- 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
re: Trying more to understand this fumble non recovery
Posted on 11/6/22 at 8:58 am to burke985
Posted on 11/6/22 at 8:58 am to burke985
LSU had two hands on the ball. The ONLY reason he didn't maintain possession was an ILLEGAL touch. There is NO logical reason for Alabama to get possession of that ball.
0
Posted on 11/6/22 at 8:59 am to burke985
My biggest issue with the ruling is that I don’t believe there was indisputable evidence that the Bama player touched the ball. It certainly wasn’t more clear than the tip in OT.
Posted on 11/6/22 at 9:03 am to burke985
Posted this in another thread
The sec has already stated they used rule 4 section 2 article 3
So this whole thing revolves around whether Brooks had possession or not. The SEC believes he did not. The recovery is basically under the same scrutiny as a complete pass (Rule 2 section for article 3.g).
IMO because the bama player knocked it loose, they deemed he did not have possession because Brooks didn’t “complete the catch” and when latua touched it the second time, the ball was declared dead as rule 4 sec 2 art 3 was applied.
The main objection from an LSU perspective should be that the play was overturned as conclusive Brooks didn’t have possession defined at rule 2 sec 4 article 4.a
I suppose the recovery rule overrides the possession rule. But this is a matter of judgement and was ruled controlled on the field.
The sec has already stated they used rule 4 section 2 article 3
quote:
ARTICLE 3. a. A ball not in player control, other than a kick that scores a field goal, is out of bounds when it touches the ground, a player, a game official or anything else that is out of bounds, or that is on or outside a boundary line. b. A ball that touches a pylon is out of bounds behind the goal line. c. If a live ball not in player possession crosses a boundary line and then is declared out of bounds, it is out of bounds at the crossing point.
So this whole thing revolves around whether Brooks had possession or not. The SEC believes he did not. The recovery is basically under the same scrutiny as a complete pass (Rule 2 section for article 3.g).
IMO because the bama player knocked it loose, they deemed he did not have possession because Brooks didn’t “complete the catch” and when latua touched it the second time, the ball was declared dead as rule 4 sec 2 art 3 was applied.
The main objection from an LSU perspective should be that the play was overturned as conclusive Brooks didn’t have possession defined at rule 2 sec 4 article 4.a
quote:
a. Player Possession. The ball is in player possession when a player has the ball firmly in their grasp by holding or controlling it with hand(s) or arm(s) while contacting the ground inbounds.
I suppose the recovery rule overrides the possession rule. But this is a matter of judgement and was ruled controlled on the field.
Posted on 11/6/22 at 9:04 am to burke985
The replay ref blew it. It wasn’t a bad call. It was a corrupt call. There is a big difference. Our guy recovered that fumble.
Posted on 11/6/22 at 9:08 am to burke985
This should only matter if the person recovering the ball is OOB or if a player OOB tips in back into play for his team to recover.
Posted on 11/6/22 at 9:11 am to burke985
The rule is fine. It was just misapplied in my opinion because the LSU player had gained possession of the ball therefore when the bama player touched it it wasn’t a loose ball out of bounds.
But the rule itself is fine, good and easily understandable stop overreacting because y’all don’t understand the finer points of football mechanics. This rule does not need to be addressed at all.
But the rule itself is fine, good and easily understandable stop overreacting because y’all don’t understand the finer points of football mechanics. This rule does not need to be addressed at all.
Posted on 11/6/22 at 9:18 am to burke985
I think it was a misinterpretation of the rule. The claim was that the out of bounds player, by touching the ball, killed the play before LSU player completed full possession. I don't see where in that rule "full completed possession" is required. Simply touching the ball should not affect the act of possession, regardless of who touches it.
Posted on 11/6/22 at 9:27 am to burke985
This has nothing to do with it but it was the right call. It's a stupid rule that needs to be changed.
Posted on 11/6/22 at 9:29 am to burke985
I still think that a player should have to establish himself back on the playing field to be able to make a play on the ball..a player out of bounds or touching the ball in live play while out of bounds should be considered an ineligible player therefore he can’t have any effect on ball possession.. it’s a fumble..how can you give the offensive team the ball at that spot and a 1st down if the offensive player never regains possession of the ball??.. if anything the offensive team should b penalized for illegal touching 10-15 yards..
Posted on 11/6/22 at 9:35 am to burke985
Didn’t LSU touch the ball first before the receiver touched it?
Posted on 11/6/22 at 10:48 am to burke985
Rule needs to be amended / changed
Posted on 11/6/22 at 10:56 am to burke985
Stupid rule. I favors the team that made the mistake.
Posted on 11/6/22 at 4:29 pm to burke985
There's only one thing I don't undstand about this whole play and/or ref's call...
He picked the ball up with two hands.
I sorta get "not possessing" just for laying hands on it. If you use "two hands touching" you'll never sort out most fumbles.
But when you pick it up off the turf, with two hands, before anyone else touches it, then that's a whole other matter. If picking a ball up isn't possessing it the whole game is fricked. Do you have make a pillow fort before the refs decide, yeah you got this.
He picked the ball up with two hands.
I sorta get "not possessing" just for laying hands on it. If you use "two hands touching" you'll never sort out most fumbles.
But when you pick it up off the turf, with two hands, before anyone else touches it, then that's a whole other matter. If picking a ball up isn't possessing it the whole game is fricked. Do you have make a pillow fort before the refs decide, yeah you got this.
Page 2 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News