Ainge Non Fumble

[VolinArizona]

I want to preface this by saying: yes, I know Follett should have been blocked; this play wasn't why we lost; etc; keep that out of this discussion.

On another Vol forum, someone pasted the rule that coincides with the Ainge "fumble."

First, here is the video: YouTube - Follett sack and Williams fumble recovery - Cal vs. Tenn 07

And here is the rule:
"If a Team B player contacts the passer or ball after forward movement begins and the ball leaves the passer’s hand, a forward pass is ruled regardless of where the ball strikes the ground or a player (A.R.
2-19-2-I)."

To me, it's clear that Ainge's forward throwing motion had JUST begun, and regardless of where the ball landed, it should be incomplete.

Like I said at the beginning, it doesn't matter. Cal won fair and square. However, two of the refs in our game called the Oklahoma-Oregon game last year.

Have fun.

 

[allvol123]

Now that is some solid work.

 

[GAVol]

The problem is that the ruling on the field was a fumble. I don't think the replay is conclusive enough to really change anything; especially since the ball went backwards anyway.

 

[JZVOL]

Here is the real question: If Rogers is so fast why could he not make up ground on Follett?

 

[orange+white=heaven]

I dunno VnAZ....

It still looks to me as though forward motion had not begun.
I think the hit is what pushed EA's arm forward. So hard to tell...

 

[VolinArizona]

The ball going backwards means nothing, as per the NCAA rule above.

 

[Athensvol]

I agree with you it looked to me like his hand had started forward and the ball was knocked backward by the defender when I watched the game and despite what the commentators were saying, it should have been an incomplete pass.

 

[GAVol]

The ball going backwards means nothing, as per the NCAA rule above.

I understand . . . but the fact that the ball did go backwards made it look a lot less like a pass than a fumble. In real time I'd bet that gets called a fumble 9 out of 10 times.

 

[JZVOL]

I'm using that as the excuse for the L. Cal are cheaters and liars and this game should be considered a DQ. Somebody get me Miles Brand's number

 

[rwemyss]

The ball going backwards means nothing, as per the NCAA rule above.

Wow. That certainly changes my thoughts on the play.

The officials really need to know the freakin' rulebook.

I'm glad it didn't cost us the game like it did Oklahoma...

 

[allvol123]

I understand . . . but the fact that the ball did go backwards made it look a lot less like a pass than a fumble. In real time I'd bet that gets called a fumble 9 out of 10 times.

Even if it got called a fumble on the field I think it would be well within the rules of replay to say it was not a fumble if forward motion started. If the officals knew the rules and agreed that forward motion started. Oh well, S. Miss in 2 days.

 

[VolinArizona]

Even in real time, the ball went STRAIGHT UP! It wasn't like it just squirted out of Ainge's hand. They should have called it incomplete on the field.

 

[tidwell]

I'm using that as the excuse for the L. Cal are cheaters and liars and this game should be considered a DQ. Somebody get me Miles Brand's number

Right on. Lay off of Fulmer, too. Shoot, against a perfect storm of players that couldn't be tackled by the Steel Curtain and crooked officials, the man had no chance. Give him an extension!

 

[Fine Vol]

I did overhear a ref say that it was not really a fumble because the ball landed everywhere such as....

 

[droski]

herbstreet pointed out that if you want to rule it a pass since the ball went backwords it would be ruled a lateral and therefore a fumble. :dunno:

 

[AlpineVol]

I was hoping for an incomplete myself but if they did rule his arm as going forward then where the ball lands does matter. If the ball lands behind the passer than it is considered a "Backward pass" which is treated the same as a fumble. It's the same principal as a toss sweep that is pitched over the RBs head.

 

[jakez4ut]

my initial reaction to the live play was exactly as VIA stated above.

but after seeing the replay a couple of times, it did appare to me that his arm was in fact just all the way back, not yet going forward, when his arm went forward, the ball was already gone. so after seeing that, i felt comfortable that they made the correct call.

 

[jwells]

So, it could have been ruled an imcomplete pass, but it was really close. I guess it didn't cost us the game, but it didn't help.

However, Ainge straight-up got speared. Didn't really notice it til watching the replay, but Follett led all the way with his helmet.

 

[superdave1984]

Spilled milk.
Just like the replay that will never be sen again showing Longshore not even getting his helmet over the goal line but they called that QB sneak a touchdown. They showed one replay just as they were going to commercial from the end zone angle. His head hit the ground short of the goal line. For those with TiVo, check for yourselves.
But this too is spilled milk.

 

[Fine Vol]

My initial reaction was GDMFB god %*&%(*(%%$&^%#&^ MAN I NEED A BEER mf

 

[Athensvol]

I was hoping for an incomplete myself but if they did rule his arm as going forward then where the ball lands does matter. If the ball lands behind the passer than it is considered a "Backward pass" which is treated the same as a fumble. It's the same principal as a toss sweep that is pitched over the RBs head.

What if a lineman blocks the pass and it goes backward? Is that a lateral and fumble also? :dunno:

 

[orange+white=heaven]

So, it probably should have been ruled an imcomplete pass. I guess it didn't cost us the game, but it didn't help.

More, Ainge straight-up got speared. Didn't really notice it til watching the replay, but Follett let all the way with his helmet.

good point. nice still.

 

[superdave1984]

More, Ainge straight-up got speared. Didn't really notice it til watching the replay, but Follett let all the way with his helmet.

I agree with this. I watched the game with a guy that played football in high school and 1 year of college. He said that it was the way he was taught to hit. That the hit was clean. I thought any hit with the crown of the helmet was a penalty.

 

[Athensvol]

I didn't really notice that at the time, but a similar play in the ND-GA Tech game got the ND player kicked out of the game.

 

[JZVOL]

So, it could have been ruled an imcomplete pass, but it was really close. I guess it didn't cost us the game, but it didn't help.

However, Ainge straight-up got speared. Didn't really notice it til watching the replay, but Follett led all the way with his helmet.

I was actually thinking the same thing when I saw it live. Cal or UT fan should agree that is an illegal hit, no doubt about it. Ainge is lucky he got up and wasn't pissing blood.