Can someone who was watching on TV tell,was the ball touched by the Michigan player who we all thought should have been called for a safety? Sorry for the grammar it's 7am and I'm still pissed about the refs.
I actually had a different question on that play... The Michigan player's left foot was clearly out of bounds when he made the turn to the end zone. Then he went back and grabbed the ball. I didn't think a player who went out of bounds could be the first player to play the ball, at least not that soon after going out of bounds. Do I have that wrong?
No, you couldn't tell... The assumption by the announcers was it did touch him because why else would he go back to get it.
The ref they brought on TV said it was called correctly, he didn't possess the ball in the field of play so it wasn't a safety. Which on one hand makes sense, but on the other... If it doesn't matter that he touched it, shouldn't ball have been blown dead for a touchback the moment it hit the end zone?
I actually had a different question on that play... The Michigan player's left foot was clearly out of bounds when he made the turn to the end zone. Then he went back and grabbed the ball. I didn't think a player who went out of bounds could be the first player to play the ball, at least not that soon after going out of bounds. Do I have that wrong?
No, you couldn't tell... The assumption by the announcers was it did touch him because why else would he go back to get it.
The ref they brought on TV said it was called correctly, he didn't possess the ball in the field of play so it wasn't a safety. Which on one hand makes sense, but on the other... If it doesn't matter that he touched it, shouldn't ball have been blown dead for a touchback the moment it hit the end zone?
This is not directed just at you but it baffles me how many people have trouble with stuff like this. The fact that he touched it makes it a live ball meaning if he had not gone back and recovered it and we would have it would have been points for us (only thing I am not positive on in that situation is if it would have been a TD or safety). However the fact that he just touched and didn't possess the ball in the field of play means the play can still end in out touchback.
You see this far more often on kickoffs where the ball might touch someone in the field of play but still end up as a touchback because he didn't control it. Control is the key aspect of the play.
Predictably the focus has now been shifted to how the refs were out to get us and screwed us out of the victory. Really is shocking how everytime we lose a close one it was because the refs were working for the other side....
Sounds like a dumb rule. The ball is live in the field of play if he touches it but dead in the endzone? College Football man...
This all goes back to that fact that most people don't understand the basic rules of the game.
A muff that goes into the end zone (due to the momentum of the kick) is a live ball. However, since it was not in the player's possession (yes, a muff is not possession-all levels of football) in the field of play, recovery in the end zone is not a safety. Possession is control. However, touching the ball does create a loose ball situation in which either team is allowed to recover the ball.
If another Michigan player recovered, it is still a touchback. If Minnesota recovers, its a touchdown.
If the player had possessed the ball, fumbled into the end zone, the result would have been a safety or touchdown.
Same at every level of football.
If the replay had shown that the Michigan player had not touched the kick, it would have been a touchback, as any punt into the end zone is dead in HS and college. Only in pro football can you return a punt from the end zone.