on ground, two hands on ball, our player is down, our ball
Posted on 11/6/22 at 7:38 am to burke985
quote:quote:
any receiver who has by any means gone out of bounds may not catch, or be the first to touch, any pass. Re-establishing himself in bounds makes the pass complete, but his touching of the pass remains illegal.
So why can a receiver who caught a ball in bounds fumbled went out of bounds not have to re establish himself inbounds before being able to obtain possession or even touch ball. This is literally the dumbest rule I think I’ve ever seen with this fumble
You answered your own question, once the receiver catches the ball it is no longer a pass but a reception. The rule you quoted only applies to a pass, once there is a legal reception, the illegal touching rule no longer applies. And even if it did apply once the fumble occurred, the LSU player touched it first.
Unfortunately, it was the correct call.
Posted on 11/6/22 at 7:46 am to burke985
You see the clip of the Packers kick return guy that lays on the ground with his feet out of bounds and touches the ball that was inbounds? The ref threw a flag for kicking out of bounds.
It was explained that the return man was out of bounds and as soon as he touched the ball it too was deemed out of bounds.
Last night the Bama player was out of bounds and as soon as he touched the ball it was deemed out of bounds. If the ball was not possessed at that point it remains so. The question, for me at least is whether or not LSU had secured possession prior to him touching the ball.
It was explained that the return man was out of bounds and as soon as he touched the ball it too was deemed out of bounds.
Last night the Bama player was out of bounds and as soon as he touched the ball it was deemed out of bounds. If the ball was not possessed at that point it remains so. The question, for me at least is whether or not LSU had secured possession prior to him touching the ball.
Posted on 11/6/22 at 7:57 am to burke985
LSU player had 2 hands on ball, that’s possession of a fumble. Not sure how you spin the rule to say there was no possession.
Posted on 11/6/22 at 8:25 am to burke985
quote:passing rules are newer than the player or non player out of bounds touching a live ball. ANY part of a player out of bounds makes the player out of bounds. It is one of the oldest rules in the game.
The receiving rule
quote:
any receiver who has by any means gone out of bounds may not catch, or be the first to touch, any pass. Re-establishing himself in bounds makes the pass complete, but his touching of the pass remains illegal.
So why can a receiver who caught a ball in bounds fumbled went out of bounds not have to re establish himself inbounds before being able to obtain possession or even touch ball. This is literally the dumbest rule I think I’ve ever seen with this fumble
can a player that willingly goes out of bounds come back in and participate in the play?
I am amazed at how many people simply do not know the rules.
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News