"Ground Not Causing a Fumble" myth

[stoops the eternal pimp]

The Rule:

"A live ball becomes dead ... when any part of the ball carrier's body, except his hand or foot, touches the ground or when the ball carrier is tackled or otherwise falls and loses possession of the ball as he contacts the ground with any part of his body, except his hand or foot."

[SoonerofAlabama]

I think the ball may have already been coming lose.

[Frozen Sooner]

Thank you.

You'd think this would be settled after the AD fumble against Texas a few years back.

[oumartin]

It was a fumble. Replay boof said so

[stoops the eternal pimp]

I think the ball may have already been coming lose.

It doesn't matter...And usually the knee is down before the ball hits on a ground caused fumble...But in this case, they say his knee wasn't down, that is a fumble..

[Frozen Sooner]

I'd dearly love to punch the announcer who came up with that saying in his taint.

[Memtig14]

We was robbed! Robbed I tells ya!!!

[Okie35]

I think the ball may have already been coming lose.

It was and Ryan knew it.

[SoonerNate]

It doesn't matter...And usually the knee is down before the ball hits on a ground caused fumble...But in this case, they say his knee wasn't down, that is a fumble..

Ah. I understand now. Boy, it would have been nice if these announcers had mentioned this. I was staring at the ball and assumed once it hit the ground....

I see. Thanks. I threw my hat at the television for nothing.

[stoops the eternal pimp]

announcers are busy trying to give kansas a trophy for showing up at the stadium..they dont have time to explain the game

[aurorasooner]

Didn't look like to me that the ball rolled thru the EZ like that hayseed PbyP announcer from Austin kept saying. It looked like to me that the ball was recovered in the back of the EZ by a Kansas player.
I think if the ball would have been secured even in one hand when RB tried to stretch it across the goal line the on-the-field call would've been upheld. It looked close on the replay and imo could've been called either way, (either non-conclusive so the on-the-field call stands, or a fumble). I've got no complaints about the call. Probably a good lesson for RB and all of our receivers & running backs to have it happen in a non-critical situation.

[Zin]

I was looking at his helmet, to me it looked like it hit at the same time the ball did, but meh...

[Soonerfan88]

Did the replay booth have better footage than we saw? I thought it was inconclusive whether his knee was down or not and was surprised the booth thought they had enough to overturn it.

[OU_Sooners75]

It doesn't matter...And usually the knee is down before the ball hits on a ground caused fumble...But in this case, they say his knee wasn't down, that is a fumble..



Sorry, but I disagree with you. I watched that play 7 times on dvr and the replays they showed us shows the ball and the body contacting the ground at the same time. The ball was still in the grasp of the player. Therefore, by the rule you just quoted it was not a fumble.

[stoops the eternal pimp]

Broyles thought it was, the refs and review squad did..I went back on the DVR a few time myself and it looked like the ball bounced first..anyway like the poster above said, it's a ball security lesson

[OU_Sooners75]

Broyles thought it was, the refs and review squad did..I went back on the DVR a few time myself and it looked like the ball bounced first..anyway like the poster above said, it's a ball security lesson

From what I and everyone else saw, unless the replay had different angles and views than what we were shown, then there was not enough evidence to show it was conclusive to overturn it. The knee and the ball were hitting at the same time.

And yes, I agree, it is a lesson in ball security.

[Frozen Sooner]

Didn't look like to me that the ball rolled thru the EZ like that hayseed PbyP announcer from Austin kept saying. It looked like to me that the ball was recovered in the back of the EZ by a Kansas player.

Ref said the same thing, but I agree with you. I think what happened was that the Kansas player had a foot on the out of bounds line when he recovered. Either way, recovery in the endzone gives the same result since KU didn't carry it in there.

[FirstandGoal]

This is honestly one of those that could have been called either way. What I have a problem with is that it didn't seem there truly was conclusive evidence. If the original call would have been fumble, I would have been okay with that being the result. What I have a problem with is that the call was reversed from the original down by contact ruling.

