re: Brooks had possession

quote:

---

He didn't have possession at the moment in this picture, the ball was still moving. Absolutely awful call and complete BS but this picture is worthless, show the video.

---

Was the ball still moving or did it only move after the Alabama player hit it?

bullshite rule either way, but I don’t think he bobbled it until the out-of-bounds player hit it after he gained control.

You do not need to have a knee down to establish possession

It was a live ball fumble. Possession goes to the guy with the ball after the refs clear off the pile of bodies.

Remember Lance Moores 2pt play in the Superbowl? It’s similar. Possession for a brief second as DB knocks the ball out.

The NFL refs upheld the possession and 2pt score.

Now do Mond for us stupid people

quote:

---

He snatched the ball securely and as he began to tuck and ball up, the OOB gump slapped at it causing the bobble. The argument isn’t possession. It’s degrees of possession which is a bull shite and purely subjective way for refs to control games.

---

Right. Which is why the overturn is the primary objection, imo

Add to this the reversal of the call on the field. It requires irrefutable evidence.

Can anyone say we had that in this case?

quote:

---

Really? Explain to us then, a football move in a dog pile or a perhaps a db stripping a ball on the ground and being granted possession.

---

The rule doesn’t say you have to make a football move. It says you have to maintain control long enough to make a football move. It also says that if you’re going to the ground, you have to maintain control all the way to the ground.

If a player catches a pass and it immediately gets knocked out before he has held it long enough to make a football move (regardless of whether he actually tries to make one), he does not have possession and it’s an incomplete pass by the rules.

Similarly, if a player grabs a loose ball but it gets knocked out of his hands before he has held it long enough to make a football move, he does not have possession by the rules. Doesn’t matter if his knee is down. Doesn’t matter if he’s in the end zone. The only difference is that in the case of a loose ball, it’s still a live ball after it gets knocked out. Which means the player (or anyone else) can jump on it as long as it doesn’t go out of bounds.

If a player catches a pass but can’t maintain control of the ball all the way to the ground, it’s an incomplete pass by the rules.

Similarly, if a player picks up a loose ball but can’t maintain control of it all the way to the ground, he does not have possession by the rules. Again the only difference is that it’s still a live ball after it hits the ground.

If you’re contending that the rule doesn’t treat recoveries the same as catches, let me know and I’ll post the rule for the 15th time. It is 100% clear that they are treated the same.

If you’re contending that it’s bullshite because the rule is subjective then.. yeah, OK. But it’s equally as subjective as any other play where there’s a question of incomplete pass vs. complete pass + fumble. Because the analysis is exactly the same.

As I’ve said before, I don’t think they should have overturned the call on the field. But it’s not nearly as egregious as people are making it out to be. If the play had gone exactly the same except the ball had bobbled because it hit the sideline instead of the Alabama player’s hand, I don’t think people wouldn’t be nearly as up-in-arms about the call.