Does anyone have the view of Broyles losing control of the ball...

[SoonerNate]

...before it hit the ground? I'd really like to see it.

Thanks.

Seriously, WTF was that?

[Memtig14]

I can't believe they gave that ball away on replay.

[SoonerNate]

I can't believe they gave that ball away on replay.

Could it have been coming loose? Possibly but I saw NO views that showed that to be the case even at all! How they overturned the call is beyond me given the views ESPN showed.

[stoops the eternal pimp]

Ball popped out before knee hit..doesn't matter that the ground caused it

[sooner59]

On DVR, I stopped it. When the ball was touching the ground, the knee was also touching. The ball on the ground doesn't mean its down, and STEP gave the ruling that the ball alone touching and coming out can make it a fumble. Slow motion does not look like the ball is coming out at all. Leads me to believe that since his knee was down before the ball shot out off of the ground, this "indisputable evidence" call is bogus.

[soonergirlNeugene]

I was watching in HD and didn't see anything conclusive to that effect. Maybe they had a better angle up in the booth?

[Mazeppa]

Gordon is that you up there?

[soonergirlNeugene]

XD

[pappy]

it was an awfully close call. Looked to me like when his right knee hit the ball was coming out. We won regardless. That's all that matters.

[StoopTroup]

I was watching in HD and didn't see anything conclusive to that effect. Maybe they had a better angle up in the booth?


Conclusive is the right way to think about it. To me a bunch of them were arguing it and someone finally gave in and let them change the call on the field. I'd bet that if any of us were in a post game review of that...they'd argue the call some more.

[budbarrybob]

Video of him "losing control" of the ball simply does not exist. There is video of him hitting the ground along with the ball, however.

[StoopTroup]

yup

[EatLeadCommie]

very, very close. His body language indicated that he had fumbled. I sure couldn't tell that on the replay though.

Regardless, most of the team played like dogpoop for 3 quarters tonight. Way too lax.

[MichiganSooner]

I thought it was a fumble when seen on replay. He was reaching out the ball to get it over the plane of the goal line and did a good job of keeping his knee off the ground to accomplish the feat. His arm wasn't long enough and it fell out of his hand. Fumble. Disappointing but right call, imo. We won the game.

[IronHorseSooner]

...before it hit the ground? I'd really like to see it.

Thanks.

Seriously, WTF was that?

I was about 50 feet away, and it didn't look like it was out from where I was standing.

[delhalew]

Most likely a fumble, but not conclusive. That makes it a bad call. What's worse is destroying flow of the game by taking FOREVER to rule.

[cccasooner2]

Most likely a fumble, but not conclusive. That makes it a bad call. What's worse is destroying flow of the game by taking FOREVER to rule.

Refs should have called it right in the first place. They called it wrong on purpose so that we would think we were getting screwed.

[MichiganSooner]

^

[jkjsooner]

Here's an idea. Protect the darn ball. We can score first down and goal from the two. (okay well we should be able to.). It's quite honestly a little selfish to expose the ball like that in that situation.

I said the same thing when AD fumbled in the bowl against Oregon.

[JLEW1818]

refs are worthless

[humblesooner]

Taking 5 minutes to look is all the proof you need that is was NOT conclusive.

[JLEW1818]

should be a time limit.

of course the tard up stairs may not know how to work it. That's why college should be like the NFL and let the ****ing ref look at the review as well, instead of standing there like a ****ing retard for 5 minutes.

[tulsaoilerfan]

Ball popped out before knee hit..doesn't matter that the ground caused it

If its so clear then why did it take them 6 minutes to figure it out?

[Sooner70]

I've got the replay thing figured it out. If it takes longer than 3 minutes, the call on the field likely will be reversed. Saw the same thing happen on another call, I think it was on NFL game.

[Sooner_Tuf]

It's my understanding it took several minutes to get Dodds on the phone.

[Fraggle145]

Ball popped out before knee hit..doesn't matter that the ground caused it

Since when? I thought that no matter what the ground couldnt cause a fumble.

[Soonerntxs]

Taking 5 minutes to look is all the proof you need that is was NOT conclusive.


Refs were "flipping a coin", "rock paper scissors" & "spin the bottle" on who was going to make the call; I hear that BOB can give a ref an earfull on the sideline! LOL!

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

Since when? I thought that no matter what the ground couldnt cause a fumble.

The ground can cause a fumble if the player isn't down. This happens quite a bit when people are in the air falling to the ground with their arms extended. If their hand hits and the ball pops out its a fumble. If their forearm hits and the ball pops out, they are down.

[FtwTxSooner]

"The ground can't cause a fumble" is one of those urban football myths passed around for ages by TV commentators that are clueless to the actual rules of the game.

