re: Trying more to understand this fumble non recovery

quote:

---

Someone show me where you have to have 2 hands on the ball for x seconds to have “ possession”.

---

I already quoted the exact rule, in a reply to you, in this very thread.

quote:

---

You see the clip of the Packers kick return guy that lays on the ground with his feet out of bounds and touches the ball that was inbounds? The ref threw a flag for kicking out of bounds. It was explained that the return man was out of bounds and as soon as he touched the ball it too was deemed out of bounds. Last night the Bama player was out of bounds and as soon as he touched the ball it was deemed out of bounds. If the ball was not possessed at that point it remains so. The question, for me at least is whether or not LSU had secured possession prior to him touching the ball.

---

And in both of these cases the player committing the illegal touching should be penalized at least and not the other team.

The rule has to be changed to punish the offending player in some form and it should be something like 10-15 yards from the previous spot. This would discourage cheap but legal loopholes that go against the spirit of the game.

quote:

---

No. The Alabama player touching it from out of bounds is in no way taking possession of the ball. It’s effectively the same as the ball touching the sideline at that point, because he is out of bounds.

---

it may have been "effectively the same as the ball touching the sideline" because of the rule, but it literally is not touching the sideline. and is in fact in bounds the defender having completely stripped the runner of possession and the possession of the ball should now be considered neutral and a player not in the field of play should not be allowed to effect possession, or should at least be penalized imo.

an amendment and exception to the rule should be considered

well now that I think more about it, if it was a defender lying out of bounds and touching the ball, the ball would have to be ruled dead on contact there as well, so the rule would have to be the same for either circumstance. i think...maybe

quote:

---

This doesn’t make any sense from the standpoint of falling on a fumbled ball on the ground.

---

It doesn’t say the player has to perform a football move. It says a player has to maintain control long enough to perform a football move.

It’s basically a way of saying you have to clearly secure the ball to gain possession. If that wasn’t a requirement, then every OL who gets two hands on a ball after a strip/sack would be down on the spot and retain possession.. regardless of whether the ball squirted back out of his hands immediately after.

My biggest issue with the ruling is that I don’t believe there was indisputable evidence that the Bama player touched the ball. It certainly wasn’t more clear than the tip in OT.

quote:

---

Namely that the player must maintain possession long enough to “perform an act common to the game” (e.g. the old “football move”).

---

He kneeled

Posted this in another thread

The sec has already stated they used rule 4 section 2 article 3

quote:

---

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. b. A ball that touches a pylon is out of bounds behind the goal line. c. If a live ball not in player possession crosses a boundary line and then is declared out of bounds, it is out of bounds at the crossing point.

---

So this whole thing revolves around whether Brooks had possession or not. The SEC believes he did not. The recovery is basically under the same scrutiny as a complete pass (Rule 2 section for article 3.g).

IMO because the bama player knocked it loose, they deemed he did not have possession because Brooks didn’t “complete the catch” and when latua touched it the second time, the ball was declared dead as rule 4 sec 2 art 3 was applied.

The main objection from an LSU perspective should be that the play was overturned as conclusive Brooks didn’t have possession defined at rule 2 sec 4 article 4.a

quote:

---

a. Player Possession. The ball is in player possession when a player has the ball firmly in their grasp by holding or controlling it with hand(s) or arm(s) while contacting the ground inbounds.

---

I suppose the recovery rule overrides the possession rule. But this is a matter of judgement and was ruled controlled on the field.

quote:

---

The LSU player didn't show complete possession of the ball.

---

I don't think there is any such thing as "complete" possession. He had 2 hands on the ball and was in the process of gathering it to his body.

Rule should be changed to the ball has to be out of bounds or the oob player must have possession to kill the play.

The rule is fine. It was just misapplied in my opinion because the LSU player had gained possession of the ball therefore when the bama player touched it it wasn’t a loose ball out of bounds.

But the rule itself is fine, good and easily understandable stop overreacting because y’all don’t understand the finer points of football mechanics. This rule does not need to be addressed at all.

I think it was a misinterpretation of the rule. The claim was that the out of bounds player, by touching the ball, killed the play before LSU player completed full possession. I don't see where in that rule "full completed possession" is required. Simply touching the ball should not affect the act of possession, regardless of who touches it.