Clarification, Muff vs. Fumble

[Tulsa_Fireman]

Okay, straight from the NCAA Rulebook. Let's start with definitions.

LOOSE BALL - Rule 2 Sec. 2 Article 3.2, A loose ball is a live ball not in player possession during a scrimmage or free kick before possession is gained or regained or the ball is dead by rule.

POSSESSION - Rule 2 Sec. 2 Article 5(a), A player gains possession when he secures the ball firmly by holding or controlling it while contacting the ground inbounds. The ball is then in player possession. NOTE: Noticethe difference from the NFL Rule where the player must execute a "football move".

FUMBLE - Rule 2 Sec. 10 Article 1, A fumble is any act other than passing, kicking or successful handing that results in loss of player possession.

MUFF - Rule 2 Sec. 10 Article 2, A muff is an unsuccessful attempt to catch or recover a ball that is touched in the attempt.

Yes, the kicking team cannot advance a muffed punt once possession is gained.

Now fire up your magic replay boxes and tell me. Muff or fumble? I'll kiss your *** in front of God, Jesus, and downtown Tulsa if that was a muff as per the rules.

[picasso]

That was not a muff. He had possession and fumbled.

Great point.

[Okie35]

That was not a muff. He had possession and fumbled.

Great point.

Exactly... I don't need a rule to see it but thanks for that threadstarter... a muff is when the ball is dropped while trying to catch the return.

[Petro-Sooner]

I've got it on DVR. Tomorrow at some point I'll watch it again. From what I remember seeing on the slow motion replay it was a muff and he never had control of it. If I'm wrong I'll admit it.

[rawlingsHOH]

I've got it on DVR. Tomorrow at some point I'll watch it again. From what I remember seeing on the slow motion replay it was a muff and he never had control of it. If I'm wrong I'll admit it.

In slo-mo it definitely looks like a catch and a fumble. At full speed it looks like a muff.

[Jock Ewing]

Know excuses

[Flagstaffsooner]

God, Jesus, and downtown Tulsa
Ya forgot Tebow.

[meoveryouxinfinity]

Know excuses

lol. i hope this is on purpose.

[meoveryouxinfinity]

Know excuses

lol. i hope this is on purpose.

[meoveryouxinfinity]

Know excuses

lol. i hope this is on purpose.

[meoveryouxinfinity]

Know excuses

lol. i hope this is on purpose.

[meoveryouxinfinity]

Know excuses

lol. i hope this is on purpose.

[BOOMERBRADLEY]

Wow 5x post

[picasso]

Know excuses

Oh I know them.

-Bill Clinton

[Penguin]

After reading this thread, I would like the last 60 seconds of my life back.

[CBUS_SOONER]

lol. i hope this is on purpose.

know kiddin

[Texas]

Never had possession.

[Lextx97]

Gig'em Sooners

[BermudaSooner]

That was not a muff. He had possession and fumbled.

Great point.

But what is the point of this? If it was a fumble, then Texas can advance it, but then the Texas player fumbled out of our endzone and it would have been a touchback--ball to OU?

[BermudaSooner]

Know excuses

Dude, it is very clever of you to post this in every thread--congrats to you.

Your team got very lucky multiple times--that is part of the game. Take it and move on.

[Penguin]

Fumbling with a muff, now, that's embarrassing.

[SGT Park3R]

Ok. Even it was ruled a fumble then the TX player advanced it to the 1 yard line before our guy (name?) poked it out right before he crossed the goal line. So wouldn't that make it TX ball on the 1?

If by posting this you were trying to point out that the officials got it wrong then yes I suppose so. But didn't their mistake actually hurt TX not us?

I understand trying to clarify a "muff" from a "fumble" but it seems like you were contending the call towards the end of your post. And it's your questioning the referees call that has me confused.

But thanks for quoting the rule book.

[Tulsa_Fireman]

But what is the point of this? If it was a fumble, then Texas can advance it, but then the Texas player fumbled out of our endzone and it would have been a touchback--ball to OU?

Yup. Exactly. And the fact that they had replay to get it right.