Just didn't seem to me that there was enough incontrovertible evidence to change the initial call.

[sooner59]

If it was ruled a fumbled, I would say, "Oh well, it was close." However, since it was called down, I have to agree that although it could be argued that by those rules it could be a fumble, I can not see any way that there is "indisputable evidence", which is needed, to overturn the call on the field.

[stoops the eternal pimp]

From what I and everyone else saw, unless the replay had different angles and views than what we were shown, then there was not enough evidence to show it was inclusive to overturn it. The knee and the ball were hitting at the same time.

And yes, I agree, it is a lesson in ball security.

I agree it was too close to call IMO to reverse it but I think Broyles reaction and the amount of time they took to look at it, magnify it, etc..they may have got a better view...The call doesn't bother me

[OU_Sooners75]

I agree it was too close to call IMO to reverse it but I think Broyles reaction and the amount of time they took to look at it, magnify it, etc..they may have got a better view...The call doesn't bother me

It really didnt bother me either....had that call been in Norman...it would have stayed as called on the field...that is what bothers me.

The replay took way too long to determine the outcome of the play.
There really wasnt conclusive evidence to overturn.

If it had been called a fumble initially, I wouldn't have had a problem with that call either.

[stoops the eternal pimp]

Well, the main point of the thread was the several posters mentioning in the game thread that the ground cant cause a fumble not to mention the times I've heard announcers say it..that was one of the longest replay reviews I've seen this year though

[finster]

Sometimes when the ball is striking the ground ,It is not the ground you are thinking it is.

[sooner59]

Yeah, it was to the point where I didn't care, just start play again.

[OU_Sooners75]

Oh and I do have a question about that rule...STEP.

I have seen plays blown dead when a QB was being chased, he gets away, but instead of his empty hand being set on the ground, the ball was placed on the ground...no other part of the body (except feet) hit the ground, just the ball...yet they called it dead and play over.


Why wouldnt that be the call here?

[FirstandGoal]

Thanks STEP for posting the exact rule. I was thinking during the game that this is what it was and knew once I got home, someone here would be knowledgeable enough to share.
So it looks like the general consensus is that we aren't that upset with the final verdict, but more or less irritated with the fact that it 1. took so long to get there, and 2. it was overturned on not-so-conclusive evidence.

Meh, even at the time I was more irritated and resigned to the fact that the whole team seemed to be having a massive brain fart. Couldn't even really work up to being upset over the overturned call.

[sooner59]

Oh and I do have a question about that rule...STEP.

I have seen plays blown dead when a QB was being chased, he gets away, but instead of his empty hand being set on the ground, the ball was placed on the ground...no other part of the body (except feet) hit the ground, just the ball...yet they called it dead and play over.


Why wouldnt that be the call here?

The refs flat out blew that call then. You can always prop yourself up on the ball touching the ground and the play is still live. I saw it 3 times today watching different games.

[OU_Sooners75]

The refs flat out blew that call then. You can always prop yourself up on the ball touching the ground and the play is still live. I saw it 3 times today watching different games.

Oh I have seen it continued as well...But I have also seen it where they call the play dead? Maybe a safety issue since they have all been QB pressure plays...IDK.

[stoops the eternal pimp]

Oh and I do have a question about that rule...STEP.

I have seen plays blown dead when a QB was being chased, he gets away, but instead of his empty hand being set on the ground, the ball was placed on the ground...no other part of the body (except feet) hit the ground, just the ball...yet they called it dead and play over.


Why wouldnt that be the call here?

Ref made the wrong call then..I haven't ever seen it, but that is definitely the wrong call..Usually the call isn't wrong because when the ground causing fumble happens, the player's forearm hits the ground first..but if a player puts the ball on the ground to keep his balance, the play isn't over

[stoops the eternal pimp]

Oh I have seen it continued as well...But I have also seen it where they call the play dead? Maybe a safety issue since they have all been QB pressure plays...IDK.

