Rule Question
- Thread starter upj87
- Start date
He was out of bounds after he knocked the ball from speedy Mumfords hands. He did not go out of bounds on his own, his momentum carried him out after hitting speedy. He therefore can come back in and make a play on the ball.
He did not come back though, right?.. .he was still out of bounds as he first grabbed the ball...in the field of play I think the ball gets spotted at the point of the fumble.
He ran out and never re- established position in bounds. Just a weird call and rule. I’m not complaining as I don’t think it impacts the result…whereas the slide play at Wake certainly did.
mea culpa here...after reviewing the tape he did establish himself entirely back in the end zone..
Would it have mattered? My take was that if he was out of bounds when he touched it, the ball would be dead (considered out of bounds) where he touched it. That would be the end zone, and it would be the same effect as if it had been fumbled out of bounds in the end zone. And if he was inbounds when he touched it, it's a FSU recovery in the end zone. In either scenario, it's their ball at the 20.
I am almost certain he did not re-establish himself inbounds, I believe his foot was still on the chalk as he was touching ball. But again, it doesn't matter because it is in the end zone. He either recovered it and therefore it's a touchback. Or he was out-of-bounds when he touched the ball, which means the ball is dead and it is in the end zone at that moment (after a fumble outside of the end zone by the offense), and therefore a touchback.
And he didn't even have to do that. As I said in an earlier post, he could have been laying 99% out bounds and just reached in bounds with only a hand so that literally only 5 fingers were in bounds and its still a touchback. The FSU player could have been standing out on bounds and then kicked it out of the endzone without ever coming in bounds (other than his kicking foot) and its still a touchback. Just a weird rule. I thought it should have been a safety. Essentially if the offensive team fumbles into the end zone, there are ONLY 2 scenarios:
1. Offense requires for a TD
2. ANY other outcome is a touchback
i think they got the call right but the rule is a really weird one. it would be the same as if he fumbled it on the 1 yard line and it went thru the endzone, its a Touch back.
Still one of the stupidest rules in football. No one recovers it, should be down at the point of the fumble. But the football Gods dont let me make the rules..
Still one of the stupidest rules in football. No one recovers it, should be down at the point of the fumble. But the football Gods dont let me make the rules..
That is what I think it should be but it isnt. Its essentially a penalty for a defensive player illegally possessing the ball, not giving legal players a chance.
i dont know about this, you cant punish the defense but still, to reward them with the ball at the 20 just makes no damn sense at all.
again, fumble, no one recovered, should go back to the offense at the spot of the fumble. to just give the other team the ball is something you'd make up as a kid playing football with your 2 buddies in your front yard.
Awarding two points to the offense in fumble out of the end zone (the scoring end zone for the offense) could lead to some strange tactics ... in late game situations, I could see a team trying to fumble on purpose and push the ball out of bounds through the end zone, so that you get the two points and essentially get to retain possession by virtue of the free kick.
I think you can punish the defense for illegally touching the ball. Players have to be accountable and know when they are allowed to touch it and when they aren't.
How is it illegal touching? It's not illegal, so it actually makes the touching ball in that situation smart ... it's what Gunner Olszewski should have done when receiving that one kickoff near the sideline.
Watch these plays (the effort made by the player in the third one is particularly entertaining):
Last edited:
Similar threads
