Was this a fumble?

[Roland Brooks]

Wow the percentage of idiots that post here is amazing… Thank you to the few non morons .. honestly

 

[howeda7]

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.

On that I agree, except the offense would get the ball at the 20. There has to be some consequence for fumbling it out of the end zone and not just here's the ball at the 1.

 

[Tech Machine]

Last night they never showed it at normal speed. A slow motion possess and control.I think it was a fumble, the ball was sort of attached to him, but he wasn’t really controlling it, in my opinion.

 

[howeda7]

If he had actually regained possession in the end zone he wouldn't have lost it.

 

[Some guy]

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.

What if the fumbling team fumbling out of back of the end zone is an inverse touchback and they get the ball at the 20 going in

 

[Some guy]

If he had actually regained possession in the end zone he wouldn't have lost it.

Yup

They’re trying to say he fumbled twice

 

[Some guy]

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.

Agree

I think the right answer is an offensive fumble out of bounds in the end zone gives the offense the ball 1st and 10 at the 50

 

[MaxyJR1]

They explained both calls in favor of Oregon last night. Terry McAulay today says they blew both calls.

 

[MNVCGUY]

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”

That was my point above. No way you immediately fumble again with nobody touching you and both hands on the football being held away from your body.....that just isn't a thing that happens. In super duper slow motion there is a moment when he seems to have control but only because it is in slow mo. In real time, once he lost it, he never regained control.....but he got bailed out by the replay booth.

 

[Some guy]

That was my point above. No way you immediately fumble again with nobody touching you and both hands on the football being held away from your body.....that just isn't a thing that happens. In super duper slow motion there is a moment when he seems to have control but only because it is in slow mo. In real time, once he lost it, he never regained control.....but he got bailed out by the replay booth.

Not that it makes much of a differenxe
I felt like the gophers lost 42-14 last night

But the calls made it seem we should’ve lost 35-21 in a game that wasn’t as close as the score

 

[Drake University Gopher]

I actually agree in most sports we need to do away with the slow motion replay. View it as many times by the naked eye from a variety of angles, but otherwise it stands. Reminds me of baseball when the player beats the throw by a mile, but someone in a replay booth is able to zoom in and says he somehow came off the base for a millisecond while the tag is still applied. Common sense has completely gone out the window when replay is applied nowadays.

 

[#2Gopher]

Wow the percentage of idiots that post here is amazing… Thank you to the few non morons .. honestly

So you don't believe in discussing something? Instead you prefer to trash people?

 

[MNVCGUY]

I actually agree in most sports we need to do away with the slow motion replay. View it as many times by the naked eye from a variety of angles, but otherwise it stands. Reminds me of baseball when the player beats the throw by a mile, but someone in a replay booth is able to zoom in and says he somehow came off the base for a millisecond while the tag is still applied. Common sense has completely gone out the window when replay is applied nowadays.

Victim of the technology. We have that ability to view things at such a granular level....doesn't mean we should though.

Gets talked about on the basketball side about the length of those replays when they try and determine who's fingertip touched the ball last. Takes forever and kills the flow of the game.

 

[Gopherchase]

We had I think 6 calls/non-calls that could have helped to keep us in the game a bit if they had gone our way. They all went the other way and legit seemed like all 6 could have gone opposite. That sucked.

 

[gopherphil]

They explained both calls in favor of Oregon last night. Terry McAulay today says they blew both calls.

Yup..

 

[PhillyGopher]

They explained both calls in favor of Oregon last night. Terry McAulay today says they blew both calls.

There were only two?

 

[A_Slab_of_Bacon]

They got the call right. Once he possesses the fumble it in the end zone the play is over.

 

[MaxyJR1]

That was the expert explanation on Tv last night. The two “experts” disagree.

 

[allthgoodnamesrgone]

I’ll just say this. If that running back was wearing a Gopher jersey, I’m confident that officiating crew would rule it a touchback.

 

[goonin_golden_gophers]

Wow the percentage of idiots that post here is amazing… Thank you to the few non morons .. honestly

Perfect work, post is vague enough to apply to both sides— indeed, a true quantum conundrum where we are all left uncertain about our own idiocy.

 

[GopherPD]

After the runner got away from 7 Gophers who had him surrounded at the 20, I kind of lost interest in the play

 

[USAF]

Reminds me of baseball when the player beats the throw by a mile, but someone in a replay booth is able to zoom in and says he somehow came off the base for a millisecond while the tag is still applied. Common sense has completely gone out the window when replay is applied nowadays.

I find this such a thoughtless argument.
If a runner is off the bag, while a tag is applied, he's out. Doesn't matter if it's for a "millisecond" or an hour. Doesn't matter if he's off the bag by an inch, or a yard. He's out.
Do we award the hitter a base hit because the throw only beat him to 1st by a little? Call the batter out because the center fielder almost caught that line drive?
No. We don't. And thank heaven.
Either he's out, or he's safe. "By how much" isn't part of the rule, nor should it be.

 

[GopherGrit]

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.

The. moment. you try to cheat it .. you fumble on purpose ... the football gods will s__ all over you and it won't work. The ball won't actually go out of the endzone. The other team will recover it, then it really will be a touchback.

You make a good point, though. I will update my proposed rule to say that you lose a down. Fumble on 4th down out of the endzone and you get the ball back at the spot of the fumble ... but then you turn it over on downs.

 

[GopherGrit]

On that I agree, except the offense would get the ball at the 20. There has to be some consequence for fumbling it out of the end zone and not just here's the ball at the 1.

What if the fumbling team fumbling out of back of the end zone is an inverse touchback and they get the ball at the 20 going in

I would gladly take this as a massive step in the right direction

 

[Some guy]

I would gladly take this as a massive step in the right direction

Honestly the 50 would be a huge punishment and funny

You fumble out the back you’re first and 10 from the 50
Would be too funny

 

[Soon2B8]

They got the call right. Once he possesses the fumble it in the end zone the play is over.

I dont think think the ball stopped moving in his hands! If that's a possession then the TE catch in the series before should have been a catch, he had it pinned between his forearms!

 

[GopherGrit]

Honestly the 50 would be a huge punishment and funny

You fumble out the back you’re first and 10 from the 50
Would be too funny

Still would be better than a touchback.

Just an awful, awful rule.

 

[MaxyJR1]

I dont think think the ball stopped moving in his hands! If that's a possession then the TE catch in the series before should have been a catch, he had it pinned between his forearms!

Even the officiating experts are at odds on the calls. Bad look for the officiating world.

 

[GopherGold01]

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.

Right, in any other scenario where this wasn't his own fumble while uncontested, that fraction of a second recovery isn't being called possession. We can slow the video down as much as we want, or pause it while both hands are on the ball to create the impression of possession. He obviously didn't regain possession or he wouldn't have dropped it immediately.

These two blown calls didn't matter in the outcome, but they were still defeating. Like give us a fucking chance.

 

[Ope3]

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.

As long as he was not out of bounds, I don't think the one foot down matters. All he had to do was "break the plane" with possession.