re: Jeremy Hill had the best explanation about the fumble recovery that was not.

Jeremy's interpretation makes the most sense. Should have been ruled an LSU recovery and ball was dead when out of bounds guy touched it.

Problem I have, though, is that the refs didn't know what they had seen. So they called what they saw in real time -- a fumble and an LSU recovery.
But then some guys in friggen Birmingham decided, "Hey, look, the guy's feet are out of bounds. Let's get this overturned. We can't be having a fumble here."

I would like to know who in B'ham was on the review crew. Where do they live? What was their affiliation? How many years have they been Alabama season ticket holders?

It is a FACT that most people in the SEC office are either Alabama or Auburn fans. I can't believe the SEC office flies in officials from Florida or Tennessee or wherever to serve on the Saturday night review crew. So they use the local arses, who inherently view things with a bias.

Conspiracy theory? Maybe. But it makes more sense than that call Saturday night.

quote:

---

LSU recovery

---

Yes

quote:

---

ball was dead when out of bounds guy touched it.

---

No. He was already down with possession. Play is dead.

Wanted to ask a ref if that play had continued, bobbled, keeps getting booted down the field for 20 yards, no possession and finally again a LSU player grabs the ball and it pinky touched by the same guy who fumbled it laying out of bounds is it really going back to bama?

It was complete bullshite, no other way to describe it. You can analyze every millisecond and every angle, but just watch it again live. They fumbled, we recovered fully in bounds. It was the right call on the field and the only reason it was overturned is because Bama and Saban have outsized influence. Patrick Peterson 2.0

There was no way to overturn the original call. That’s what pissed me off.

Exactly. An ineligible player should not be able to affect a play to that extent. It should be something like LSU ball with a ten yard penalty tacked on for an ineligible player interfering. I think it’s stupid that a player who in ineligible for being out of bounds to just be able to reach in and touch the ball and they retain possession

quote:

---

No control

---

So then how do you define control?

Possessing the ball for 0.01 seconds? 0.1 seconds? 0.5 seconds? 1 second?

It’s a semantic argument

quote:

---

If Brooks wouldn’t have dropped it after grabbing it, I don’t think the call is reversed.

---

The only reason Brooks dropped it was because the guy out of bounds hit it loose. Thus, the moment a finger from the Alabama guy touches it, that play is dead so you can't factor in the loss of control

I just keep coming back to the point that Brooks had the ball in his possession AND was the first to touch it with both hands on the ball and down.


The stupid rule is a moot point because it was already recovered and down before it was even touched by Latu.

I don't get what some people are looking at here when they want to argue it. I think if you want to argue about it, then you just want to argue because you're not using your eyes and brain.

If that actually is a rule then it needs to change. Some tried to use this on the PP interception when he firmly had the ball with 2 hand and feet in. Out of bounds isn't some electric magic field that our bodies conduct. He lost possession period and an opponent was laying on the ground with 2 hands on it.