- 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: Fumble play vs Kellen Mond play (picture comparison)
Posted on 11/6/22 at 4:17 pm to Penrod
Posted on 11/6/22 at 4:17 pm to Penrod
quote:
Guys, You are embarrassing yourselves. He did not have possession, because he didn’t control it long enough to have possession; Mond did. If Mond had bobbled it as he stood up, he would not have been ruled down. It’s like y’all never watched football before.
Well that’s all false. It honestly fours the matter because we won, but I agree with the OP the call was BS.
0
Posted on 11/6/22 at 4:17 pm to Penrod
quote:
He did not have possession, because he didn’t control it long enough to have possession;
Alright wiseguy. How long is “long enough”? I need to get my stopwatch out. Did the refs have one on field during replay? In order for them to reverse the call on the field, which was a fumble recovery, they would’ve had concrete video evidence that he didn’t possess it “long enough because he clearly possessed it.
This post was edited on 11/6/22 at 4:19 pm
Posted on 11/6/22 at 4:18 pm to Penrod
What I saw was that he has two hands on the ball with control and the Bama player knocked it out of his hands. The Bama player was NOT the first to touch the ball, which is the rule.
Posted on 11/6/22 at 4:26 pm to Chrome
quote:
If a player touches the ball while out of bounds, isn't that a penalty?
You are thinking of either the rule that you have to reestablish yourself inbounds before making a play in the field of play. Or if you are a receiving team on a kickoff and you step out of bounds and you touch the ball the sideline is extended through you to the ball, creating a kick out or bounds penalty on the kicking team.
Both fairly uncommon penalties that involve the sidelines.
This post was edited on 11/6/22 at 4:28 pm
Posted on 11/6/22 at 4:26 pm to Penrod
quote:
It’s like y’all never watched football before.
interesting coming from you Nimrod
Posted on 11/6/22 at 4:27 pm to WaWaWeeWa
Looks like possession to me
Posted on 11/6/22 at 4:29 pm to WaWaWeeWa
Its become concerning that some LSU fans have developed stockholm syndrome and have convinced themselves the refs are actually applying the rules fairly and consistently. Defending the indefensible won't make them treat you fairly next time.
Posted on 11/6/22 at 4:30 pm to WaWaWeeWa
quote:
Completely inconsistent.
Wrong, very consistent.
Play one went against LSU,
Play two went against LSU.
Both plays were overruled by replay.
Both were screw jobs that ignored the ruling on the field.
Posted on 11/6/22 at 4:50 pm to Penrod
quote:
Guys, You are embarrassing yourselves. He did not have possession, because he didn’t control it long enough to have possession; Mond did. If Mond had bobbled it as he stood up, he would not have been ruled down. It’s like y’all never watched football before.
But he WOULD have had possession had he not been interfered with by what should have been an ineligible player.
Also, why does a receiver have to maintain possession going out of bound but in this case, all you got to do is touch the ball?
It’s inconsistent and should be embarrassing for the institution of football.
Posted on 11/6/22 at 4:53 pm to WaWaWeeWa
For Christ sakes, you little whiny bahy…let it go. We won the Game
Posted on 11/6/22 at 4:58 pm to deathvalleytiger10
quote:
The ball is in player possession when a player has the ball firmly in their grasp by holding or controlling it with hand(s) or arm(s) while contacting the ground inbounds.
THIS. Brooks had possession. That was the call on the field. The replay had to show “indisputable” evidence that Brooks didn’t have possession. It didn’t. The call should not have been reversed.
Posted on 11/6/22 at 5:01 pm to jrodLSUke
This is beyond question.
