re: 3 terrible calls last night by the refs

quote:

---

Please site this rule where a player without possession who is out of bounds overrides a player in bounds with possession?

---

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.