Florida / LSU fake

[soonersam]

I didnt think you can advance a fumble on 4th down.....

Is that correct???

If so why didnt the Florida coaches catch that???

[Veritas]

That was also a pretty obvious forward pass.

[soonersam]

I'm thinking I'm right.... any folks know for sure

[soonersam]

that would be considered a fumble if it hit the ground when it wasnt a forward pass

[goingoneight]

FIRE URBAN MEYER!!!

[sooner518]

I always thought you couldnt fumble it forward on 4th down. im thinking if the ball is going backwards, you can pick it up and then run forward....

but i honestly dont know the rule. definitely a good question, and google's twitter serach results are coming up with a bunch of people wondering the same thing.

[Al Gore]

What is the rule for throwing it with your knee on the ground?

[Tigeman]

That was also a pretty obvious forward pass.

See I thought it was pretty obvious that it was a lateral. Never once made any forward progression. Guess it's just a matter of perception.... either way, it was totally inconclusive, therefore couldn't be overturned.

[sooner518]

What is the rule for throwing it with your knee on the ground?

probably the same as it was when LSU ran this play 3 or 4 years ago.

i think the holder is exempt from being down on a FG attempt. otherwise the ball would be dead every time someone ran a FG with the holder's knee on the ground.

[soonerinabilene]

That was also a pretty obvious forward pass.

if the miracle in tennessee was lateral, t this was a lateral. 43 to the 43. ball did not move forward. they got that part right. the advancing of a fumble on 4th, im not sure about. is it a fumble, or a lateral? not sure if there is a difference in the rule book or not.

[TUSooner]

Leslie "Forrest Gump" Miles wins again. Or is it Leslie "Faustus" Miles?
Life isn't fair.

[oumartin]

If i recall the one a few years back the holder actually had his knee off the ground. and I am also thinking a lateral or backwards pass isn't considered a fumble, just a live ball.

[Okie35]

See I thought it was pretty obvious that it was a lateral. Never once made any forward progression. Guess it's just a matter of perception.... either way, it was totally inconclusive, therefore couldn't be overturned.

It was a lateral. The ball didn't go forward at all. I don't like Les Miles but he's a pretty lucky coach.

[bluedogok]

See I thought it was pretty obvious that it was a lateral. Never once made any forward progression. Guess it's just a matter of perception.... either way, it was totally inconclusive, therefore couldn't be overturned.
It also only mattered on the first bounce, any subsequent bounces forward are not relative to the initial forward/backward pass call. It looked to me like it was dead flat along the line....but Lester gets the lucky bounce again.

[Okie35]

It also only mattered on the first bounce, any subsequent bounces forward are not relative to the initial forward/backward pass call. It looked to me like it was dead flat along the line....but Lester gets the lucky bounce again.

Yea, it was pretty much on the line so it couldn't have been overturned.

[cccasooner2]

probably the same as it was when LSU ran this play 3 or 4 years ago.

i think the holder is exempt from being down on a FG attempt. otherwise the ball would be dead every time someone ran a FG with the holder's knee on the ground.

yep http://en.allexperts.com/q/College-Football-2792/NCAA-Fake-Field-Goal.htm

[soonersam]

We benifited from this rule against KSU in 2000 champioship game I think

[soonersam]

Why did we catch it while drinking in Oklahoma but the Florida staff wasnt all over it

[StoopTroup]

It looked pretty close. - Urban Meyer.

[Tigeman]

Caught or Recovered
ARTICLE 2. a. When a backward pass or fumble is caught or recovered by
any inbounds player, the ball continues in play (A.R. 7-2-2-I and II, A.R.
2-23-1-I).
Exceptions:
RULE 7-2 / SNAPPING AND PASSING THE BALL FR-101
1. Rule 8-3-2-d-5 (Team A fumble on the try).
2. On fourth down before a change of team possession, when a Team
A fumble is caught or recovered by a Team A player other than the
fumbler, the ball is dead. If the catch or recovery is beyond the spot
of the fumble, the ball is returned to the spot of the fumble. If the
catch or recovery is behind the spot of the fumble, the ball remains
at the spot of the catch or recovery.

[soonersam]

GHEY

[soonersam]

On fourth down before a change of team possession, when a Team
A fumble is caught or recovered by a Team A player other than the
fumbler, the ball is dead.

Done and Done

[sooner518]

maybe it is considered a fumble by the kicker because he was the recipient of the lateral...and thus he is able to advance it.... ? i know that seems illogical because he hadnt even touched it yet, so how could he fumble it, but maybe thats the thinking?

[bluedogok]

He was the intended receiver....

[Collier11]

It was close but I dont believe it could be overturned

[OUinFLA]

It's Les Miles, I can't believe you guys think it can't be done.

