Replay reviews WF vs Lou
 

If you saw the two fumbles, both were upheld by the replay official(s) as the play stands as called on the field.

It's simply my opinion based on the TV views shown that both were incorrect upheld.
What do ya'll think?

i thought they got the 1st one wrong, but that they got the second right. By the way effective use of the sideline warning by the head linesman against louisville, helped calm everything down a little

i thought they got the third right as well, i think the ncaa needs to revise their instant replay system, all of these reviews are starting to get tedious, but thats a whole other thread.

I have no issue with the 3'rd review other than it probably did not need to be reviewed.

I also applaud the sideline warning. It's a useful tool that unfortunately is not used often enough.

I don't know what they were looking at on the first review. ATo me, he was clearly down.

The second was less clear. I never saw a real good angle on it.

How about the non-review of a very close TD call. I just don't get it.
That was not an easy call for the on-field officials to make. A review would have been just what the doctor order to confirm or not.
I do agree it was a TD.

With the inclusion of technology (instant replay) in the game I would like to see a more clear (they may already have it) defination of when a fumble is actualy a fumble. The first fumble that was upheld (the one you disagree with), the ball was clearly on the move before his knee hits the ground. But for me it's not a fumble yet, but that movement may be what the replay officials are looking for. I personally feel that the ball must be clearly out of the grasp before it can be called a fumble. Now full speed with out replay that's a different matter, clearly a judgement call, but with a camera(s) with least 16 frames per second the exact time a fumble becomes a fumble should be clearly defined.

And it may already be.

Discussed this in the chat room. TexDoc said "you cannot start to fumble, the same as you cannot start to be pregnant." Meaning, if the ball is not firmly controlled, it is loose. In the NCAA book, they did add "firmly" to holding when discussing when a player gains possession of a ball. Thus, we agreed that if it is starting to move out of position, it is a fumble. Similarly, the catch on a review not confirmed if the ball is sliding in his hands. That is similar way of looking at it, and makes sense to me.

I think the WF fumble was incorrectly ruled a fumble. It appeared the knee was down before the ball was loose. This makes me think we needs to better define fumble, possession and loose ball as stated above. A loose ball is one not in player possession. The runner had possession, though he may not have had total control of the ball. Control of the ball is not defined in the FED rules

I am not convinced the UL TD was correctly ruled either. I could not see the ball break the plane, but I am not sure if the runner's progress was stopped. I agree if you're going to use review, that was the play to use it.

My question is, where was the coach standing when the sideline warning was given? I thought for certain he was standing in the coaching box. If indeed he was in the coaching box then he didn't do anything to warrant a sideline warning.

I thought he was several yards onto the field. He moved back with the official.

I thought he was out a ways as well, plus starting to get agitated towards the officials. It was a good time for it as it's really a no harm foul for the first one.

Back to the TD. I should have taped this game now, but too late. I don't have any doubts that the runner was not down by the traditional sense of a knee being on the ground as he was on top of players. It was more of, was his progress stopped sufficiently at any point to kill the play.

I thought it was pretty clear on the 1st fumble by WF that the ball was definitely moving before his knee hit. If any of you didn't see the ball start to move, if you'll go back and watch it you'll probably see it.

I don't think the definition of fumble needs to be revisited. It's either moving or not. In this case it was moving before the knee hit.

The second one was just tight all the way around. Go with the official.

Whether the ball is moving or not, and I agree it was moving, the ball was still trapped against the runner's body by his hand. It is not loose before the knee touched the ground. It is not as though he was juggling the ball. like a receive might do trying to catch a pass. Coming loose and being loose are not the same thing, just like gaining possession and having possession are not the same thing.

No, I disagree. It was not a fumble IMO. I watched it several times.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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?

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

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)?

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.

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.
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.

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).