Let me make something clear here. Do I think the refs cost us the game? No. Do I think that there should be an even shot on the field and that the home cooking BS needs to stay in Eugene, Oregon? You're damn right. If it's an issue of Big XII referees sucking, fix the problem. But if it's an issue of big money matchups and the conference's best shot at a national title, cut that cancerous corruption out of the game. It's the naive little boy in me, but I still look at the college game as the highest quality AND purest form of the game. And it disheartens me to think that is lost for dollars and trophies.

[SGT Park3R]

Yup. Exactly. And the fact that they had replay to get it right.

Let me make something clear here. Do I think the refs cost us the game? No. Do I think that there should be an even shot on the field and that the home cooking BS needs to stay in Eugene, Oregon? You're damn right. If it's an issue of Big XII referees sucking, fix the problem. But if it's an issue of big money matchups and the conference's best shot at a national title, cut that cancerous corruption out of the game. It's the naive little boy in me, but I still look at the college game as the highest quality AND purest form of the game. And it disheartens me to think that is lost for dollars and trophies.

So incompetent refs then? Got it. I agree that I would like near perfect officiating but what are we going to about it? I think the Sooners played a great game. Looking forward to them winning the rest of their games.

[Tulsa_Fireman]

Ok. Even it was ruled a fumble then the TX player advanced it to the 1 yard line before our guy (name?) poked it out right before he crossed the goal line. So wouldn't that make it TX ball on the 1?

If by posting this you were trying to point out that the officials got it wrong then yes I suppose so. But didn't their mistake actually hurt TX not us?

I understand trying to clarify a "muff" from a "fumble" but it seems like you were contending the call towards the end of your post. And it's your questioning the referees call that has me confused.

But thanks for quoting the rule book.

No. Let me break it down as I did in another thread. 3 ways this call could have gone. The rules are important as they define not only Dominique's interaction with the football, how the ruling should be executed for that, as well as Brandon Crow's stellar play to force the fumble.

1. Dominique Franks muffs the punt. The existing ruling. Texas ball at the point where possession is gained as the kicking team cannot advance a muffed punt. HOWEVER...

2. Dominique Franks establishes possession, the hit from the texas defender forces the fumble. This ball, unlike if the call was a muff, CAN be advanced, which in turn gives texas possession on the recovery. Texas possession is lost via Crow's forced fumble, at which point the ball travels out of the end zone. With a loose ball, if it goes out of the end zone of the advancing team (texas), it is called a touchback, OU football at the 20.

3. Dominique Franks has possession, but his left foot is out of bounds. Dead ball at the point of possession, receiving team. This is too close to call, but from what I can tell from replay, this option isn't applicable as his foot looks to be right on the edge of the out of bounds marker.

So no, it wouldn't be texas ball on the 1. It should've been 1st and 10 OU at the 20 as by the definitions of possession, fumble, and muff, Dominique Franks had possession, was struck by the texas defender, who in turn forced the fumble.

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

the problem was that it was ruled a muff on the field. that meant that once it was recovered it was considered a dead ball, everything else that happened on the play was moot. the replay guys got it right based on the limitations imposed by the call on the field. had they called it a fumble, it would have been our ball.

[ocsooner]

If we have schools making 1 to 5 million per game, why can't we take 100,000 from ONE game and pay professional refs? Having weekend warrior refs that aren't accountable because they don't have much income to loose for making bad calls is kind if a shame for a money producing sport like College Football.

I guess that would take money away from the networks.

The day is coming when we will have suits and ties running around the sidelines like there is in the NFL.

[Petro-Sooner]

In slo-mo it definitely looks like a catch and a fumble. At full speed it looks like a muff.

Just watched it again. Indeed it does look like a fumble in slow-mo.

[rawlingsHOH]

Just watched it again. Indeed it does look like a fumble in slow-mo.

Yeah, it's tucked away and popped out.

[Eielson]

the problem was that it was ruled a muff on the field. that meant that once it was recovered it was considered a dead ball, everything else that happened on the play was moot. the replay guys got it right based on the limitations imposed by the call on the field. had they called it a fumble, it would have been our ball.

I don't recall a whistle ever blowing it dead during the play, though. Also, does anybody else think Franks might have also been out of bounds on top of it all?

[rawlingsHOH]

I don't recall a whistle ever blowing it dead during the play, though. Also, does anybody else think Franks might have also been out of bounds on top of it all?