Posted on 11/6/22 at 5:27 pm to deathvalleytiger10
By reading the rule it should have stayed LSU ball
Posted on 11/6/22 at 5:27 pm to deathvalleytiger10
quote:
They might want to rethink the rule. A player can’t be out of bounds and make a catch without getting completely back on the field but they can impact a loose ball? Weird
While they should rethink the rule. If properly applied, the rule would not have impacted that play.
quote:
Loose Ball Out of Bounds ARTICLE 3. a. A ball not in player control, other than a kick that scores a field goal, is out of bounds when it touches the ground, a player, a game official or anything else that is out of bounds, or that is on or outside a boundary line. b. A ball that touches a pylon is out of bounds behind the goal line. c. If a live ball not in player possession crosses a boundary line and then is declared out of bounds, it is out of bounds at the crossing point.
Last night, the ball was in control of a player and his knee hit the ground just before the ball was touched by a player that was out of bounds. Therefore, the rule used to over turn the call in the field did not apply. It was a fumble recovery, LSU ball, just like it was initially called in the field.
Posted on 11/6/22 at 5:56 pm to WaWaWeeWa
The difference is that monds team had possession of the ball, just like bama had possession.
There was never a change in possession so it defaulted back to bama.
I mean I get it, how could he be down without player possession ? It’s a fair point and question, but it’s not the same fact pattern.
The fact they were both confirmed and overturned is confusing and good enough to send to the league office.
My personal take is that this came in from Birmingham in such an “aktuallly” way that they kinda lost sight of how many different things they were actually confirming happened on the field. I’ve seen more questionable catches stand on the field without the added complications of also confirming the bama player touched it while out of bounds
There was never a change in possession so it defaulted back to bama.
I mean I get it, how could he be down without player possession ? It’s a fair point and question, but it’s not the same fact pattern.
The fact they were both confirmed and overturned is confusing and good enough to send to the league office.
My personal take is that this came in from Birmingham in such an “aktuallly” way that they kinda lost sight of how many different things they were actually confirming happened on the field. I’ve seen more questionable catches stand on the field without the added complications of also confirming the bama player touched it while out of bounds
Posted on 11/6/22 at 5:59 pm to Penrod
quote:
Guys, You are embarrassing yourselves. He did not have possession, because he didn’t control it long enough to have possession; Mond did. If Mond had bobbled it as he stood up, he would not have been ruled down. It’s like y’all never watched football before.
Oh shut up. These were both questionable calls that were overturned, meaning what they saw was confirmed. The application of the rule(s) is confusing and warrants discussion if for no other reason than education.
Posted on 11/6/22 at 6:04 pm to deathvalleytiger10
A statement will come out Wednesday or Thursday that the SEC officials missed that call and the tipped ball call. They will review it with the officiating crews but that is it.
Posted on 11/6/22 at 6:04 pm to WaWaWeeWa
quote:
So Mond only had possession based on what he did after his knee was down and therefore retroactively had possession when his knee was down?
This is actually correct, and is the same logic applied to brooks. It could only be determined if they had possession or not based on what happened after.
It’s all the same concept of “completing the catch” at the heart of both of these calls.
quote:
Fumble rules are different than catch rules. You need to stop embarrassing yourself.
They aren’t. I don’t like the call and there is plenty to question, but bother to read the he rule before arguing
quote:
g. A player recovers a ball if they fulfill the criteria in paragraphs a, b, c, and d for catching a ball that is still alive after hitting the ground.
Posted on 11/6/22 at 6:08 pm to OceanMan
Such an odd play. The issue it seems to me is a rule that was never meant to be enforced in this way. There is no way that rule was conceived to cause that call. They should fix it in the future cuz it’s dumb.
That being said…the call on the field was fumble recovered by LSU. There was enough in the replay to call it in possession. They should have called it that way because it’s just stupid not to. Don’t nullify a football play on the field with that sort of nonsense.
That being said…the call on the field was fumble recovered by LSU. There was enough in the replay to call it in possession. They should have called it that way because it’s just stupid not to. Don’t nullify a football play on the field with that sort of nonsense.
Posted on 11/6/22 at 6:11 pm to Penrod
Fk this take. Watch it again live. They fumbled and we recovered. Then they found some technicality to reverse the call on the field. Completely unnecessary and only happened to satisfy clout. If Kelly let’s this go because “chill, we won”, then it’ll only happen again.
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News