- 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
Touchdown in Rams game but no touchdown for AA???
Posted on 11/24/24 at 8:40 pm
Posted on 11/24/24 at 8:40 pm
AJ Brown just scored a touchdown when he got two feet in with control and then lost control of the football after the feet were down. Anderson did basically the same thing yesterday and it was ruled not a TD. HUH??
5
Posted on 11/24/24 at 8:41 pm to BigWinnie
Brown didn’t drop it
Posted on 11/24/24 at 8:41 pm to Champs
Lost control. That's a drop
Posted on 11/24/24 at 8:42 pm to BigWinnie
AJ Brown didn't fall to the ground. AA did which means he had to hold on to the ball through the ground.
Posted on 11/24/24 at 8:45 pm to BigWinnie
quote:
AJ Brown just scored a touchdown when he got two feet in with control and then lost control of the football
He lost control after getting a 3rd foot down in the endzone...it was the right call.
Posted on 11/24/24 at 8:47 pm to BigBrod81
Dumb rule in end zone. You cross goal line and fumble out of end zone, touchdown. You catch ball 2 feet down go out of bounds fumble caused by ground, incomplete pass?
Posted on 11/24/24 at 8:49 pm to OSTiger77
quote:
You catch ball 2 feet down go out of bounds fumble caused by ground, incomplete pass?
The ground didn't cause AA to lose the ball. He lost it before even hitting the ground.
Posted on 11/24/24 at 8:53 pm to BigBrod81
Not saying you aren’t correct. But do you agree w the rule ? I don’t. AA had 2 feet inbounds in the end zone - play should be over. Who the hell cares what happens after that?
Posted on 11/24/24 at 8:56 pm to BigBrod81
Even if the ground caused it wouldn't be a fumble... the ground can cause an incompletion.
Posted on 11/24/24 at 9:03 pm to trex1250
quote:
But do you agree w the rule ? I don’t. AA had 2 feet inbounds in the end zone - play should be over.
They consider the fall as part of the catch process. You are overthinking this.
Posted on 11/24/24 at 9:08 pm to BigBrod81
No sir. THEY are overthinking it. I’m simplifying it. A factually caught the ball in the EZ & got not one but 2 feet in. Play should be over.
Posted on 11/24/24 at 9:12 pm to trex1250
quote:
THEY are overthinking it. I’m simplifying it.
Sure you are.
Posted on 11/24/24 at 9:36 pm to BigBrod81
But if I am a RB and cross the goal line and fumble the play is over… or a receiver that breaks the plain.
If the ball is caught and in control when caught. The play should be over.
This has been an issue many have had with the rules
If the ball is caught and in control when caught. The play should be over.
This has been an issue many have had with the rules
Posted on 11/24/24 at 10:16 pm to Tiger1988
Correct
Posted on 11/24/24 at 10:21 pm to BigWinnie
quote:
and then lost control of the football after the feet were down.
He lost the ball after taking three steps (or a football move which is the dumbest explanatory wording ever). By rule, the Brown and the Anderson no catch were called correctly. I think the rule needs to be changed though for situations like last night. Once you have two feet firmly planted with possession of the ball in the end zone, the play should be over.
This is all the fault of HD super slow motion. I love it, but It turns every replay into a science experience, especially when it involves targeting.
Posted on 11/24/24 at 10:37 pm to Basura Blanco
Also correct
Posted on 11/25/24 at 3:21 am to OSTiger77
One a player has possession and the ball is dead once crossing the goal line. The other is where a player never had possession. Pretty easy call to make.
For all saying that AA should have been called a TD do not understand the rules. He did not have possession. He dropped it.
Just like Lacey the play before. He caught it but going to the ground the DB ripped it out. Should that have been called a TD?
For all saying that AA should have been called a TD do not understand the rules. He did not have possession. He dropped it.
Just like Lacey the play before. He caught it but going to the ground the DB ripped it out. Should that have been called a TD?
Posted on 11/25/24 at 7:09 am to MasterKnight
quote:the rule is “simplified” because the catch is the same regardlessnof where it occurs. That is a massive issue that has bothered folks for a long time.
One a player has possession and the ball is dead once crossing the goal line
It is like Hester catching the ball, turning and running and getting the ball poked out from behind at Auburn in 2006. So much bull on interpretation.
while in the end zone, if a player catches the ball with 2 feet down (or 1) and then the DB rips it out. It should be a TD the same as if I’m diving for the pylon, touch it and then fumble out of the end zone. As long as I had possession when I crossed the goal line everything after is a TD. I was at the game and couldn’t make out if Anderson possessed the ball.
The rule on “going to the ground” should become irrelevant if he possesses the ball while in the end zone as it would become a dead ball at that point as long as he has 2 feet down (or 1 foot).
That is what people have argued for years.
Posted on 11/25/24 at 8:59 am to BigWinnie
Anderson bobbled it though
Posted on 11/25/24 at 11:04 am to Tiger1988
That Hester call still angers me. I was at that game. Worst called football game I have ever attended.
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News