Yeah, wasn't whistled dead, and in fact ruled a TD at first (and incorrectly, as the Texas player fumbled prior to crossing the line). Then someone else interperated the Franks fumble as a muff, after the play, and marked it back.

[stoopified]

Obviously the NCAA and I have a different definition of muff. :D
That being said I think the refs screwed the pooch on that call.

[Jock Ewing]

Sooners know ok-cuses.

[Gresho Murford]

Obviously the NCAA and I have a different definition of muff. :D
That being said I think the refs screwed the pooch on that call.

and the PI call on #5. horrible call

[Camomaha]

I don't know how many Big 12 games you all have watched this year but the officals have been brutal in every game. Not surprising they screwed this up too.

[The Maestro]

5 TO's, fellas. Stupid to even attempt to field that punt to begin with.

Besides, I heard you couldn't advance on muff, but last night was my anniversary and I begged to differ and proved the rules WRONG!!!

[sooners2win]

I thought a muff was.........Never mind :D

[unbiasedtruth]

It was said somewhere else, ever since Beebe became head of the Big XII and brought in the guy over officiating(forget his name), the officiating of Big XII games, all of them, has consistingly degraded to the point Big XII officials cant call a game correct....

[SGT Park3R]

No. Let me break it down as I did in another thread. 3 ways this call could have gone. The rules are important as they define not only Dominique's interaction with the football, how the ruling should be executed for that, as well as Brandon Crow's stellar play to force the fumble.

1. Dominique Franks muffs the punt. The existing ruling. Texas ball at the point where possession is gained as the kicking team cannot advance a muffed punt. HOWEVER...

2. Dominique Franks establishes possession, the hit from the texas defender forces the fumble. This ball, unlike if the call was a muff, CAN be advanced, which in turn gives texas possession on the recovery. Texas possession is lost via Crow's forced fumble, at which point the ball travels out of the end zone. With a loose ball, if it goes out of the end zone of the advancing team (texas), it is called a touchback, OU football at the 20.

3. Dominique Franks has possession, but his left foot is out of bounds. Dead ball at the point of possession, receiving team. This is too close to call, but from what I can tell from replay, this option isn't applicable as his foot looks to be right on the edge of the out of bounds marker.

So no, it wouldn't be texas ball on the 1. It should've been 1st and 10 OU at the 20 as by the definitions of possession, fumble, and muff, Dominique Franks had possession, was struck by the texas defender, who in turn forced the fumble.

Sorry don't mean to beat a dead horse hear and in no way am I trying to argue. However from my POV when the Sooners player knocked it out of Crow's arms it looked like the ball went directly out of bounds at the 1 yard line to me. And that's why I was thinking it would be TX ball on the 1.

Overall just a bizarre game indeed. So much drama and just uncharacterisic play on both ends. But man did I love the way our D played. That's the kind of D I wish we had for all 4 quarters of every game.

[SGT Park3R]

No. Let me break it down as I did in another thread. 3 ways this call could have gone. The rules are important as they define not only Dominique's interaction with the football, how the ruling should be executed for that, as well as Brandon Crow's stellar play to force the fumble.

1. Dominique Franks muffs the punt. The existing ruling. Texas ball at the point where possession is gained as the kicking team cannot advance a muffed punt. HOWEVER...

2. Dominique Franks establishes possession, the hit from the texas defender forces the fumble. This ball, unlike if the call was a muff, CAN be advanced, which in turn gives texas possession on the recovery. Texas possession is lost via Crow's forced fumble, at which point the ball travels out of the end zone. With a loose ball, if it goes out of the end zone of the advancing team (texas), it is called a touchback, OU football at the 20.

3. Dominique Franks has possession, but his left foot is out of bounds. Dead ball at the point of possession, receiving team. This is too close to call, but from what I can tell from replay, this option isn't applicable as his foot looks to be right on the edge of the out of bounds marker.

So no, it wouldn't be texas ball on the 1. It should've been 1st and 10 OU at the 20 as by the definitions of possession, fumble, and muff, Dominique Franks had possession, was struck by the texas defender, who in turn forced the fumble.

Sorry don't mean to beat a dead horse hear and in no way am I trying to argue. However from my POV when the Sooners player knocked it out of Crow's arms it looked like the ball went directly out of bounds at the 1 yard line to me. And that's why I was thinking it would be TX ball on the 1.

