- 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 5:25 pm to ZenFNmaster
Posted on 11/6/22 at 5:25 pm to ZenFNmaster
Good point as there was no such evidence. SEC HQ getting paid doing werk of' da' gumps.
0
Posted on 11/6/22 at 5:48 pm to OvertheDwayneBowe
quote:
This is not true for possession. Only in terms of a catch.
Rule 2 section 4 article 3g states a fumble recovery is subject to the same standards as those of a catch.
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 9:27 pm to OceanMan
Any and every person who has watched football their whole life watched that play and said that's a fumble that LSU recovered.
Hell, Bama had their defense on the field during the entire review because they knew it too.
To overturn such an obvious fumble and recovery is an afront the the spirit of the game no matter how many slowmo replays you look at and obscure rules you try to apply.
Hell, Bama had their defense on the field during the entire review because they knew it too.
To overturn such an obvious fumble and recovery is an afront the the spirit of the game no matter how many slowmo replays you look at and obscure rules you try to apply.
Posted on 11/6/22 at 9:36 pm to tgrgrd00
quote:
To overturn such an obvious fumble and recovery is an afront the the spirit of the game no matter how many slowmo replays you look at and obscure rules you try to apply.
How do we determine which rules are obscure and which aren't?
Posted on 11/6/22 at 9:47 pm to 62zip
The SEC hq needs to be moved to Frisco next to PGA hq.
Posted on 11/6/22 at 9:48 pm to 62zip
quote:
How do we determine which rules are obscure and which aren't?
Obscure - not discovered or known about; uncertain.
Like I said, when any knowledge person is watching the play and sees an obvious fumble and recovery. Then it takes minutes of review and a questionable interpretation of a rule that many aren't even aware exists that goes against the spirit of the game.
This is why you have so many complaints. People saw a fumble and recovery plain as day.
This post was edited on 11/6/22 at 10:06 pm
Posted on 11/6/22 at 9:55 pm to DJFord
quote:
There was no conclusive evidence that the bammer even touched to ball. He could have whiffed.
That’s my issue.
Posted on 11/6/22 at 9:56 pm to tgrgrd00
quote:
Like I said, when any knowledge person is watching the play and sees an obvious fumble and recovery. Then it takes minutes of review and an questionable interpretation of a rule that many aren't even aware exists that goes against the spirit of the game.
So that raises another question - who exactly considers it a "questionable interpretation"? Fans who don't understand the rules involved? Just because some fans with a rooting interest in the outcome don't understand a rule doesn't mean it wasn't applied correctly.
What percentage of fans do you think could pass a rules test?
Posted on 11/6/22 at 10:00 pm to Sir Fury
quote:
Again, it was ruled as a fumble recovery on the field and the replay shows two hands securely around the ball before the OOB player knocks it out.
Posted on 11/6/22 at 10:04 pm to 62zip
quote:
So that raises another question - who exactly considers it a "questionable interpretation"? Fans who don't understand the rules involved? Just because some fans with a rooting interest in the outcome don't understand a rule doesn't mean it wasn't applied correctly.
Not sure. I still haven't seen the actual rule being applied tbh.
And most couldn't pass a rules test. Rightfully so. The rules of American football are overly complicated and that actually leads to my point.
My point is, again, people who have watched football their entire lives saw an obvious fumble and recovery. It was about as obvious as you can get. Then for the obvious fumble and recovery to be negated is going to cause complaints. Many see it is an afront to the spirit of the game is my point regardless of what rule was applied.
Posted on 11/6/22 at 10:06 pm to 62zip
I don't know what the exact language of the rule is; but honestly, it's irrelevant. Precedence is what matters. When in your life have you ever seen a fumble ruled in this manner. Think of all the onside kicks that are recovered right at the sideline along with all the players losing control of the ball and juggling it when they went out of bounds. Have any of these even once been declared "ball is dead because it was touched by an out of bounds player"?
Posted on 11/6/22 at 10:18 pm to tgrgrd00
quote:
Not sure. I still haven't seen the actual rule being applied tbh.
It's been posted in probably two or three other threads.
quote:
And most couldn't pass a rules test. Rightfully so. The rules of American football are overly complicated and that actually leads to my point.
My point is, again, people who have watched football their entire lives saw an obvious fumble and recovery. It was about as obvious as you can get. Then for the obvious fumble and recovery to be negated is going to cause complaints. Many see it is an afront to the spirit of the game is my point regardless of what rule was applied.
Fair enough, but fans complaining doesn't mean it's wrong.
Horse collar tackles are a great example of this - when the rule was first put in the defender had to actually be inside the jersey opening in order fir it to be a foul and fans bitched all the time when player was grabbed in the nameplate area, but of course now that is part of the rule. People also used to complain all the time when a defender grabbed the runner inside the opening and the runner stayed upright, but it wasn't a foul because the runner wasn't pulled down.
Oh well, as long as we have football, we'll have that sort of thing.
Posted on 11/6/22 at 10:22 pm to BengalBeaux
quote:
I don't know what the exact language of the rule is; but honestly, it's irrelevant. Precedence is what matters. When in your life have you ever seen a fumble ruled in this manner. Think of all the onside kicks that are recovered right at the sideline along with all the players losing control of the ball and juggling it when they went out of bounds. Have any of these even once been declared "ball is dead because it was touched by an out of bounds player"?
