re: The overturn

I understand why they overturned it. I don’t agree with it, but I understand the logic. My main issue is consistency. How the hell is Bauer Sharp’s fumble a fumble if we are interpreting the rules this way. Just be consistent.

quote:

---

I don’t see where he lost control of the ball

---

I thought it was a catch.


They questioned the ball and its contact with the ground

Loading Twitter/X Embed...
If tweet fails to load, click here.

The problem with most have here and you seem to ignore is that Brown was a RUNNER after he caught the ball. As the ABC paid official said, he "made a football move". Plus he while RUNNING his knee hit the pylon with the ball firmly in his possession! The play is DEAD at that point since the catch has been made. For some EXCUSE you and a few others are making, you are acting like it was a Dez Byrant play against the Packers...a diving catch in the middle of the field. That "Dez Bryant' rule does NOT apply here...it is irrelevant because Brown became a RUNNER when he ran and made a football move. So yeah, I can't help you and a FEW others if you don't understand the rule. The rule differentiates between a receiver in the act of catching a ball and a ball carrier/runner. AFTER making the catch and making a football move, he WAS a runner!

You mixing apples and oranges with your assessment of what happened.

smooth99 learn the rules of college football, once he crossed the goal line, the ball is dead. The one step with the football is a football move, meaning the ball is dead and it is a catch. The ground at that point cannot cause a fumble but having already crossed the goal line it means it is a touchdown and the ball is dead.

In the Ohio state game, you have a clear case of the ground helping a catch and it was called a touchdown, this without a football move.

Every rule pro all said it was a catch, every show called it a catch, everyone replay review today (Sunday) called it a catch and many showed the Ohio State game catch and all said if that is a catch for a TD with no football move then this is clearly a catch.

quote:

---

I am just going to assume you are trolling me at this point.

---

Interesting projection. I'm curious which one you are asserting was not a step?

quote:

---

It was bc he did not have possession when he broke the goal line, then stepped out of bounds.

---

He had 100% possession until the ball hit the ground. He was holding it like a loaf of bread.

(no message)

Ever body in here, every announcer, commentator, and rules analyst on tv said it was a catch. The sec said it wasn't.

Lester's correct on this one.

And fwiw, I noted he DOES think it should have been called a TD.

But like he's pointed out, this is what the reviewer looked at:

*Brown "gets" ball, one foot in. So far so good.
*Brown crosses plane of goal line with ball in control. So far, so good.
*Brown second foot down, out of bounds on edge of endzone. He is going down, but has control of ball. So far so good.

*Brown hits the ground. This is where the questions are. The ball does move, but it doesn't come free (in my opinion). That's because he lands on his hand and the ball, instead of turning fully and cradling it.

It's my opinion, and obviously many others', that he did adequately maintain control of the ball. You heard Mike Pererra (the rules specialist the announcers ask) say "no. that's a touchdown", looking at the replay, AFTER the review and the play was called incomplete.

The replay official apparently disagreed, and felt that shift was enough to say he did not maintain possession throughout the act of making the catch.

If Brown would have made one more step upright, TD.
If Brown would have rotated and landed on his shoulder or back, without ever going out of bounds, TD.
Anything else is up to interpretation, and if you want to be ultra ticky-tack, when you watch on super slo-mo, could be cherry-picked into calling an incompletion. Which is stupid, but is the rule.

What gets me about that game and replay, I thought the replay official had to have indisputable evidence to overturn it. On the LSU catch, he can "say" he did, because the ball wiggled...

but on the incompletion for Clemson, that was overturned, he doesn't. Clemson guy 'got' the ball, LSU player pulls it out, call on field is incomplete. Replay, although it seems pretty evident, only shows player's backs. You NEVER see the ball, don't know if it was moving or not. For the record I thought it was a catch, and our guy pulled it out after his knee was down and play over... but that isn't the rule in question. I can't visually confirm he maintained full control of the ball while he had it, so I can't tell when the play is actually dead or not. I never see the ball until it comes out. It wasn't ruled a fumble, it was ruled an incompletion... lack of control. No indisputable evidence on replay saying it wasn't incomplete.

quote:

---

Interesting projection. I'm curious which one you are asserting was not a step?

---

He only made one step in bounds with possession of the football. So whatever fantasy 2nd step you see would be the one I’m talking about