re: Brooks had possession

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.

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.

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?

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.

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

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.

AND WE STILL OVERCAME!

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.

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.

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.