I think this is about right...I had something happen in the kids game I coached today and it was basically just trying to protect the quarterback

[Collier11]

Outside of the Oregon debacle, these refs and replay officials due IN FACT know what they are doing

[sooner59]

Outside of the Oregon debacle, these refs and replay officials due IN FACT know what they are doing

Bl4BksdE6-s

[sooner59]

Just sayin...

[Collier11]

you can point to a few instances in most any aspect of life where ppl get it wrong, the point is that in football the calls can be very challenging and at a high rate of speed, despite this they usually get it right

[StoopTroup]

you can point to a few instances in most any aspect of life where ppl get it wrong, the point is that in football the calls can be very challenging and at a high rate of speed, despite this they usually get it right



You know....what else can be a problem is that some games....the folks carrying the game go to every expense to cover the game with great camera angles and perfect clarity and then you see a games like the one we had tonight and the camera looks like it's mounted to a Haitian Satellite that's in orbit around Saturn.....lol

[sooner59]

It doesn't really bother me that they overturned Broyle's play. When I saw how long they were taking, I knew. I don't see what they saw, but we have been on the other end of it, too. Didn't really matter in this game. I'm just saying that its been said over and over than the audience gets the same views as the replay officials. If this is true, I just have a hard time agreeing with them "many" times in various college football games. Yeah, they normally get it right, but there are many times that I question their consciousness.

[StoopTroup]

It doesn't really bother me that they overturned Broyle's play. When I saw how long they were taking, I knew. I don't see what they saw, but we have been on the other end of it, too. Didn't really matter in this game. I'm just saying that its been said over and over than the audience gets the same views as the replay officials. If this is true, I just have a hard time agreeing with them "many" times in various college football games. Yeah, they normally get it right, but there are many times that I question their consciousness.



As soon as I thought the Refs were really letting the Teams play through a lot of things....it almost seemed like they suddenly got a call from the Big XII to tighten up their calls. I'm sure it's just that call that made me feel that way but when you see most crews really leave plays with the Call on the Field as unable to overturn with what they can see....it's really hard to explain what they saw on that play. I mean....if a KU Player had done something to cause Ryan to fumble....I might have been in agreement.....but all that happened is that he slammed the ball on the turf and they felt that he didn't have control of it. If he didn't have control of it.....it would have dropped straight down due to gravity. Instead it went right to the turf along with his hand on top of it....

[SoonerKnight]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Pn58gwkkeI&NR=1

Why it took so long for replay!!

[SoonerKnight]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sgDv6sBMi5w&feature=related

Funny!!

[soonerman4life]

The call bothers me simply because I didn't think there was enough evidence to overturn it. What bothers me more though is a player of RB's caliber not taking care of the ball. Can't really come down on him too much though because the team wasn't playing to their ability, he knew it, and was just trying to make a great play.

[Aries]

I thought the ball came loose when it hit the ground, which would NOT be a fumble.

But Broyles reaction told me I probably didn't see it right.

So I'm not going to gripe about it.... much. :)

[kevpks]

There was not enough video evidence to overturn the call on the field. They took way too long in the booth. If you take that long, you are trying to overturn it. There should be a time limit on replays.

[Frozen Sooner]

I thought the ball came loose when it hit the ground, which would NOT be a fumble.



The entire point of this thread and the rule posted in the OP is that that would, in fact, be a fumble.

[cccasooner2]

The entire point of this thread and the rule posted in the OP is that that would, in fact, be a fumble.

A+ :D

[Soonerjeepman]

From what I and everyone else saw, unless the replay had different angles and views than what we were shown, then there was not enough evidence to show it was conclusive to overturn it. The knee and the ball were hitting at the same time.

And yes, I agree, it is a lesson in ball security.

buddy and I at the game....knew as soon as it took FRICKIN 7 minutes they were trying to determine who's ball it was....course they never showed any replay at the stadium...and obviously some think there was enough evidence and some didn't...so the "not enough evidence" rule should have happened?

anyways....ugly win but a win.

[BigTip]

We wouldn't be having this discussion if Broyles would just let his hands grow bigger and learn to hold on to a dang football.

Fire Broyles!