- 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: Brooks had possession
Posted on 11/6/22 at 11:23 am to FreddieMac
Posted on 11/6/22 at 11:23 am to FreddieMac
quote:
No he never had it while down.
He doesn't have to be down to achieve possession.
Posted on 11/6/22 at 11:24 am to Rocko527
quote:
He had 2 hands on the ball but he didn’t have possession. Total shite rule but, it was the right call.
I agree, having 2 hands on a ball for a split second does not constitute possession. If I weren't so lazy, I could show you many screenshots AFTER the one posted here where he did NOT have hands on the ball.
To me the real question is if the Gump really touched the ball. The angle of the replay camera's last night appear that he whiffed over the ball.
Anybody have an angle where it is conclusive that he toughed the ball. To me seemed inconclusive and should not have been overturned.
Posted on 11/6/22 at 11:25 am to Vacherie Saint
quote:
The subjective bullshite “degrees of possession” argument is a stupid one. You either possess it or you don’t.
There are no degrees of possession. That’s true.
But possession also does not simply mean having the ball in your hands. If it did, knocking a ball out of a receiver’s hands in the endzone would still result in a TD. And knocking a ball out of a receiver’s hands anywhere else on the field would result in a fumble.
Posted on 11/6/22 at 11:26 am to FreddieMac
Either we got screwed on the Mond call, this call, or both.
In no version of reality can the rules be interpreted in such a way that Mond was down and Brooks was not.
In no version of reality can the rules be interpreted in such a way that Mond was down and Brooks was not.
Posted on 11/6/22 at 11:27 am to HtxDr
You have no clue how possession of a live ball us ruled. Two hands on the ball for a fraction of a second is not securing the ball.
Posted on 11/6/22 at 11:29 am to lostinbr
quote:
But possession also does not simply mean having the ball in your hands. If it did, knocking a ball out of a receiver’s hands in the endzone would still result in a TD. And knocking a ball out of a receiver’s hands anywhere else on the field would result in a fumble.
Isn't this supposed rule saying it's out of bounds because the player possesed the ball while out of bounds so it's dead?
How is simply touching the ball possession for 1 player but 2 hands on the ball not possession for the other?
Posted on 11/6/22 at 11:29 am to Kingpenm3
quote:
Please explain (seriously).
How many times have you seen a fumble in the pros and college where the first person gets to the fumble and doesn't end up with the recovery? We see it multiple times every week. Sure they may have touched the ball with 2 hands first, but they did NOT possess the ball. Sure the LSU dude, at the time of the pic, had 2 hands on the ball but that doesn't mean he POSSESSED it. He clearly didn't as it was moving all over the place AFTER the time of the pic posted.
Posted on 11/6/22 at 11:31 am to tgrgrd00
quote:
How is simply touching the ball possession for 1 player but 2 hands on the ball not possession for the other?
What? Nobody is saying the Bama player who touched the ball while being OOB possessed the ball.
Posted on 11/6/22 at 11:32 am to BayouBlitz
quote:
You have no clue how possession of a live ball us ruled. Two hands on the ball for a fraction of a second is not securing the ball.
But Kellen Mond having one hand on the ball was possession?
Posted on 11/6/22 at 11:32 am to lostinbr
quote:
It’s a loose ball until you establish possession. By rule, possession is established the same way for loose balls as it is for catches, the only difference being a loose ball is still live if it hits the ground. The snapshots of him with two hands on the ball aren’t as meaningful as folks seem to think. I wish someone would post a gif instead.
Explain the Kellon Mond call then
Posted on 11/6/22 at 11:34 am to lostinbr
quote:
But possession also does not simply mean having the ball in your hands. If it did, knocking a ball out of a receiver’s hands in the endzone would still result in a TD. And knocking a ball out of a receiver’s hands anywhere else on the field would result in a fumble.
Using receiver catch rules to correlate to fumble recovery possession is pointless. Two completely different football actions. It’s why there’s different sections in the rulebook to establish each.
Posted on 11/6/22 at 11:34 am to HtxDr
It unfortunately was technically the right call. I don’t agree with it and think it’s ridiculous (and could possibly be exploited) but it is the “rule”. It needs to be changed.
Posted on 11/6/22 at 11:35 am to CDawson
quote:
And the finger moved on the PI call.
Yes it did. That no call was actually a frick up by the refs.
Posted on 11/6/22 at 11:37 am to HtxDr
What I don’t understand is if the ball is immediately dead when the out of bounds player touches the ball, the brooks has the ball wouldn’t it be frat the second a finger hits the ball? So Brooks has it, touch, dead ball it shouldn’t matter the the continuation knocks the ball loose because it should be dead with brooks in possession.
Posted on 11/6/22 at 11:42 am to RosyFinchBOYZ
quote:
What I don’t understand is if the ball is immediately dead when the out of bounds player touches the ball, the brooks has the ball wouldn’t it be frat the second a finger hits the ball? So Brooks has it, touch, dead ball it shouldn’t matter the the continuation knocks the ball loose because it should be dead with brooks in possession.
But that’s the basic dispute. Which came first: brooks *firm grasp* possession or bama out-of-bounds touching (if at all)?
Posted on 11/6/22 at 12:11 pm to tgrgrd00
quote:
Isn't this supposed rule saying it's out of bounds because the player possesed the ball while out of bounds so it's dead?
Different rule.
The rule you’re talking about is saying it’s out of bounds because if a loose ball touches anything out of bounds (including a player) it’s dead. That part is pretty cut and dry.
The question is whether it was still a loose ball at the point when the Bama player touched it. And THAT part comes down to whether Brooks had established possession of the ball before the Bama player touched it.
Posted on 11/6/22 at 12:12 pm to FreddieMac
Show me a link that proves conclusively the bammer touched the ball at all? There was no trajectory movement.
Posted on 11/6/22 at 12:14 pm to gabzooks
quote:
Using receiver catch rules to correlate to fumble recovery possession is pointless. Two completely different football actions. It’s why there’s different sections in the rulebook to establish each.
There are not two different sections of the rule book to establish each. I’ve posted the full rule like 6 times since last night.
The rules very clearly state that possession during a fumble recovery is governed by the same rules as possession during a catch.
Posted on 11/6/22 at 12:14 pm to ABJ2000
quote:
Patrick Peterson did too
I still feel cheated from that one
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News