Was this a fumble?

Was this a fumble?

  • Yep, definitely a fumble.

    Votes: 43 79.6%

  • Nope, this is a TD

    Votes: 11 20.4%
  • Total voters
    54
Donate To GopherHole













NotAFanOfBecky said:
Yes, but then he recovered it in the end zone, but then fumbled it again as he headed out of the end zone. Ruling should be touchback.
Click to expand...
Never seen a play exactly like it so I think the league will have to review what “re”gaining possession in the end zone means, but once they ruled he regained possession for one step in the end zone it is a TD, the ball is dead and he can’t “fumble it again.” Begrudgingly on watching the replay multiple times I think they’d have to say he regained it with both hands on the ball and one foot down.
 









Sure it's a fumble, with an unsuccessful attempt to recover. The only argument against is to say that the same guy lost control of the ball twice, but scored a touchdown because he controlled it for less than a second in between.

It's what you can call a Helmet School Ruling.
 



gopherphil said:
He has to regain control and make a fb move and he didn’t. It would definitely have been called a fumble if that was a gopher player
Click to expand...
It's not a reception, so leave out the part on making a fb move. Not necessary.
 

It was a fumble and should have been a touch back. In super slow motion it looks like he regains control for a beat but come on....unless the ball is covered in the slickest material known to man you don't fumble, regain full control, and then immediately fumble again.....that just doesn't happen in real life much less with elite college athletes.

However....that replay booth last night apparently had some amazing video feeds that showed Oregon in full control of the ball on that play and the receivers foot clearly being in bounds on the other TD.....zero chance either of those calls goes our way but those are the breaks the helmet schools seem to get.

Neither ruling cost us the game by any stretch of the imagination but still very frustrating as a fan to see that kind of BS play out over and over again in college football.
 

Some guy said:
No one can argue it wasn’t a fumble

The argument was about whether or not he recovered his own fumble

He didn't
Click to expand...
This. The second fumble was a continuation of the first. He never gained repossession.

If there had been multiple payers involved, even on the same team, this would been called a touchback.

Refs got it waaaaay wrong.
 

Some guy said:
No one can argue it wasn’t a fumble

The argument was about whether or not he recovered his own fumble

He didnt
Click to expand...
To me it was pretty borderline if he recovered in the end zone. Probably a 50/50 call but when it's Oregon or OSU you give it to them.
 

Word said:
To me it was pretty borderline if he recovered in the end zone. Probably a 50/50 call but when it's Oregon or OSU you give it to them.
Click to expand...
Slow motion ruins football on replay sometimes

Watch it in slow motion and see it’s a fumble before he’s in the end zone. Slow mo helps you make a cut and dry call like that.

Then watch it at regular speed and tell me he recovered. No way. In slow mo MAYBE but I think no.
In regular speed 0/7 billion humans say he “regained control”
 

The discussion moot, for me.

I would abolish the rule entirely. I'd make the rule be that any fumble into and then out of the endzone automatically gives the fumbling team the ball back at the spot of the fumble.

I won't change my mind. There is no valid argument to be had to support the rule as it is written.

Easily one of the worst rules in football.
 

In order to say he regained possession is to admit he immediately lost possession again at the back of the end zone. It's possible but more likely that he never regained it in the first place.
 

No difference when a receiver catches a ball for a brief second and gets clobbered and drops the ball. Rule is an incomplete pass. This was a fumble.
 

Use common sense.

Do you think it is more like that: (i) he fumbled, regained possession, and then re-fumbled the ball out the back of the end zone; or (ii) he fumbled, touched the ball with two hands while never re-gaining control of it, thus permitting it squirt out the back of the end zone?

Not really a mind-bender.
 

GopherGrit said:
The discussion moot, for me.

I would abolish the rule entirely. I'd make the rule be that any fumble into and then out of the endzone automatically gives the fumbling team the ball back at the spot of the fumble.

I won't change my mind. There is no valid argument to be had to support the rule as it is written.

Easily one of the worst rules in football.
Click to expand...
I think the origins are because it’s a slippery slope. Wouldn’t you always accidentally fumble ahead on 4th and goal once stopped or upon realizing it’s a futile play? I believe Nebraska fumbled forward out of bounds once against us, in the Kill era, and it was spotted as a first down. That rule was eventually modified so the offense wasn’t enticed to do that midfield too.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom