- 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: Jeremy Hill had the best explanation about the fumble recovery that was not.
Posted on 11/6/22 at 2:36 pm to Geaux Tahel
Posted on 11/6/22 at 2:36 pm to Geaux Tahel
quote:
Disagree. I'm sure on an incomplete pass that goes through the hands of a WR you could stop the film at the precise time the ball hits the hands and make it look like a catch. The still picture doesn't catch how the ball is clearly moving around under the LSU player. He did NOT have full control until after the defender SUPPOSEDLY touched it while out of bounds.
The problem I have is irrelevant to “possession” (other than this ruling conflicts with the ruling we got against A&M with Mond). My issue is how can a player, who is out of bound, make a play on a live ball without re-establishing himself.
0
Posted on 11/6/22 at 2:53 pm to RealityTiger
quote:
How in the frick did he not have control? He had both hands on the ball in a stable position. He was the first one who touched it AND he had control/possession. That's the problem I have with that. I understand rules are rules and I think the rule is dumb. But even with that, it was LSU's ball all around.
and since Brooks has two hands on the ball and he is down on the ground, the play ends at that moment.
whatever happens after that does not matter. the play is dead. LSU ball.
Posted on 11/6/22 at 2:56 pm to dmatt2021
quote:
Would he have maintained control if not acted upon by a player who was out of bounds and impacted the play without reestablishing himself in bounds?
There is no specific rule prohibiting the player from participating out of bounds. The pass had been caught so it’s not illegal touching.
Posted on 11/6/22 at 2:57 pm to Vacherie Saint
quote:
It’s essentially the refs arbitrarily deciding if Brooks’ had “enough” possession. But the standards to overturn on review are supposed to be higher. No one can say the replay was clear on something so utterly subjective.
This is the true point of the matter. The call on the field was LSU ball. There was NOTHING in that review definitive/ indisputable enough to overturn the original call.
Posted on 11/6/22 at 3:04 pm to CajunAlum Tiger Fan
quote:
If Brooks wouldn’t have dropped it after grabbing it, I don’t think the call is reversed
But he dropped it because it was illegally touched by the Bama out of bounds player.
Thay was my issue
Posted on 11/6/22 at 3:09 pm to DeafVallyBatnR
quote:does that also apply to a receiver who gets two hands on the ball for a brief moment and then drops it? In your world, that’s a catch and a fumble? Absurd.
I think the moment Brooks has 2 hands on the ball it is possession.
Possession is more than merely touching the ball with two hands. it must be controlled for some period of time, which i admit i don’t know what that is.
But merely getting two hands on the ball, by itself, means nothing.
Posted on 11/6/22 at 3:13 pm to landrywasbeast30
Regardless if the player out of bounds touches the ball or not.. Brooks had both hands on the ball with his KNEE touching the ground.. that’s considered a dead ball and the play stops..didn’t matter if the OOB’s receiver would have touched it or not..Brook’s clearly has 2 hands on the ball knee down compared to Kelly Mond’s one hand knee down retaining possession.. what’s the difference???
This post was edited on 11/6/22 at 3:16 pm
Posted on 11/6/22 at 3:15 pm to DeafVallyBatnR
That is my exact position. And where is the compelling video evidence that call on the field was incorrect?????
Posted on 11/6/22 at 3:16 pm to atltiger6487
I would like someone to find a similar play around possession. The Mond play already proved refs are full of shite. They stole possession from LSU.
The refs took a bs argument stance. No one would have argued Brooks possession as there is clear video evidence he had the ball with his knee down.
The refs took a bs argument stance. No one would have argued Brooks possession as there is clear video evidence he had the ball with his knee down.
This post was edited on 11/6/22 at 3:19 pm
Posted on 11/6/22 at 3:19 pm to DeafVallyBatnR
There are certain teams that drive ratings (read generate money) and bama is one of those. It is just a fact of life. Any ordinary mind understood that the LSU player possessed the ball as he had a hand on either side of it. When a player out of bounds then touches it, the play is dead IF the LSU player was not already down. Just such a blatant screw job per usual for the SEC. The replay allows them to overturn a correct call and invoke bs like "he did not complete the possession."
This post was edited on 11/6/22 at 3:37 pm
Posted on 11/6/22 at 3:19 pm to BayouBlitz
Explain how he did NOT have "control".
Thanks.
Thanks.
Posted on 11/6/22 at 3:26 pm to im4LSU
quote:
The call on the field was LSU ball. There was NOTHING in that review definitive/ indisputable enough to overturn the original call.
There kind of was but I agree with the sentiment that it was a subjective call that overturned a call on the field so had to be conclusive.
More than one thing had to be confirmed in order to overturn
1. Brooks didn’t maintain control
2. Bamas player touched the ball while out of bounds while it was still a live ball
3. The ball was a live ball when he touched it
I think the loose end in the ruling is there is no in between status of the ball when it gets knocked out of brooks hands. He had it grasped with both knees on the ground. At what point is it dead? Only after it gets knocked out can you say he didn’t possess it, so was it dead when knocked out? Or dead after he touched it one it was on the ground?
The fact that there are so many questions after having time to review the rule would indicate a lack of conclusiveness. Too many moving parts, and I think they lost sight of all of those things that weren’t considered on the field being conclusive. I know I am a broken record here, but this all comes down to whether brooks made a football move or not, even if all of those other things are true. It’s a judgement and from a practical standpoint very hard to take from the recovering team.
From an officiating standpoint, you better be a fricking boyscout calling the rest of that game if you overturn the on the field ruling. . Instead they give two egregiously bad spots on the very next drive that we’re called back.
I’ll admit I look at this subjectively not only because I root for LSU but the burden of maintaining possession through a catch and apparently a fumble is way too high. Sucks the fun out of the game. I also can’t stand when the refs hold up the game like they did from that point on.
Posted on 11/6/22 at 3:27 pm to landrywasbeast30
He was conditioning the audience to accept the BS call he knew was coming. At bottom, it is a conspiracy to maximize profits, however that need be done.
Posted on 11/6/22 at 3:46 pm to OceanMan
Yes there is the illegal touching rule says once you are out of bounds you have to re-establish in bounds to be able to make an impact not catch the ball just an impact on the play of the ball
Posted on 11/6/22 at 4:23 pm to lovinLSU
quote:
Brooks had both hands on the ball with his KNEE touching the ground.. that’s considered a dead ball and the play stops
I don't think that's the precedent on a loose ball. .
On a player with established possession running the ball, yes.
Posted on 11/6/22 at 5:11 pm to OceanMan
quote:not in this instance but on a kicking play no K player can go out of bounds voluntarily and return to participate in the play, even rarer than last night's play
There is no specific rule prohibiting the player from participating out of bounds
Posted on 11/6/22 at 5:14 pm to 1723lale
"Established possession". What horseshittery. Sounds like the kind of parsing an attorney would undertake. Gimme a fricking break.
Posted on 11/6/22 at 5:18 pm to DeafVallyBatnR
quote:
Brooks clearly had 2 hands on the ball and control.
He did not have possession. Every weekend there's a fumble where somebody dives for it, has two hands on it for 1/20th of a second, and it slips out like an oiled pig. And that is never, ever considered possession. It happens all the time. Merely having two hands on it for a split second while laying on the ground is not possession. It never has been. Look at it in real time, not 20x slow motion.
Posted on 11/6/22 at 5:22 pm to dmatt2021
quote:
Yes there is the illegal touching rule says once you are out of bounds you have to re-establish in bounds to be able to make an impact not catch the ball just an impact on the play of the ball
Can you link the rule or cite it?
Posted on 11/6/22 at 5:24 pm to DeafVallyBatnR
What ever happened to it needing to be indisputable video evidence to overturn the call on the field.
Please explain to me the evidence that was strong as to overturn the call on the field.
Please explain to me the evidence that was strong as to overturn the call on the field.
Page 5 of 10
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News