Will NCAA review this play regarding NEW rules?

#51
#51
As has been mentioned many times, the endzone is different than the rest of the field.

Here's an example, a team lines up at the 1/2 yard line, the qb takes the snap and reaches over the goal line, ball gets slapped away....It's a TD. The ball-carrier wasn't down by contact, but the ball broke the plane. Had that happened anywhere else on the field it would be a fumble. That's why you don't see qb's reach the ball out on 3rd and 1 from the 42.

There's really no other way but to call it a touchback. Otherwise the offense would be rewarded for a fumble.
 
#52
#52
BigOrangeTrain said:
If nobody recovers the fumble then the offensive team keeps possession and gets the ball wherever it was spotted before the play.

If you cannot see the huge difference between the defense recovering the fumble and nobody recovering the fumble then you are lost in this issue.
Click to expand...

Nope. If you fumble through your own endzone, it's a safety. Nice to see you arguing for a rule change when you have such a lousy understanding of the rulebook.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#53
#53
BigOrangeTrain said:
If nobody recovers the fumble then the offensive team keeps possession and gets the ball wherever it was spotted before the play.

If you cannot see the huge difference between the defense recovering the fumble and nobody recovering the fumble then you are lost in this issue.
Click to expand...

I'm not lost at all as the rule book agrees w me. Yiur argument is it's simply not fair.
 
#54
#54
BigOrangeTrain said:
Nice deflection. I see you have no intelligent retort to offer. That's ok. I have justified my stance. If a team fumbles anywhere else other than the end zone and the ball goes out of bounds, the fumbling team gets to keep possession. Simple as that. So please explain why this is a good rule?

Wrong. That TD would not have guaranteed victory. A TD could have changed Georgia's game plan and they could have went for a TD instead of just playing safe and settling for a FG.

I realize its a rule that will never be changed. All I am saying is its a stupid rule that is inconsistent and its garbage in the NFL and college. I am still awaiting your explanation as to why this rule is just fine.
Click to expand...

You are simply a crybaby. The rule is fine for numerous reasons and I don't have to prove anything as the rule book is on my side.

Yiur argument is simply it's not fair.
 
#55
#55
BigOrangeTrain said:
That's why it's a stupid rule. It's not the same for the rest of the field. The only justification is just because "it's the endzone."
Click to expand...

Well then by that justification, I hereby declare that TD's should be awarded for a team that reaches the opposing team's 20 yard line! I mean, why should TD's ONLY be awarded to those who reach the endzone? After all, the only justification is because "it's the endzone."
 
Last edited:
#56
#56
Ok try thinking of it like this. Football is simulated field combat. Each army has a camp or fort (end zone) separated by a 100 yd long battle field.

The objective is to advance your army into the enemies territory and place a bomb (the ball) in their camp. You can only place the bomb there if you have possession of it. If the bomb leaves the battle field (out of bounds), it goes back to army which last possessed it on the battlefield. However, if one army loses possession by allowing the bomb to roll into the enemy camp, obviously the enemy need only take possession at that point (touchback).

In the old days, you had to touch the ball down to the ground (touchdown), which could be thought of as arming the bomb. You still see this tradition in rugby. But in football, you need only possess the bomb in the enemy camp to score (cross the plane). Or you could launch the bomb into the enemy fort via catapult (field goal).

Hope this helps.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#57
#57
Vols520 said:
Yes it's justified . We have some idiots on this board.
Click to expand...

Idiots? How many times will you use the word "crybaby" in your posts?

Listen to yourself. Have you even made a case for your standpoint?
 
Last edited:
#58
#58
It should be a touchdown.. any fumble that a team makes that goes in the endzone should be a touchdown ..A pass that goes through the endzone that isnt caught? touchdown! a punt that crosses the plane? touchdown!
 
#61
#61
The thing that is getting missed here is the referee signaled TOUCHDOWN first and foremost. He was standing right on the goal line when the play happened,why didn't he signal fumble or touchback first. Now with that said when they went to review it there was no clear evidence(100%) by the way the rules are stated for them to overturn the original call of a TOUCHDOWN. That's where the problem lies is with the initial call of a Touchdown on the play. Everybody knew he fumbled the ball but on review they could not say 100% it was a fumble from all the views I have seen. His fingers were still touching the ball when the ball crossed the plane of the goal line and I know he has to have control of the ball but evidence didn't show he didn't have control of the ball with his fingertips. Its no difference then a fingertip or one handed catch in the endzone or the sideline.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#62
#62
AndyMizunogolfer said:
Wasn't it Foster who had this happen a few years back? Maybe his was during the regular game not OT.
Click to expand...

I think it was 07 at Kentucky in OT - he also got an unsportsmanlike 15 yarder --- not really sure so long ago - I do remember the Cory Anderson one vs Alabama
 
#63
#63
truevol8 said:
The thing that is getting missed here is the referee signaled TOUCHDOWN first and foremost. He was standing right on the goal line when the play happened,why didn't he signal fumble or touchback first. Now with that said when they went to review it there was no clear evidence(100%) by the way the rules are stated for them to overturn the original call of a TOUCHDOWN. That's where the problem lies is with the initial call of a Touchdown on the play. Everybody knew he fumbled the ball but on review they could not say 100% it was a fumble from all the views I have seen. His fingers were still touching the ball when the ball crossed the plane of the goal line and I know he has to have control of the ball but evidence didn't show he didn't have control of the ball with his fingertips. Its no difference then a fingertip or one handed catch in the endzone or the sideline.
Click to expand...

His fingertips were on top of the ball. Try to pick up a football with nothing but your fingertips on top of the ball. There is the 100% indisputable evidence you are asking for.
 
#65
#65
bamawriter said:
His fingertips were on top of the ball. Try to pick up a football with nothing but your fingertips on top of the ball. There is the 100% indisputable evidence you are asking for.
Click to expand...

Are you saying it is impossible? What is impossible is Nick Saban recruiting with out cash.
 
#67
#67
Nothing is impossible. Just because you cant do it and I cant do it doesn't mean there isn't somebody out there that can do it. Nothing is impossible...
 
#68
#68
truevol8 said:
Nothing is impossible. Just because you cant do it and I cant do it doesn't mean there isn't somebody out there that can do it. Nothing is impossible...
Click to expand...

No, it's literally impossible without some kind of adhesive. I will assume that you aren't accusing Neal of cheating, so I think we agree that he did not have adhesive on his gloves.
 
#69
#69
truevol8 said:
Nothing is impossible. Just because you cant do it and I cant do it doesn't mean there isn't somebody out there that can do it. Nothing is impossible...
Click to expand...

I'm a believer in this statement after watching an MMA fighter do a back flip out of a push-up. Anyone else see that?
 
#71
#71
bamawriter said:
No, it's literally impossible without some kind of adhesive. I will assume that you aren't accusing Neal of cheating, so I think we agree that he did not have adhesive on his gloves.
Click to expand...

It wasn't Neal..it was Pig Howard. Now tell me what game was you watching? Like I said nothing is impossible. One day you will see something or something will happen and you will say that's impossible right after you witness it. Then I will say I TOLD YOU SO.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#74
#74
Also to the OP, I can almost 100% guarantee there will be zero discussion by the rules committee to change this rule.
 
#75
#75
truevol8 said:
It wasn't Neal..it was Pig Howard. Now tell me what game was you watching? Like I said nothing is impossible. One day you will see something or something will happen and you will say that's impossible right after you witness it. Then I will say I TOLD YOU SO.
Click to expand...

You are right, had a brain cramp. Howard still fumbled. See, no shame in admiting when you're wrong.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top