Overall just a bizarre game indeed. So much drama and just uncharacterisic play on both ends. But man did I love the way our D played. That's the kind of D I wish we had for all 4 quarters of every game.

[SGT Park3R]

No. Let me break it down as I did in another thread. 3 ways this call could have gone. The rules are important as they define not only Dominique's interaction with the football, how the ruling should be executed for that, as well as Brandon Crow's stellar play to force the fumble.

1. Dominique Franks muffs the punt. The existing ruling. Texas ball at the point where possession is gained as the kicking team cannot advance a muffed punt. HOWEVER...

2. Dominique Franks establishes possession, the hit from the texas defender forces the fumble. This ball, unlike if the call was a muff, CAN be advanced, which in turn gives texas possession on the recovery. Texas possession is lost via Crow's forced fumble, at which point the ball travels out of the end zone. With a loose ball, if it goes out of the end zone of the advancing team (texas), it is called a touchback, OU football at the 20.

3. Dominique Franks has possession, but his left foot is out of bounds. Dead ball at the point of possession, receiving team. This is too close to call, but from what I can tell from replay, this option isn't applicable as his foot looks to be right on the edge of the out of bounds marker.

So no, it wouldn't be texas ball on the 1. It should've been 1st and 10 OU at the 20 as by the definitions of possession, fumble, and muff, Dominique Franks had possession, was struck by the texas defender, who in turn forced the fumble.

Sorry don't mean to beat a dead horse hear and in no way am I trying to argue. However from my POV when the Sooners player knocked it out of Crow's arms it looked like the ball went directly out of bounds at the 1 yard line to me. And that's why I was thinking it would be TX ball on the 1.

Overall just a bizarre game indeed. So much drama and just uncharacterisic play on both ends. But man did I love the way our D played. That's the kind of D I wish we had for all 4 quarters of every game.

[SGT Park3R]

Sorry don't mean to beat a dead horse hear and in no way am I trying to argue. However from my POV when the Sooners player knocked it out of Crow's arms it looked like the ball went directly out of bounds at the 1 yard line to me. And that's why I was thinking it would be TX ball on the 1.

Overall just a bizarre game indeed. So much drama and just uncharacterisic play on both ends. But man did I love the way our D played. That's the kind of D I wish we had for all 4 quarters of every game.

[w0lfe]

What about that facemask call on Shipley. From where I was sitting, it clearly looked as just a leg tackle. How it look on tv?

[tulsaoilerfan]

It's getting to be too hard of a game to officiate with all the rules IMO

[OKLA21FAN]

What about that facemask call on Shipley. From where I was sitting, it clearly looked as just a leg tackle. How it look on tv?
The penalty was not on the tackle, but two other players not involved in the tackle.

[Breadburner]

Sooners know ok-cuses.

And Horns know the " * "

[tbl]

But if it's an issue of big money matchups and the conference's best shot at a national title, cut that cancerous corruption out of the game. It's the naive little boy in me, but I still look at the college game as the highest quality AND purest form of the game. And it disheartens me to think that is lost for dollars and trophies.

If you watched the Florida/Arkie game, you saw the exact same thing happening. :mad:

[OU44life]

Fumbling with a muff, now, that's embarrassing.

Yes fumbling with a muff can be embarrassing. You've really got to know what your doing. When you do know, you've got to dive after that muff. When you master the art of muff diving, your increasing your overall value on the field.

[KRYPTON]

There wasn't any muff on the field that I saw. There was some probably, about ten rows in front of us, wearing black tight pants and a backless burnt orange shirt that exposed superb "sideline violation" 'round the front, but no muff on the field.

[OU44life]

Good call Krypton! Must have been a blatant violation. No need to go to the booth on that one.

[KRYPTON]

Lady next to me yelled "put on a shirt!" ENVY IS NOT PRETTY.

That said, everything else about the Tejas Skank said "itching burning sensation."

[Texas]

http://videos.utexasclan.com/view.php?id=7207 Go to the 4:00 mark.

[Gresho Murford]

http://videos.utexasclan.com/view.php?id=7207 Go to the 4:00 mark.

I could see calling it a muff watching it live but it was clearly a fumble imo on replay.

