- 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
re: Did out of bounds Bama player have to reestablish himself to become a legal participant
Posted on 11/8/22 at 11:24 am to Poboytom
Posted on 11/8/22 at 11:24 am to Poboytom
The rule was applied correctly. A Bama player with his foot out of bounds touched the ball so the ball is out of bounds. That was not the problem with the call. The problem was that LSU did have possession, (then with knee down or not down), the play was over when Alabama touched the ball. LSU did have possession. The problem is whether LSU had possession or not. The problem is not with the oob player touching the ball.
1
Posted on 11/8/22 at 11:35 am to thunderbird1100
quote:
…we know we have to fight the refs and Birmingham seemingly every fricking game against Bama so just have to play through it. If there's a close call/judgement play, we know its not going our way. This one, the tipped pass PI play, the no call on Perkins being held on Bama's 41 yard TD go ahead strike late in game, etc etc etc
And this fact and these sorts of examples recurring year after year renders null all the Alabama fans’ mountains of statistical data implying Alabama is “the most penalized” team. The no calls, the inconsistent calls, the suspect reviews that confirm or overrule the calls made on the field contrary to the visible evidence… all of it shades to Alabama and has for years.
Posted on 11/8/22 at 11:41 am to J2thaROC
You can just go figure it out, friend.
Posted on 11/8/22 at 11:42 am to Tbone2
quote:
The problem was that LSU did have possession
Dude, he had just started to grab it when the other guy swatted it from his hands. If that swat came a split-second later, then yes he would have had possession by then. Merely placing your hands on the ball for an instant does not constitute "possession." If it did, then all of the dropped passes would be considered fumbles too.
Posted on 11/8/22 at 11:49 am to Poboytom
Yes. He was an illegal participant. That's the whole point. It's a dead ball immediately when someone out of bounds touches the ball.
Posted on 11/8/22 at 12:33 pm to jrodLSUke
First, its clear that the fingers of his hand are not curled around the ball. Only the thumb and pinkie are in contact with the ball. The fingers are still extended like a high five. That is not possession
Second, by the time he wraps his fingers to establish said possession, the Bama player has already swatted and dislodged the ball. The instant the ball shifts, its dead, because Bama is out of bounds. So possession was never established
Second, by the time he wraps his fingers to establish said possession, the Bama player has already swatted and dislodged the ball. The instant the ball shifts, its dead, because Bama is out of bounds. So possession was never established
This post was edited on 11/8/22 at 12:34 pm
Posted on 11/8/22 at 12:38 pm to TheDude321
quote:
Dude, he had just started to grab it when the other guy swatted it from his hands.
Merely placing your hands on the ball for an instant does not constitute "possession." If it did, then all of the dropped passes would be considered fumbles too.
You sure?
/arc-anglerfish-arc2-prod-dmn.s3.amazonaws.com/public/BP6ZMINDDFKUP2D6OHDNFT4EUA.jpg)
This post was edited on 11/8/22 at 12:42 pm
Posted on 11/8/22 at 12:48 pm to Poboytom
Then explain how the return man on a kickoff can lay out of bounds and then reach out and touch the ball, resulting in a flag thrown for a kickoff being out of bounds?
Being out of bounds and touching the ball, is not the same as making a play, after being forced out of bounds. The touching ends that down. There is no further "play" on the ball by any player on the field, at that point
Being out of bounds and touching the ball, is not the same as making a play, after being forced out of bounds. The touching ends that down. There is no further "play" on the ball by any player on the field, at that point
Posted on 11/8/22 at 1:07 pm to Eighteen
Isn't it funny how the rigged games all sort of boomerang back to show just how insane the SEC has become?
The aTm game in 2018 was altered several times to generate that "win" for the Aggies. We had a game winning INT overturned for "possession" with the one hand on the ball and a knee down.
Yet, when we had to alter a game four years later, we completely changed the "spirit" of the rule to benefit Bama.
LSU, in both instances, saw the bogus outcomes. Now you have fans who are rightfully making comparisons, and those who still want to believe Bama doesn't have games rigged in their favor are STILL in denial. This is hilarious.
The aTm game in 2018 was altered several times to generate that "win" for the Aggies. We had a game winning INT overturned for "possession" with the one hand on the ball and a knee down.
Yet, when we had to alter a game four years later, we completely changed the "spirit" of the rule to benefit Bama.
LSU, in both instances, saw the bogus outcomes. Now you have fans who are rightfully making comparisons, and those who still want to believe Bama doesn't have games rigged in their favor are STILL in denial. This is hilarious.
