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

quote:

---

The rule does not say possession. That word is no where in the rule. You’re just making it up as you go along.

---

Are you referring to this?

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.

If so, would it make you feel better if I substitute "control" for "take possession"? I wasn't aware that in order to give an example we had to have an exact quote from the book, but we can do that as well if you want to play semantic games. It doesn't change the result of the example that I gave. It's still a free kick out of bounds, whether he takes possession of the ball, controls it or merely touches it.

quote:

---

First off, who is we?

---

LSU on the call.

quote:

---

Secondly, what is this loophole you speak of,

---

I just posted it. The rule says control, not possession. And none of those rules you listed defines “control”.

quote:

---

third what did you win

---

The argument bc you have yet to show me where control is defined.

quote:

---

You do understand that in many cases it's necessary to combine more than one rule to make a ruling, right?

---

I certainly do. As a judge for many years I know that laws must be interpreted alongside others.

However, I know that laws and rules define terms within either that particular law or rule or within the Chapter or section.

In this case, the the entire NCAA rule book there is no definition of control. Thus we do not know how loosely we should define it. It is an error on the part of the NCAA, a loophole thus the ruling on the field stands.

The unknown refs is Birmingham and you are wrong.

quote:

---

LSU on the call.

---

Ummm, OK.

quote:

---

I just posted it. The rule says control, not possession. And none of those rules you listed defines “control”.

---

You need to dig a little deeper. You need to visit 2-4-3-a-3, 2-4-3-g and 2-4-3-h

quote:

---

The argument bc you have yet to show me where control is defined.

---

See above.

quote:

---

I certainly do. As a judge for many years I know that laws must be interpreted alongside others.

---

In that case, you need to dig a little deeper into the book.

quote:

---

However, I know that laws and rules define terms within either that particular law or rule or within the Chapter or section.

In this case, the the entire NCAA rule book there is no definition of control. Thus we do not know how loosely we should define it. It is an error on the part of the NCAA, a loophole thus the ruling on the field stands.

---

Again, keep digging. And you may not know, but those charged with the game do know and we see it frequently, for example the definition of holding present in the rule book and the philosophies by which those rules are applied.[/quote]

quote:

---

The unknown refs is Birmingham and you are wrong.

---

What unknown ref? And what am I wrong about now?

quote:

---

You need to dig a little deeper. You need to visit 2-4-3-a-3, 2-4-3-g and 2-4-3-h

---

You could have simply copied and pasted yet you throw out numbers with no definition of control.

Objection sustained.

quote:

---

Again, keep digging. And you may not know, but those charged with the game do know and we see it frequently, for example the definition of holding present in the rule book and the philosophies by which those rules are applied

---

Why should I dig? I asked you where in that book is the definition of control. No where in those rules does that definition apply.

And as for those charged with the game knowing bullshite, if this were the case, the B1G official and the SEC official would be the same in seeing and interpreting the tip/interference call.

Your implication that the rules are the rules and the officials know these rules and us lay people do not fails bc we saw for a fact two officials seeing the same review knowing the same rules had opposite opinions.

What bothers me the most is that there wasn’t indisputable evidence that Brooks didn’t have possession. That was an obvious case of just sticking with the ruling on the field.

quote:

---

So then you are saying that Bill Lemonnier has some sort of pro-Bama bias? You're all over the place so you're kinda hard to follow.

---

The B1G official found in both instances the call should be overturned. One favoring Bama and one favoring LSU.

You’re either intentionally obtuse or have difficulty following. I was replying to your assertion that bc the B1G official agreed with the SEC official then that proves the SEC official was not biased. Yet you ignore the more important call on the goal line where the officials disagreed. Birmingham favored Bama. B1G favored SEC.

quote:

---

If you're referring to David Almand, he was in Tiger Stadium last night.

---

Well correct the ESPN announcers who said Birmingham.

quote:

---

So, you think it's rigged? If it's rigged is it by the guys on the field or the replay guy? If it's rigged, why did Alabama lose? If it's rigged, why do you waste your time watching?

---

Timothy Francis Donaghy (/'d?n?gi/; born January 7, 1967) is a former professional basketball referee who worked in the National Basketball Association (NBA) for 13 seasons from 1994 to 2007 until he was caught in a gambling scandal.

Papers filed in court contain damning allegations by Donaghy that a 2002 playoff series was rigged by referees and that league officials encouraged refs to affect the outcome of games by calling fouls or, in other situations, not calling on fouls on star players.

At Evangeline Downs, a state trooper who was secretly monitoring the track noticed the tote board changed after the race was completed. IOW someone was betting AFTER the race bc the tote board changed to reflect bets.

Further investigation revealed one guy at the ticket counter kept his machine open while his buddy watching the race signaled him which horse was winning the race.

Another example, on a very rainy night at Evangeline Downs, in a long race which required horses to go around the track twice, the horse who won, ridden by Sylvester Carmouche, didn’t pass the first round. Carmouche, stopped his horse and waited for the horses to come around again, the took off well ahead of the field.

Fair Grounds, HITS parade derby, the winning horse, owned by the track’s owner, had a post race piss test return positive. He appealed. And the test was lost! Imagine that. Without the test, the case was thrown out and the owner of fair grounds win the $100,000 race.

I can go on with every sport. But if you think officials do not rig contests when money is involved, you are not only incredibly naive but also ignorant of sports history.

Brian Kelly said he went for two to keep the game in LSU’s hands. He clearly implied that he did not want the refs to decide it.

I can list a number of bad calls in that game including the hold on Perkins on the Bama td pass which was also face mask and hands to the face (see my thread I started) but an ostrich aka former ref with his head in the sand will not care.

You are biased. As a former ref, you are biased. Period. End of story.

I’m sure this rule has evolved to it’s current state b/c bama has complained in the past .. R.E.C.

quote:

---

bad rule

---

Haven't read the thread and don't want to get into the possession thing, but this is a bad rule. It extends out of bounds onto the field. It should be more like an illegal touching when a wide receiver who hasn't reestablished himself from out of bounds. Let the play reach it's conclusion and determine outcome from there.

If an offensive player touched it and the defense recovered it, ball should go to defense at spot of recovery. If offense recovers or ball is out of bounds, ball retained by offense, but if downfield returned to the original line of scrimmage with loss of down. If behind the line of scrimmage, at spot of recovery.

For a defensive player offence should receive the most advantageous outcome. If defense recovers or ball is knocked out of bounds, offense retains possession at point of touching or where it went out of bounds if further down the field. If offense recovers offense retains possession either at the point of touching or where they recovered if it is further down the field.

The point is possession shouldn't matter. Let it play out and give the offending team the least advantageous outcome.

As per usual, hill is wrong. Lsu didnt have possession before the bama player touched the ball. He had 2 hands on the ball, but not possession. I was way more upset about the tipped pass

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”.

---

Yes there is, I posted it above. But it is subjective, and the same standard for making a reception.

It’s interesting that people just flat out refuse to read the actual rules and keep arguing

I don’t even disagree with leaving the call on the field, I understand how the rule casts doubt but the criteria to overturn must be 100% certainty and I think with everything going on in the play the refs lost sight of THAT standard