[sooneron]

The ground can cause a fumble if the player isn't down. This happens quite a bit when people are in the air falling to the ground with their arms extended. If their hand hits and the ball pops out its a fumble. If their forearm hits and the ball pops out, they are down.

This is sorta confusing, because I remember the 06 * game, AD was called down by touching the ball to the turf. IIRC.I had always thought that if the ball touches the ground in the player's possession, it is down. Regardless if it comes out or not...

[SoonerNomad]

So a player can reach down and touch the ground with the football and then continue running? This is the part I never knew.

I hate replay (even when it is obvious - because if you can't fix every bad call (and you can't) then don't pick and choose the ones you can fix) so I cannot be objective, but if the rule is the play is not over when the ball touches the ground until some other body part touches the ground then they got this one right.

I don't understand the above post referring to Broyles attempt to reach over the line with the ball as selfish. I think it is a mistake, but it is more instinctive, and more team oriented, and not remotely selfish. It is what most would do and it is part of what makes Broyles a great athlete.

[EatLeadCommie]

So a player can reach down and touch the ground with the football and then continue running? This is the part I never knew.
That very thing actually happened either earlier in the OU game or in a game I watched earlier that day. Can't remember which, as I was drinking most of the day. You don't see it happen very often though.

[jkjsooner]

This is sorta confusing, because I remember the 06 * game, AD was called down by touching the ball to the turf. IIRC.I had always thought that if the ball touches the ground in the player's possession, it is down. Regardless if it comes out or not...

You actually have it backwards. When AD touched the ball to the ground and it popped loose that was called a fumble.

I remember the play because I was livid because I didn't understand the rule.

That being said, I think the "ground can't cause a fumble" isn't entirely an urban legend. I believe at one point if a player was going to the ground (a simultaneous type situation) and the ball popped loose it was called a fumble or at least they had to attempt to determine which hit first - the ball or the elbow. I think they clarified it that in those situations where it appears like simultaneous contact then it is not a fumble. I think this was more of a clarification than a real rule change. I believe that is where the term "ground can't cause a fumble" originated.


At least that's how I recall it.

[jkjsooner]

I don't understand the above post referring to Broyles attempt to reach over the line with the ball as selfish. I think it is a mistake, but it is more instinctive, and more team oriented, and not remotely selfish. It is what most would do and it is part of what makes Broyles a great athlete.

Selfish may be a little strong only because it is an instinctual play. Nevertheless, it was a very dumb play on Broyles part. He needs to know the situation. He obtained the first down within the two yard line. He didn't simply reach out as he was approaching the goal line. He tried to make a play that was virtually impossible and left the ball extremely exposed.

Instincts aside, he needs to know the situation prior to the snap. He knows that it's not fourth and goal. Ball security is extremely important.

Sorry, it's just a pet peeve of mine because I've seen too many careless fumbles at the one yard line. It's just uncalled for - whether it be because the player wasn't aware of the situation or the player selfishly wanted the TD for himself. Just because you're trying to score doesn't excuse careless behavior.

[OUNASH]

Two things that players do to much of is reaching for the goal line and trying to strip the ball when tackling. Both can be very damaging to your team. Why not go down (offense)or just tackle the player ( Defense). If you think you can strip go for it, if not just make the tackle.

[Lott's Bandana]

I hadn't seen the play until I watched the replay last night, but I had read this thread and other reports about it.

What I saw was absolutely impossible to tell if his knee or the ball hit the ground first, so I watched the ball in his hand to see if it was coming out before it hit the ground. I didn't see that, in fact, I believe the ball wouldn't have popped out of his hand nearly as much when it hit the ground, if he didn't have a grip on the ball.

If the call on the field can only be reversed with irrefutable evidence, there wasn't any. The original call could have been fumble and there wouldn't have been evidence to reverse that call either.

It was interesting that the announcer said he saw an overturn the previous week without that required evidence as well.

Bottom line:

The review booth blew the call, based on the rules. This isn't subjective either...evidence is evidence and there was none.

[SoonersEnFuego]

So, the answer is...

Nobody has the video?

[Lott's Bandana]

Well...no.

Obviously I had it.

[I Am Right]

It's my understanding it took several minutes to get Dodds on the phone.

LOL

[NormanPride]

I didn't know the ball itself could touch the ground and the player would not be down...

[cccasooner2]

I think what irks the SoonerFans is that the Ref/Reviewer was not consistent for overturning/accepting the ruling on the field. No conclusive evidence to overturn the ruling on the field was available for either the Whaley fumble or the Broyles fumble. They were called opposite on the field, no conclusive evidence was available for either, yet one stayed (Whaley) and one was overturned (Broyles). We possibly got hosed on both instead of just one.

[Okie35]

It wasn't conclusive but the way Broyles looked made it seem like he knew what was up. Either way, why are people still going on about this? It's Tech week.