"Precedent" doesn't matter, the rule matters. The rule is what the rule is - that being said now that replay is a thing (I don't remember the year it started in NCAA) it is much easier to catch that sort of thing that can be missed in real time. I'm not sure if I've seen a fumble with that particular ruling applied before or not, but I know for certain that I've seen the same rule applied to a kick returner straddling the sideline and fielding a kick which is then flagged as a free kick out of bounds.
Posted on 11/6/22 at 10:50 pm to 62zip
Possession of the ball with a foot out of bounds is a totally different thing than a slap at the ball while out of bounds. Precedent does matter because it defines how a written rule has been interpreted, applied, and enforced. That should not change suddenly because a different interpretation would aid the SEC's favorite son.
Once again, this play was not all that strange. There's been numerous fumbles and other live ball situations near the sideline that can be looked at. Please show me one example as to when this interpretation was applied to an out of bounds player touching (not possessing) a live ball and suddenly causing the ball to be deemed dead.
Once again, this play was not all that strange. There's been numerous fumbles and other live ball situations near the sideline that can be looked at. Please show me one example as to when this interpretation was applied to an out of bounds player touching (not possessing) a live ball and suddenly causing the ball to be deemed dead.
This post was edited on 11/6/22 at 10:53 pm
Posted on 11/6/22 at 10:57 pm to 62zip
Here’s the rule:
Not in player control are the operative words here. Problem is, there is nothing in the rule book (at least that I can find) that defines “player control”.
It does NOT say “possession” but player control.
If you cannot find this definition then the term is can be defined a number of ways including having two hands on the ball CONTROLLING it towards the body, the the ruling on the field stands.
Loophole. We win. You’re wrong.
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.
Not in player control are the operative words here. Problem is, there is nothing in the rule book (at least that I can find) that defines “player control”.
It does NOT say “possession” but player control.
If you cannot find this definition then the term is can be defined a number of ways including having two hands on the ball CONTROLLING it towards the body, the the ruling on the field stands.
Loophole. We win. You’re wrong.
Posted on 11/6/22 at 10:58 pm to DeafVallyBatnR
I think the key for me was the call on the field was recovered by LSU….I don’t think any logical person can see a definitive clear reason to overturn the call on the field….that was my opinion during the game and it still is.
I feel the same about the tipped ball on the PI in OT…..it was a hard call to overturn but if you overturned that fumble recovery that PI should have been overturned.
I feel the same about the tipped ball on the PI in OT…..it was a hard call to overturn but if you overturned that fumble recovery that PI should have been overturned.
Posted on 11/6/22 at 11:05 pm to LSU316
The “guys in Birmingham” none of whom we know, determined that one call didn’t need to be 100% conclusive and the other needed to be 100% conclusive.
And both interpretations, which were opposite of the other, favored Alabama.
And both interpretations, which were opposite of the other, favored Alabama.
Posted on 11/6/22 at 11:19 pm to BengalBeaux
quote:
Possession of the ball with a foot out of bounds is a totally different thing than a slap at the ball while out of bounds. Precedent does matter because it defines how a written rule has been interpreted, applied, and enforced. That should not change suddenly because a different interpretation would aid the SEC's favorite son.
The same would apply if the kick returner merely touches the ball - he doesn't need to take possession of the ball in order for it to be a free kick out of bounds - according to the rule it merely needs to contact him.
quote:
Once again, this play was not all that strange. There's been numerous fumbles and other live ball situations near the sideline that can be looked at. Please show me one example as to when this interpretation was applied to an out of bounds player touching (not possessing) a live ball and suddenly causing the ball to be deemed dead.
I have no idea how many times it has or hasn't occurred and that is irrelevant. The rule is the rule.
Please show me one example where the same thing happened and the ball was not ruled to be out of bounds by virtue of that touching.
But yeah, the reason it was ruled that way is because the game is rigged to favor the "SEC's favorite son."
The best part is that the rules guy who was a B1G guy in his career was also shilling for the "SEC's favorite son."
Posted on 11/6/22 at 11:27 pm to 62zip
quote:
have no idea how many times it has or hasn't occurred and that is irrelevant. The rule is the rule.
The rule does not say possession. That word is no where in the rule. You’re just making it up as you go along.
Posted on 11/6/22 at 11:28 pm to DJFord
quote:
Not in player control are the operative words here. Problem is, there is nothing in the rule book (at least that I can find) that defines “player control”.
It does NOT say “possession” but player control.
If you cannot find this definition then the term is can be defined a number of ways including having two hands on the ball CONTROLLING it towards the body, the the ruling on the field stands.
Loophole. We win. You’re wrong.
First off, who is we? Secondly, what is this loophole you speak of, third what did you win?
You do understand that in many cases it's necessary to combine more than one rule to make a ruling, right?
I suggest in your quest for answers, you also take a look at Rules 2-4-3-a-3, 2-4-3-g and 2-4-3-h
Page 6 of 10
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News