Posted on 11/8/22 at 1:14 pm to hayden7cub
quote:your team is penalized PLUS the ball is dead at the point of the touch or the result of the ensuing play, (at the discretion of the opposing team if they possess the ball at that time.)
It should be that if you’re out of bounds, you’re out of the play and if you touch the ball
Posted on 11/8/22 at 1:29 pm to TheDude321
quote:
Dude, he had just started to grab it when the other guy swatted it from his hands. If that swat came a split-second later, then yes he would have had possession by then. Merely placing your hands on the ball for an instant does not constitute "possession."
According to the NCAA rules on possession, you are not correct:
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.
quote:
If it did, then all of the dropped passes would be considered fumbles too.
You are confusing the definition of a catch with the NCAA rule on possession.
Not to mention that the Replay booth needed indisputable evidence that there was no LSU possession. At the very least the call should have "play stands" as called on the field.
Posted on 11/8/22 at 1:49 pm to Havoc
quote:
Perhaps, but without any doubt, it should be that if an out of bounds player touches a live ball it certainly shouldn’t result in his team getting or keeping the ball. It should be a foul and against the very fiber of the game to allow an out of bounds player to affect the possession of the ball.
It should be treated like illegal touching on a punt, where the play continues but you've established a worst case baseline to revert back to for the non-offending team.
Posted on 11/8/22 at 2:07 pm to TheDude321
quote:
Dude, he had just started to grab it when the other guy swatted it from his hands. If that swat came a split-second later, then yes he would have had possession by then. Merely placing your hands on the ball for an instant does not constitute "possession." If it did, then all of the dropped passes would be considered fumbles too.
To catch a pass, a player:
quote:
1. Secures firm control with the hand(s) or arm(s) of a live ball in flight before the ball touches the ground, and
2. Touches the ground in bounds with any part of his body, and then
3. Maintains control of the ball long enough to enable him to perform an act common to the game, i.e., long enough to pitch or hand the ball, advance it, avoid or ward off an opponent, etc.
Satisfaction of all three elements is required, otherwise, as you pointed out, a lot of dropped passes would be considered fumbles.
Brooks clearly did not maintain control long enough to make a football move, so if this was a question of whether or not Brooks made an interception (assuming he had gotten his fingertips on a live pass before it hit the ground), the answer would be no.
But for mere possession, Brooks only had to satisfy the equivalent of elements 1 and 2 of the "catch" rules.
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.
Posted on 11/8/22 at 2:17 pm to Mickey Goldmill
Did not have possession there was a bobble.
Posted on 11/8/22 at 3:05 pm to Poboytom
look, I'd never heard of that rule, but it's apparently what it is. The TV rules analyst immediately called it, so he knows the rule.
The Bama guy touched was OB and touched the ball (yes, before our player had possession) so it's a dead ball and goes back to the offense.
Stupid rule, in my opinion, but it seems to be correctly applied. I do hope they change it in the off-season, because it seems very unfair.
The Bama guy touched was OB and touched the ball (yes, before our player had possession) so it's a dead ball and goes back to the offense.
Stupid rule, in my opinion, but it seems to be correctly applied. I do hope they change it in the off-season, because it seems very unfair.
Posted on 11/8/22 at 3:45 pm to atltiger6487
quote:
The TV rules analyst immediately called it, so he knows the rule.
If we’re going by what he says, the later call is a tip. He said it.
Posted on 11/8/22 at 3:46 pm to geaux74
quote:
Did not have possession there was a bobble.
The word “Possession” is not in that rule. I don’t know why some people keeps say thing this.
The rule is “control”. He controlled it. He pulled it towards him.
Posted on 11/8/22 at 3:49 pm to TheDude321
quote:
Dude, he had just started to grab it when the other guy swatted it from his hands. If that swat came a split-second later, then yes he would have had possession by then. Merely placing your hands on the ball for an instant does not constitute "possession." If it did, then all of the dropped passes would be considered fumbles too.
THE
RULE
DOES
NOT
SAY
POSSESSION
THE RULE DOES NOT SAY POSSESSION.
It says CONTROL.
Jeebus
This post was edited on 11/8/22 at 3:50 pm
Posted on 11/8/22 at 3:58 pm to Poboytom
That rule doesn’t apply in that situation. It’s why sometimes you will see a kick returner lay out of bounds on a kickoff and field the kick, it is ruled an out of bounds kick and they receiving team would get the ball at the 35 yard line
Example video
Example video
Page 3 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News