Did out of bounds Bama player have to reestablish himself to become a legal participant

Apparently not. The entire scenario makes no sense.

If he would have come back in bounds then he would have had to reestablish himself before being the first one to touch the ball.

He did not in this scenario because he was out of bounds and did not come back in bounds and also because he was not the first one to touch the ball. The LSU player was already touching the ball.

The rule is dumb but was enforced correctly.

quote:

---

.. was applied correctly.

---

I disagree. The replay booth needed indisputable evidence that Brooks did not have possession to overturn the call on the field. Brooks had two hands on the ball with control. Per NCAA rules on possession:

quote:

---

Player Possession
The ball is in player possession when a player has the ball firmly in his grasp by holding or controlling it while contacting the ground inbounds.

Team Possession
The ball is in team possession:

During a loose ball if a player of that team last had player possession; or

---

Call on the field was LSU ball. Brooks had possession before the ball was touched by the out of bounds Bama player, thus call should have been dead ball with LSU possession.

There is no way the replay booth had indisputable video evidence that Brooks was NOT in possession.

You only have to reestablish if you have been forced out of bounds and are the first person to touch the ball. That rule doesn't apply because it was already possessed before the fumble.

You can actually stand out of bounds on kickoffs, touch the ball if its close and get the ball at the 40. Same concept with the call on the fumble.

It was the right call. The bigger questions is what constitutes possession.

Re-establishment only applies to catching a pass.

I never saw indisputable evidence that the Bama player touched the ball. He swiped at it but didn't make contact. Call on the field should have not bee overturned. Same refs didn't see Wingo tip the pass.

quote:

---

I never saw indisputable evidence that the Bama player touched the ball. He swiped at it but didn't make contact.

---

He made contact. The swipe is what made us lose possession after we already had the ball. It should have been a dead ball at the point of the swipe, but since we had possession of the ball, we should have kept possession on the field.

That is where the refs messed up. We had 2 hands securely on the ball. The swipe from the out of bounds player is what makes us lose the ball briefly yet the refs simply conclude that we never fully possessed the ball.

quote:

---

yet the refs simply conclude that we never fully possessed the ball.

---

It's even worse than that. The call was LSU ball, so the replay booth is saying that they saw indisputable evidence that LSU did NOT have possession while also ignoring the video evidence that shows Brooks with two hands on the ball AND ignoring the rule for possession.

quote:

---

The ball is in player possession when a player has the ball firmly in his grasp by holding or controlling it while contacting the ground inbounds.

---

The replay booth just made up their own rule for possession on the spot and ignored the rule requiring indisputable evidence to overturn the call.

There isn’t a rule To reestablish in this scenario

The only thing lsu fans can question is the conclusiveness of what they saw on replay as it must be certain to overturn.

Referees were sloppy and inconsistent calling the game Saturday and this is an example of that, but the ruling was technically correct, and the ruling required judgement from the booth

That entire episode was informed completely by tortured logic. "Did not complete the possession."