Can we talk about Miami's fumble at the end of the game?

Nehru Jacket said:
In reality it should be based on a preponderance of evidence. I learned this from Judge Wapner on People’s Court.
Click to expand...

Preponderance is way to lax of a standard to overturn a call on replay.

Realistically, it's very hard to apply any standard in between.
 
Nehru Jacket said:
Now you’ve done it. Judge Wapner is sending Rusty to bring you in for disagreeing.
Click to expand...
Now you’ve done it. Entire board is on edge.
IMG_1756.jpeg
 
LagrangeJacket said:
I think he was almost certainly down. But I also think letting the play stand was the right call on replay.
1697079700073.jpeg
Click to expand...
Could have been down with possession but don't think this photo is conclusive. A still shot could make it look like he had more control than he did.
 
Finally got to watch the end of the game on a big TV instead of my phone. I’m pretty convinced that his elbow was down before the ball came out, but they called it a fumble on the field. Some very fortuitously placed players and refs made it hard to find indisputable evidence to overturn the call, though I wouldn’t have been surprised if they had overturned it. Basically a long-overdue gift from the football gods, and we took the opportunity and finished the game.

Wish we could execute a squib kick, though…

JRjr
 
justafan said:
Could have been down with possession but don't think this photo is conclusive. A still shot could make it look like he had more control than he did.
Click to expand...
From your photo, the ball is coming loose as his elbow hits the ground. That call could have gone either way and not have been overturned. It was very close. The correct call on the field is to rule it a fumble and overturn it if not. But back to the photo, it's hard to say he had "control" of the ball as his elbow hit when a split second later the ball is out. He had not completely lost it yet, but it was not controlled. I think this is likely why the call on the field was not reversed.
 
justafan said:
Could have been down with possession but don't think this photo is conclusive. A still shot could make it look like he had more control than he did.
Click to expand...
The ball is tucked under his bicep and in the grasp of his right hand (you can see his thumb). He has possession here, and his left elbow is down.

Letting the call stand was the correct review outcome, but we were lucky this was called a fumble on the field. It most likely wasn’t.
 
LagrangeJacket said:
The ball is tucked under his bicep and in the grasp of his right hand (you can see his thumb). He has possession here, and his left elbow is down.

Letting the call stand was the correct review outcome, but we were lucky this was called a fumble on the field. It most likely wasn’t.
Click to expand...
Possession or control. The issue is control. While it looks like he might have had control, the ball came out a split second later. IMPO, it is hard to say he truly had control.

That's the only fortunate aspect of the whole thing - that ACC refs made the correct call to let it stand. The rest was due to the good work of GT players.
 
stinger78 said:
Possession or control. The issue is control. While it looks like he might have had control, the ball came out a split second later. IMPO, it is hard to say he truly had control.

That's the only fortunate aspect of the whole thing - that ACC refs made the correct call to let it stand. The rest was due to the good work of GT players.
Click to expand...
I’m not sure what you’re talking about with “control”. The rule on fumbling is the following:

“To fumble the ball is to lose player possession by any act other than passing, kicking or successful handing” (rule 2, section 11)

If he has possession in that picture, it is by definition not a fumble.
 
LagrangeJacket said:
I’m not sure what you’re talking about with “control”. The rule on fumbling is the following:

“To fumble the ball is to lose player possession by any act other than passing, kicking or successful handing” (rule 2, section 11)

If he has possession in that picture, it is by definition not a fumble.
Click to expand...
"Control" is within the rules definition of "possession":

"Player Possession
The ball is in player possession when a player has the ball firmly in their grasp by holding or controlling it with hand(s) or arm(s) while contacting the ground inbounds."

So the Miami player had to have the ball firmly in their grasp by holding or controlling it with his hands.

I'm not sure it can be concluded from the still photo that the ball was firmly in their grasp given that the ball was loose a split second later. I agree that the photo makes it appear that the ball is firmly in their grasp but it may be deceiving.
 
justafan said:
"Control" is within the rules definition of "possession":

"Player Possession
The ball is in player possession when a player has the ball firmly in their grasp by holding or controlling it with hand(s) or arm(s) while contacting the ground inbounds."

So the Miami player had to have the ball firmly in their grasp by holding or controlling it with his hands.

I'm not sure it can be concluded from the still photo that the ball was firmly in their grasp given that the ball was loose a split second later. I agree that the photo makes it appear that the ball is firmly in their grasp but it may be deceiving.
Click to expand...
Your last statement is my point.
 
gt2690b said:
a lot of things can look firmly in grasp in a still photo... need about 10 more frames to be conclusive
Click to expand...
Exactly. A still shot can look like control while the very next frame may not.

To BM... it's been a bye week. Shrug.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top