[Tigeman]

Caught or Recovered
ARTICLE 2. a. When a backward pass or fumble is caught or recovered by
any inbounds player, the ball continues in play (A.R. 7-2-2-I and II, A.R.
2-23-1-I).
Exceptions:
RULE 7-2 / SNAPPING AND PASSING THE BALL FR-101
1. Rule 8-3-2-d-5 (Team A fumble on the try).
2. On fourth down before a change of team possession, when a Team
A fumble is caught or recovered by a Team A player other than the
fumbler, the ball is dead. If the catch or recovery is beyond the spot
of the fumble, the ball is returned to the spot of the fumble. If the
catch or recovery is behind the spot of the fumble, the ball remains
at the spot of the catch or recovery.

Here you go.... http://www.oficiales.org/A_2009/ncaa/NCAAINGLES/2009-10%20NCAA%20Footbal%20Rule%20Book.pdf

[Okie35]

It was close but I dont believe it could be overturned

Nope there was no evidence of it not being a lateral.

[soonersam]

Nope there was no evidence of it not being a lateral.

What??

[oumartin]

huh?

[MeMyself&Me]

Nope there was no evidence of it not being a lateral.

I can't believe I'm the only one that sees it. The ball was outside the 43 (clearly, cause the hash is right there) and when it hits the ground it appears to be perfectly between the 43 yard hashes... only possible with forward movement.

I understand why it wasn't overturned cause it was damned close but to say there was no evidence... I don't see that at all.

[soonersam]

I can't believe I'm the only one that sees it. The ball was outside the 43 (clearly, cause the hash is right there) and when it hits the ground it appears to be perfectly between the 43 yard hashes... only possible with forward movement.

I understand why it wasn't overturned cause it was damned close but to say there was no evidence... I don't see that at all.

We saw it but prob wasnt enough to over turn!

[oumartin]

what?

[Collier11]

What??

There was no conclusive evidence of it being a forward pass, I think thats what they were trying to say

[oumartin]

so, there was inconclusive conclusive evidence to overturn what might have been a lateral or foward pass but we cannot conclusively conclude was either. and we are saying they cannot draw a conclusive conclussion based on the replays that did not show conclusive evidence that is was or was not either a foward pass or latteral?

I think I got it now

[Collier11]

LOL

[OUinFLA]

so, there was inconclusive conclusive evidence to overturn what might have been a lateral or foward pass but we cannot conclusively conclude was either. and we are saying they cannot draw a conclusive conclussion based on the replays that did not show conclusive evidence that is was or was not either a foward pass or latteral?

I think I got it now

You've been listening to Les Miles speak a lot lately, right?

[MeMyself&Me]

so, there was inconclusive conclusive evidence to overturn what might have been a lateral or foward pass but we cannot conclusively conclude was either. and we are saying they cannot draw a conclusive conclussion based on the replays that did not show conclusive evidence that is was or was not either a foward pass or latteral?

I think I got it now

Actually, I think it was clear enough that the reviewing official probably saw it but that it was close enough that he didn't want to make a decision that would clearly declare a winner to the game.

Florida should have been ready for that. Really bad that they weren't.

[Collier11]

Actually I disagree, I watched the play live and the play in replay all million times they showed it. In this case the toss was right down the LOS which by rule is not a forward pass as far as I know. In any case, it was so close that you couldnt definitively say it was a forward or backwards pass IMO

[Tigeman]

Does anyone remember if the official said "the call on the field stands", or did he say "that there is inconclusive evidence to overturn the call on the field"? That's usually the verbiage that tells you the situation.

[oumartin]

Lets just all agree that Les is a freakin' genius.

[stoops the eternal pimp]

imagine what les could have done with his coaching genius and more of boone's money

[MeMyself&Me]

Lets just all agree that Les is a freakin' genius.

He's a genius like a leprechaun.;)

[Collier11]

Said call stands

[Collier11]

imagine what les could have done with his coaching genius and more of boone's money

Win 7 games a year :D

[stoops the eternal pimp]

if everything worked out and no injuries

[Wishboned]

imagine what les could have done with his coaching genius and more of boone's money

He could have let 'er rip!!!

[BoulderSooner79]

It looked like a lateral to me and the camera angle was pretty lined up with the flight of the ball on the replay. I also don't think this would be considered a fumble since it was intentionally lateraled. And LSU is darn lucky it bounced perfectly to the guy in stride and I'm sure it was supposed to be more backward to make it clear. Lucky again. And UF is stupid for falling for it since LSU has done this before and were clearly not comfortable with the kicker.

[VA Sooner]

Man has a pact with the devil, I know it now. No one could be that lucky two weeks in a row!

[oudavid1]

Ball should have been dead. If the ball went over the holders right shoulder than it most likely did go forward but i dont believe that it could have been overturned within the rule on conclusive video evidence. Now since it was a fumble on 4th down, the ball should have been dead.

[Collier11]

I thought you only Couldnt advance a fumble on 4th down if you were inside the 20 or 10 or something like that?

[tommieharris91]

Lets just all agree that Les has a horseshoe lodged in his ***.

fixd

[BoulderSooner79]

I thought you only Couldnt advance a fumble on 4th down if you were inside the 20 or 10 or something like that?

Not a fumble. You can bounce/roll the ball on a lateral if you want to. Some our wishbone pitches got to our RBs like this back in the day. I think we can all agree they were extremely lucky on that one. The scary thing is this team is looking like that "never lost in regulation" '07 team. Ugh.