[SoonerInSpringdale]

It's getting to be too hard of a game to officiate with all the rules IMO

That is what REPLAY is for. In replay you GET IT RIGHT. You have all the tools you need. Things like this and things like Oregon in 2006 can't be excused when you have replay involved.

[Texas]

He never had possession to fumble it away.

[Gresho Murford]

He never had possession to fumble it away.

Clearly we have a different definition of possession than you do.

[rawlingsHOH]

I could see calling it a muff watching it live but it was clearly a fumble imo on replay.
No doubt.

[Tulsa_Fireman]

Clearly we have a different definition of possession than you do.

Good thing I posted the NCAA rulebook definitions so everyone can see the NCAA's version. And the point remains, they got it wrong.

[Statalyzer]

This play exposed TWO of the stupidest (maybe the two stupidest) rules in football. Muffed balls should be able to be advanced just like fumbled ones. If a player grabs a football and GAINS POSSESSION OF IT, any rule that instantly freezes him in place without him being down is stupid. And fumbles that go out-of-bounds without being recovered should be consistent and follow the rule where the offense retains possession at either the point of fumble or the point where the ball went over the sideline, whichever is farther. D should have to recover it to gain possession, having the sideline in the endzone gain possession is stupid.

In the end, it didn't make any difference because if both dumbass rules are changed, Texas gets the ball closer to the goal line and still goes backwards and kicks a FG.


What about that facemask call on Shipley. From where I was sitting, it clearly looked as just a leg tackle. How it look on tv?

On the left side of the screen, one of the OU coverage guys is clearly grabbing the facemask of a Texas player to try and shed a block. It wasn't on the guy tackling Shipley.

[rawlingsHOH]

And fumbles that go out-of-bounds without being recovered should be consistent and follow the rule where the offense retains possession at either the point of fumble or the point where the ball went over the sideline, whichever is farther. D should have to recover it to gain possession, having the sideline in the endzone gain possession is stupid.

In the end, it didn't make any difference because if both dumbass rules are changed, Texas gets the ball closer to the goal line and still goes backwards and kicks a FG.

I'd assume it was drafted to discourage players from carelessly flailing an arm towards the end zone, or intentionally fumbling, at an attempt to score, without risk. You can fumble forward in the field of play, just not on fourth down.

[picasso]

Sooners know ok-cuses.

We know jocks too. I'm scratching your nose right now.


Never could quite get that itch.

[picasso]

This play exposed TWO of the stupidest (maybe the two stupidest) rules in football. Muffed balls should be able to be advanced just like fumbled ones. If a player grabs a football and GAINS POSSESSION OF IT, any rule that instantly freezes him in place without him being down is stupid. And fumbles that go out-of-bounds without being recovered should be consistent and follow the rule where the offense retains possession at either the point of fumble or the point where the ball went over the sideline, whichever is farther. D should have to recover it to gain possession, having the sideline in the endzone gain possession is stupid.

In the end, it didn't make any difference because if both dumbass rules are changed, Texas gets the ball closer to the goal line and still goes backwards and kicks a FG.



On the left side of the screen, one of the OU coverage guys is clearly grabbing the facemask of a Texas player to try and shed a block. It wasn't on the guy tackling Shipley.

Actually it exposed the stupidest play of the day and unfortunately a Sooner was at fault.

[John Kochtoston]

5 TO's, fellas. Stupid to even attempt to field that punt to begin with.

Besides, I heard you couldn't advance on muff, but last night was my anniversary and I begged to differ and proved the rules WRONG!!!

This. It was an awful call, but Franks should have been 20 yards away from that ball.

[Sooner in Tampa]

The call was bad, but just as it has been said before...that was the stupidest of things that Franks could have done.

When it happened...the only thing that came to mind was the Orange Bowl against SUC and what bad effect that had...

[SoonerInSpringdale]

Was his left foot not out of bounds when he caught it? I haven't watched the game since I got home, but it appeared that his left foot was out when he caught it on the megatron.

[OUHOMER]

Just got thru watching it again.
1. Was his foot out of bounds? I could not tell, if it wasn't it was as close as you can get.

2. Clearly a fumble, you could see on the slow motion replay, Franks clearly grabbed the ball with both hands and brought it to his body, then got hit.

[Texas]

2. Clearly a fumble, you could see on the slow motion replay, Franks clearly grabbed the ball with both hands and brought it to his body, then got hit.

