Replay reviews WF vs Lou

[Theisey]

That's my perspective on that play as well BBref. I saw no fumble action prior to player being legally down.

[schmitty1973]

I thought the ball was on it's way out before his knee hit the ground. Since it was ruled a fumble at first, there wasn't enough evidence to overrule it. But thats just my opinion.

[Rick KY]

I think the question that needs to be answered is "When does a ball become loose?" In my opinion, this ball was not loose, though the runner may have not had a good grasp of the ball, he did have it trapped against his body by one hand. Also, was the when in doubt rule applied here. I thought that when in doubt the runner is down, no fumble.

[NickelDeuce]

Coming loose is the same thing as being loose if at the end of the play the ball is loose. That's what happened on this play. The ball is coming loose in his hands before his knee hits the ground. Then the ball comes out after his knee and body hit.

[NickelDeuce]

Rick Ky, the rule is when in doubt call it a fumble. Especially in NFL and NCAA. Let replay fix the fumble, they can't fix the down by contact call. Besides, some say, if they don't want a fumble called, hold on to the ball.

[Rick KY]

Did the when in doubt rule change due to use of video reviews? What other when in doubt rules changed?

[sloth]

Instant reply has facilitated the change in the "when in doubt" rules. Logic being that a whistle kills the play and is not reviewable. With the ability to replay an action, a IW looks really bad when viedo proves that the play was not dead. If you let the play go, you can alway review it and go back to fix the call.

I do not agree that there has been any change in the "when in doubt" rules at the HS level.


I really like the use of the sideline warning. Very effective. The HC was pretty hot and the only way to cool him off was a flag. Better to not enforce yardage and just give a warning.

[mcrowder]

Originally Posted by Rick KY

I think the question that needs to be answered is "When does a ball become loose?" In my opinion, this ball was not loose, though the runner may have not had a good grasp of the ball, he did have it trapped against his body by one hand. Also, was the when in doubt rule applied here. I thought that when in doubt the runner is down, no fumble.

You keep saying, "He may not have had control of the ball, but it wasn't a fumble." You probably are not an official - if you were, you would know that a ball not controlled is a loose ball - whether this ball started from a point of possession (i.e. pre-fumble) or a point of non-possession (i.e. pre-catch or pre-recovery) is not material. If he doesn't, as you say, have control of the ball, then the ball is loose. Once the ball started involuntarily moving, it's loose.

Thus, a fumble in this particular case.

[Rick KY]

Mcrowder, I am an official of the NFHS variety. I did not say he did not have control. I said he did not have a good grasp, but he had it trapped between his hand and his body. I believe a player can possess a ball without having a good grasp. I was also asking about defining the precise moment when a ball comes loose. In the play being discussed, the player had the ball in his firm possession until he hit the pile. As he went down to his knee the ball appeared to slide from the tucked position up his torso, but he still had his hand trapping tehb all against his body. After his knee touched, the ball came completely out. So the question I have is when did the fumble occur. Since a fumble is a losse ball, and the ball was not loose until after the knee touched. how can this be ruled a fumble?

[JasonTX]

I don't recall the play in question but I'd like to point out that NCAA requires that the ball be firmly held or controled. 2-2-5-a

[Rick KY]

Then we have a difference of opinion. I believe that the runner, having the ball trapped against his body, held in place by his hand, was firm enough control of the ball, that this should not have been ruled a fumble. I understand your rules as they are described here, but I differ with the judgement of the covering official.

[mcrowder]

Originally Posted by Rick KY

Then we have a difference of opinion. I believe that the runner, having the ball trapped against his body, held in place by his hand, was firm enough control of the ball, that this should not have been ruled a fumble. I understand your rules as they are described here, but I differ with the judgement of the covering official.

No offense here, but it's not a difference of opinion ... it's a misunderstanding of the definition of control on your part.

Let's think of it this way, to clarify either your stance or your understanding (not sure which yet).

What if a receiver was fielding a pass and had exactly the control you see in the previously discussed play --- ball not yet in the hands, but trapped against his body, held in place by his hand, and then the ball went to the ground. Complete? Or incomplete (by your estimation)?

[Rick KY]

I can't say without seeing an example, but I would rule complete or incomplete depending on how long the ball was trapped against his body. The difference between your play and the play in this thread is that the runner for WF had possession before he was contacted and the ball started to move. In your play he is trying to gain possession.

I still have an issue with determining at what point possession is actually lost. I see possession, control of the ball and loose ball as three distuishable things.

[mcrowder]

Originally Posted by Rick KY

I can't say without seeing an example, but I would rule complete or incomplete depending on how long the ball was trapped against his body.

If a receiver has a ball in a particular position for which you would not rule control (thus - possession) for 1 second, then he still doesn't have control even if he holds it in that position for 10 seconds. Until he actually controls it, he doesn't. Period.

The difference between your play and the play in this thread is that the runner for WF had possession before he was contacted and the ball started to move. In your play he is trying to gain possession.

And there is the flaw in your logic that I tried to illustrate earlier. The difference that you note makes no difference at all. Whether he had possession before the moment in question or not is irrelevant to whether he has control of the ball (i.e. possession) at the moment in question. If you would rule a pass incomplete in a case like this, then he did not have possession at the critical moment, and thus, the play you are discussing is a fumble.

I still have an issue with determining at what point possession is actually lost. I see possession, control of the ball and loose ball as three distuishable things.

See what you want. The NCAA makes no such distinction. There is possession (which by definition includes control of the ball), and there is loose ball. No 3rd thing. No grey at all. Not sure if you're making up rules to fit your own preconceived notion or simply not aware of the rules in this case. I don't think Fed is different in this case either. There is no "middle ground" between possession and loose ball. By definition. By rule. Disagree if you will, but you are simply not correct here (if you still think you are - show some rule basis for it... I assure you that you will not find justification for your stance).