[olevetonahill]

Video anyone?

[MI Sooner]

I'd really like to read the part of the rule book that says that a lateral that bounces isn't a fumble, because otherwise the kicker wasn't eligible to advance the ball.

I find it hard to believe that there's anything that would distinguishes based on intent, as the whole point of this rule is to avoid people getting 1st downs/touchdowns by intentionally fumbling.

Here's (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nARZWSalJVQ&feature=player_embedded) the video.

[wishbonesooner]

To me the bigger question is why the Gators weren't ready for it. They know Les is a goofy son of a bitch, how did they not have that covered?

[bluedogok]

Lets just all agree that Les is a lucky bastard.
FIFY


Since he didn't use the "call on the field is confirmed" I would assume they decided there wasn't enough visual evidence to overturn the call on the field. I would think this is due mostly to the camera angle, since it was not perfectly in line with the play maybe they deduced that it could have been a backwards pass.

[NorCaligator]

I'd really like to read the part of the rule book that says that a lateral that bounces isn't a fumble, because otherwise the kicker wasn't eligible to advance the ball.

I find it hard to believe that there's anything that would distinguishes based on intent, as the whole point of this rule is to avoid people getting 1st downs/touchdowns by intentionally fumbling.

I think the rules do make a distinction between a fumble and a lateral (backward pass) that bounces. First, if you go through the rules, you see multiple places where a distinction is made between backward passes and fumbles ("When the ball is loose from a fumble, backward pass or illegal pass. . ..")

The following "Approved Ruling" from the rules sheds some light on the distinction, even on 4th down:

SECTION 23. Snapping the Ball
Approved Ruling 2-23-1
I. Fourth and goal on Team B’s five-yard line. A55’s legal snap is
muffed by A12 and (a) any player of Team A recovers and advances
the ball into the end zone, or (b) a player of Team B recovers and
advances the ball. RULING: The snap is a backward pass and may
be advanced by any player. (a) Touchdown. Since this is a backward
pass and not a fumble there is no restriction on a Team A player
recovering and advancing the ball. (b) Ball continues in play.

Sure wish we would have made the tackle for loss. I couldn't believe the ball bounced straight into the guy's hands. Lester is one lucky SOB.

[MojoRisen]

I have noticed some very conservative not enough evidence to overturn a call so far this year. You need that initial call on the field, as if they were rewarding themselves for making a decent call live. Florida State guy fumbled out of the endzone, clear as day. This was a forward pass by about a foot - but too close to overturn. Technically though both were pretty easy to see on replay. If they want to be exact

[bluedogok]

IF it was so clear cut they would have called it so, the fact is that it wasn't that clear cut. To me it looked dead flat along the line of scrimmage. I think the equipment is part of the problem as well, they aren't looking at it on a 52" TV like I am, they have something like 19" screens in the replay booth and are trying to see a foot with a slight camera angle with a wide-angle shot makes it far beyond clear cut.

[MeMyself&Me]

IF it was so clear cut they would have called it so...

'05 OU at Tech... three times on the final drive. '06 OU at Oregon... twice in the final couple of minutes or so.

College replay officials are very hesitant to overturn the call on the field. It's pretty clear if you look at the spot on the field where the ball starts and the spot on the field where it hits the ground.

I used to be a proponent of replay but since they started doing it in college I've hated it. It gives a sort of legitimacy to bad calls by not overturning them.

[Collier11]

In this case I dont see how anyone can call it a bad call though

[bluedogok]

I've seen calls changed for far less clear cut video evidence, most of it depends on who is in the booth.

[Collier11]

The ball went straight down the LOS, if it was originally called a backwards lateral then how can anyone say you can overturn it when the ball was neither clearly forward or backwards?

[BoulderSooner79]

I'm surprised there is controversy here. I watch the replay a couple of times on my 52" HD, and I thought it clear enough to proclaim the call "confirmed". I guess that shows the "inconclusive" was proper.

[soonercastor]

yeah pretty much, if we cant all agree on one thing (forward, lateral) then its inconclusive.

[Collier11]

His right knee is just barely ahead of the 43, the ball hits either right on the 43 or just barely ahead of it. There is NO way they can overturn that call IMO, in this case the refs got it right

nARZWSalJVQ

[OUinFLA]

His right knee is just barely ahead of the 43, the ball hits either right on the 43 or just barely ahead of it. There is NO way they can overturn that call IMO, in this case the refs got it right

nARZWSalJVQ

On my computer, the red X is clearly in the upper left hand corner of the box and well within the boundry line of the box.
Upon further review, the red X is in the field of play.

[soonersam]

His right knee is just barely ahead of the 43, the ball hits either right on the 43 or just barely ahead of it. There is NO way they can overturn that call IMO, in this case the refs got it right

nARZWSalJVQ

forward or back?? who cares?? Its just really freaking Ghey!!!!

Nothing says LSU is bad like faking a field goal and boucing the ball to the place kicker for a first down!!! Lester wont admit this but it was suppose to be a 2 bounce fake!!