That does not grant him possession. If that was a pass, it would have been ruled incomplete in such a case.

[btk108]

I'd already told everyone at our party that OU's best punt return strategy was to get away from the ball.....when he caught it....I knew we were up sh** creek

[sooner518]

He never had possession to fumble it away.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v251/sooner518/possession.jpg
in hands, about to be moved to his body. Texas player still a couple feet away.

regardless, it was an idiotic play to try and field that punt. and while I think the ball did go out of the endzone, Im not sure there was enough evidence to overturn it. and since the official wasnt watching the ball and blindly signaled touchdown, there would have to be conclusive evidence that it did in fact go out the endzone.

[Tulsa_Fireman]

That does not grant him possession. If that was a pass, it would have been ruled incomplete in such a case.

In fact it does. Again, it's why I put the definitions from the NCAA rulebook in the original post. I know it's hard, but try reading all those big words, texass. The truth shall set you free.

[SoonerInSpringdale]

Look at that picture. Left foot is out of bounds.

[RedstickSooner]

The out of bounds thing was what struck me at the time (I can't re-watch losses, and delete them as soon as they are over), and still does.

From reading the NCAA rule posted at the start of this thread, I'm kind of hazy on what it means -- if you're out of bounds it means you can't possess it (and it sorta implies you can't muff it, either) so is it some form of illegal touching? Or does it just kill the ball at the spot where it was touched while the player was out of bounds? (Seems like I've seen plenty of punt returners handle the ball out of bounds and it's always placed wherever the ball went out of bounds - but usually the ball is out, not just the player handling the ball).

I don't see how we can decide a fumble is a fumble based on replay in this instance -- because if it's a muff in "real time", that seems to imply that possession was too transitory and brief to count for anything. Like someone said, if this were a pass, it was clearly incomplete.

[Texas]

Yes, he held on to the ball, but he has to make a "football move". All he did he was catch the ball on the hop and then he got hit.

It's just like catching a ball and losing it when you hit the ground. It is ruled incomplete if possession is not maintained while the player hit the ground.

[rawlingsHOH]

Yes, he held on to the ball, but he has to make a "football move". All he did he was catch the ball on the hop and then he got hit.

It's just like catching a ball and losing it when you hit the ground. It is ruled incomplete if possession is not maintained while the player hit the ground.

I think he hit the R2 button, but I dunno.

[OUHOMER]

Yes, he held on to the ball, but he has to make a "football move". All he did he was catch the ball on the hop and then he got hit.

It's just like catching a ball and losing it when you hit the ground. It is ruled incomplete if possession is not maintained while the player hit the ground.

the football move was him pulling it into his body. ABC had a very good slow motion replay. He caught the ball with both hand and lowered the ball to his midsection before he was hit.

[Texas]

I guess we'll have to disagree then. Catching a ball and bringing it to towards your body does not count as a football move, in my opinion.

Here's a play from the 06 Rose Bowl - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=whbtXLRRBgA Kelson did not have possession just because he brought the ball to his body. If that was the case, then it would have been ruled a fumble. (The announcers were wrong)

Jamaal Charles had a catch that was just like that also. He caught it, but fumbled it as soon as the defender hit him.

[OKLA21FAN]

I guess we'll have to disagree then. Catching a ball and bringing it to towards your body does not count as a football move, in my opinion.

Here's a play from the 06 Rose Bowl - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=whbtXLRRBgA Kelson did not have possession just because he brought the ball to his body. If that was the case, then it would have been ruled a fumble. (The announcers were wrong)

Jamaal Charles had a catch that was just like that also. He caught it, but fumbled it as soon as the defender hit him. a pass 'completion/not completion' is not comparable for this play as different rules apply.

[OUHOMER]

I guess we'll have to disagree then. Catching a ball and bringing it to towards your body does not count as a football move, in my opinion.

Here's a play from the 06 Rose Bowl - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=whbtXLRRBgA Kelson did not have possession just because he brought the ball to his body. If that was the case, then it would have been ruled a fumble. (The announcers were wrong)

Jamaal Charles had a catch that was just like that also. He caught it, but fumbled it as soon as the defender hit him.

I guess it all comes down to what is considered ball control and how long they have control. Both calls could have gone either way in my opinion.