- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- 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
if Baron brown situation happened at midfield, would it have been a fumble or incomplete?
Posted on 9/2/25 at 8:19 am
Posted on 9/2/25 at 8:19 am
Fumble
16
Posted on 9/2/25 at 8:20 am to tigerdude12
Depends who recovered it.
Posted on 9/2/25 at 8:22 am to tigerdude12
Ground can't cause a fumble. So it would have either been incomplete or complete with him losing possession after hitting the ground therefore he's down right there.
This post was edited on 9/2/25 at 8:24 am
Posted on 9/2/25 at 8:23 am to tigerdude12
It would have either been incomplete or a catch and no fumble because the ground caused it.
Posted on 9/2/25 at 8:25 am to tigerdude12
Wait, he never lost the ball. How could it be a fumble?
Posted on 9/2/25 at 8:25 am to tigerdude12
? Ground can’t cause a fumble?
This post was edited on 9/2/25 at 8:26 am
Posted on 9/2/25 at 8:57 am to Penrod
Once you catch the ball and take 2 steps possession has been established and it shouldn't matter what happens once you hit the ground.
Posted on 9/2/25 at 8:58 am to tigerdude12
Based on the call that happened in this same fricking game with Bauer Sharp, apparently it would have been a catch and a fumble.
Posted on 9/2/25 at 8:59 am to tigerdude12
Also why I think Sharp's fumble wasn't a catch. He caught the ball and turned to take a step and was hit. No possession established thus no fumble. Should have been incomplete pass.
Posted on 9/2/25 at 9:00 am to mcspufftiger7
quote:
Once you catch the ball and take 2 steps possession has been established and it shouldn't matter what happens once you hit the ground.
This is false in the case of the two steps happening as you are falling.
Posted on 9/2/25 at 9:00 am to tigerdude12
He caught the ball out of bounds, so it would have been a completed catch.
Ball never touched the ground??
Ball never touched the ground??
Posted on 9/2/25 at 9:02 am to tigerdude12
The issue is how the rules treat a running back and a WR who clearly possess the ball outside of the end zone differently when they cross the plane. Or maybe it’s better said that the rules don’t clarify that they should be treated exactly the same. Durham didn’t fumble because the ball crossed the plane. The catch play should have ended the millisecond that Brown touched the pylon with control.
Based on all of the comments from the media the day after the game, especially rules experts, it seems like this is open to some interpretation, and the common interpretation is a catch and a TD once he hit the pylon. But the rules leave the door open for the stupidity we saw Saturday night. That needs to change this offseason.
Based on all of the comments from the media the day after the game, especially rules experts, it seems like this is open to some interpretation, and the common interpretation is a catch and a TD once he hit the pylon. But the rules leave the door open for the stupidity we saw Saturday night. That needs to change this offseason.
This post was edited on 9/2/25 at 9:05 am
Posted on 9/2/25 at 9:08 am to misey94
quote:
Based on all of the comments from the media the day after the game, especially rules experts, it seems like this is open to some interpretation, and the common interpretation is a catch and a TD once he hit the pylon. But the rules leave the door open for the stupidity we saw Saturday night. That needs to change this offseason.
Finally, someone who gets it.
I don't think the replay refs "screwed up". I think they made the correct call based on the letter of the law of a stupid rule that applies differently to receivers and running backs
Posted on 9/2/25 at 9:10 am to tigerdude12
Slight change in scenario because I think the ball being knocked loose by the ball would be called incomplete but if he had been hit right before hitting the ground knocking the ball loose... We'd be debating fumble right now..
Posted on 9/2/25 at 9:11 am to tigerdude12
Nope
Posted on 9/2/25 at 9:12 am to tigerdude12
HE NEVER LOST THE BALL AND TOOK 2 STEPS. Plus his hand never left the ball. It MOVED IN HIS HAND BUT HE NEVER LET GO OR LOST GRIP. The fricking ball would move when his elbow hit doesn’t mean he lost control either.
They were blatantly wrong. frick THIS STUPID arse SEC
They were blatantly wrong. frick THIS STUPID arse SEC
This post was edited on 9/2/25 at 9:19 am
Posted on 9/2/25 at 9:14 am to The Mick
quote:
Ground can't cause a fumble.
In this case, you are right.
But the ground can cause a fumble if the ball, while in the runner's possession, hits the ground before any part of the runner's body other than a hand or foot touches the ground, and this contact causes the runner to lose control of the ball. The ball hitting the ground while any other body part (knee, elbow, etc.) is simultaneously making contact, or if a body part other than the hand or foot touches the ground first, the runner is considered down, and thus there is no fumble.
Posted on 9/2/25 at 9:14 am to LSUGrad9295
quote:
Finally, someone who gets it. I don't think the replay refs "screwed up". I think they made the correct call based on the letter of the law of a stupid rule that applies differently to receivers and running backs
I don’t actually agree with you. Interpretation matters. When Bill Lemange says emphatically that the refs blew the call and then doubles down on air two days later after saying that he consulted with multiple working refs and replay guys, it shows that the interpretation used was outside of the industry norm.
The issue is that the rule book allows two different interpretations.
This post was edited on 9/2/25 at 9:15 am
Posted on 9/2/25 at 9:16 am to Tiger1988
Yep, and in this case once he crossed the plane with control, the play should've been over
Posted on 9/2/25 at 9:18 am to misey94
quote:
The issue is that the rule book allows two different interpretations.
That is actually what I was kinda getting at...I don't think it was a deliberate, bone-head act by the review people and an utter failure to interpret a simple rule.
It is a complex deal and the loophole needs to be closed
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News