re: Trying more to understand this fumble non recovery

quote:

---

If the shoe were on the other foot and LSU benefitted from this rule, what would you be doing right now?

---

The same thing I'm doing now, which is saying it's a rule that needs to be changed. The rule as written doesn't account for this edge case where someone is literally stripped, laying down half out of bounds, and touches the ball in the defensive players hands before "possession is established". But possession was only "not established" in the replay because the player who fumbled hit the ball after the recovery was made dislodging it.

It should be amended to account for that case (which even with the rule as it is has VERY RARELY been called as it was last night) by either removing the dead ball aspect if the player's on the ground and partially out of bounds or making the player ineligible to impact the outcome unless fully in bounds.

Either way, it's a dumbass, clunky rule, and I'd be annoyed seeing it happen to any team even if it's against my own.

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..

This whole debate is stupid. He didn’t “touch” the ball while out of bounds during which possession had not been made. He literally knocked the ball out of our players hands (stressed hands) while his knee was on the ground. If a receiver can have one foot down while catching a ball in bounds which occurs over half a second then Brooks possessed the ball. It was a terrible call and application of the rule is irrelevant.

quote:

---

I don't think there is any such thing as "complete" possession.

---

There’s no distinction in the rules between possession and “complete” possession. He either gained possession or he didn’t.

People are using terms like “complete possession” to differentiate between possession - a term that has a specific meaning under the rules and criteria which must be met - and control of the football in the logical sense.

quote:

---

He had 2 hands on the ball and was in the process of gathering it to his body.

---

I’m a broken record at this point, but the fact that you’re acknowledging he was still gathering it to his body illustrates why he didn’t have possession. Possession during fumble recoveries is treated exactly like possession during catches. The only difference is that a fumble is still a live ball if it touches the ground inbounds.

So just like a catch, he has to:
1. Maintain control of the ball long enough to make a football move.
2. Maintain control of the ball all the way to the ground.

He does not gain possession until both of these criteria are satisfied. It’s no different than an OL jumping on a loose ball after a strip/sack - he can get both hands on it, but if it comes loose when he hits the ground it’s still a live ball.

Since it is a live ball, he can recover it after he (and the ball) hit the ground, as long as they are both inbounds. The problem is that the ball became dead as soon as the Bama player touched it.

Imagine the exact same play happened at the hash mark instead of the sideline, but the Bama player knocked it loose and then Bama recovered the ball. Do you think:
A. It would have been a Bama recovery, or
B. It would have been an LSU recovery with Brooks being called down before the Bama player knocked it loose?

If you think A is true, you’re basically saying the refs got it right. If you think B is true, then I can understand why you might think we got screwed. But again.. this scenario plays out all the time with lineman after QB fumbles and they are very rarely (if ever) called down.

quote:

---

Rule should be changed to the ball has to be out of bounds or the oob player must have possession to kill the play.

---

It’s basically a catch-all to simplify out of bounds calls. It prevents (for example) a WR or DB from going out of bounds and tipping a pass back inbounds. If the rule didn’t exist, then you would have to make it based on the location of the ball in flight - e.g. you would have to define a “plane of the sideline” similar to the goal line. But that gets messy too because what about a ball that is in flight out of bounds but is caught by a receiver who is inbounds?

So you’d have to write it such that the ball becomes dead only if the player is out of bounds AND the ball is outside the plane of the sideline. It just seems like a really convoluted solution.

quote:

---

They clearly ruled that LSU did not have possession of the loose ball before it was touched.

---

I know what they ruled…after the fact. The problem is that they ruled it a fumble and recover on the field. So, now we get into the ambiguous, subjective rule of what constitutes possession. The LSU player had two hands firmly around the ball with his knee down before the Bama player touched it and knocked it loose. You can’t say that he clearly did not have possession. You can argue it, but it isn’t “clear”. The call on the field should’ve stood.

quote:

---

I don't think there is any such thing as "complete" possession. He had 2 hands on the ball and was in the process of gathering it to his body.

---

See my post above yours. I didn’t quote the whole rule because it’s long, but a recovery is under the same scrutiny as a catch.

It is unfortunate for LSU because the way the rule (or combination of 3 rules) is written the correct call was made. But I don’t think this particular set of circumstances was ever contemplated and to overturn based on technicality was certainly a judgement call.

quote:

---

Rule should be changed to the ball has to be out of bounds or the oob player must have possession to kill the play.

---

They should definitely make a clarification for this rule because it is a huge advantage for the fumbling team to simply be able to touch the ball out of bounds whereas if he was in bounds he would be under the same scrutiny as brooks to recover. In every other instance the boundary is a hinderance to possession

quote:

---

The LSU player didn't show complete possession of the ball.

---

You got that fake news from tv broadcast.

Actual rule …






“Firm grasp” is the debate.
Nothing in the review suggests “indisputable” evidence to overturn.

I don’t agree with it but I think the official was saying that lsu player didn’t have complete control of the ball - it’s ridiculous

quote:

---

I don’t agree with it but I think the official was saying that lsu player didn’t have complete control of the ball

---

Probably so, but *complete control* is not the rule. Firm grasp is.

Rule needs to be amended / changed