Those So-called Controversial Calls For Georgia

[ddavis1120]

Ok this is what I thought as it's the way I've always seen it called. That's why I was so perplexed with that red line espn showed during the game which was a head scratcher?

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1609653963745529856

Your example specifically says "they" cross the sideline. i.e. more than one. "They" weren't airborne as "they" crossed the sideline. "The" ball crossed the sideline while "the" singular Bowers was still inbounds. "The" ball was correctly spotted when "the" Bowers crossed the sideline.

 

[elfiii]

Your example specifically says "they" cross the sideline. i.e. more than one. "They" weren't airborne as "they" crossed the sideline. "The" ball crossed the sideline while "the" singular Bowers was still inbounds. "The" ball was correctly spotted when "the" Bowers crossed the sideline.

"The Bowers" - I like it.

ETA, the highlighted part of the quote in your post is going to leave a mark on a lot of people.

 

[ddavis1120]

It was an amazing play.

 

[Flash]

Brock did not get that first down. That was a stupid graphic that they showed on TV as it only showed that he had not touched down before he crossed the line to make. Unfortunately, the ball did in fact cross the side line before he made the first down and the ref called it right on the field. I hope that replay officials didn't overturn it based on a misleading graphic.

I admit right off I don't know the rule book. That being said Bowers was still in bounds (hand touching inbounds) but ball was out of bounds. SO what would have happened/been the ruling if Bowers had somehow took that left hand and rotated his body. If his feet/ball/body swung over the sideline then back into the playing field and landed on his feet. Somehow using that left hand to balance and use his momentum????

What would that ruling be?? He would have never touched down out of bounds, but he would have broken the sideline plane

 

[ddgarcia]

I admit right off I don't know the rule book. That being said Bowers was still in bounds (hand touching inbounds) but ball was out of bounds. SO what would have happened/been the ruling if Bowers had somehow took that left hand and rotated his body. If his feet/ball/body swung over the sideline then back into the playing field and landed on his feet. Somehow using that left hand to balance and use his momentum????

What would that ruling be?? He would have never touched down out of bounds, but he would have broken the sideline plane

It still would be a "live" ball same as any player running near the sideline and carrying the ball.in his outside hand to protect it from a possible fumble. As long as the "field of play" is maintained it remains a "live" ball/play. In theory, were a player able to fly like Superman, he COULD receive a kickoff in his end zone, FLY OVER the opposing teams entire.bench and land in the opposite end zone for a TD. It would not be a dead ball unless he touched something to establish himself/ the ball OOB.

 

[Flash]

It still would be a "live" ball same as any player running near the sideline and carrying the ball.in his outside hand to protect it from a possible fumble. As long as the "field of play" is maintained it remains a "live" ball/play. In theory, were a player able to fly like Superman, he COULD receive a kickoff in his end zone, FLY OVER the opposing teams entire.bench and land in the opposite end zone for a TD. It would not be a dead ball unless he touched something to establish himself/ the ball OOB.

So the ball was live AND advancing until he touched down out of bounds correct??

 

[ddgarcia]

So the ball was live AND advancing until he touched down out of bounds correct??

Yes. Until the sideline is contacted to establish leaving the "field of play" it is a live ball/play. Think a scrambling QB running down the sideline. Defender pulls up cause he doesn't want a UR call for hitting him when steps out, think Stroud took advantage of this once or twice in the game, and he continues to "tiptoe" down the side line, the ball extended out over it, to gain a few more yards.

 

[poohbear]

The reason the ball was marked where he was when he landed out of bounds was because his hand was in bounds on the ground, so he never went completely airborne.Had his hand not been on the ground the ball would have been marked where the airborne ball left the playing field.
otherwise if a man is running the ball down the side line and holding the ball out like they sometimes do and it crossed the white line it would make it a dead ball.

Yes and receivers catch out of bounds all the time with their toes right on the line

 

[poohbear]

"The Bowers" - I like it.

ETA, the highlighted part of the quote in your post is going to leave a mark on a lot of people.

Did y’all see “The Time Out”

 

[Mike 65]

Did y’all see “The Time Out”

One fine piece of coaching! Guys in the booth earning their keep.

 

[Silver Britches]

Yes and receivers catch out of bounds all the time with their toes right on the line

Was just going to post the same thing. But I'm tired of explaining it. It's over. We won. I'm happy!

 

[weagle]

I admit right off I don't know the rule book. That being said Bowers was still in bounds (hand touching inbounds) but ball was out of bounds. SO what would have happened/been the ruling if Bowers had somehow took that left hand and rotated his body. If his feet/ball/body swung over the sideline then back into the playing field and landed on his feet. Somehow using that left hand to balance and use his momentum????

What would that ruling be?? He would have never touched down out of bounds, but he would have broken the sideline plane

If any part of his body other than his hand would have been in bounds then it would be a different story.

A hand on the ground means nothing. You can stumble, put your had down and keep on running, but a elbow, forearm, knee, shin etc establishes in bounds. If a hand established "in bounds" you could dive outside the pylon on the goal line and slap the goal line with your free hand.

 

[DAWG1419]

If any part of his body other than his hand would have been in bounds then it would be a different story.

A hand on the ground means nothing. You can stumble, put your had down and keep on running, but a elbow, forearm, knee, shin etc establishes in bounds. If a hand established "in bounds" you could dive outside the pylon on the goal line and slap the goal line with your free hand.

And it would be a TD

 

[Flash]

If any part of his body other than his hand would have been in bounds then it would be a different story.

A hand on the ground means nothing. You can stumble, put your had down and keep on running, but a elbow, forearm, knee, shin etc establishes in bounds. If a hand established "in bounds" you could dive outside the pylon on the goal line and slap the goal line with your free hand.

So the hand inbounds doesn't make him inbounds for that extra split second???

 

[Unicoidawg]

The bottom of your feet and your hands are the only thing that can touch the ground and you not be called down. His hand was still in bounds and the ball went past the first down maker. Your not out of bounds until a body part touches the ground out of bounds. It is what it is at this point. No matter how many times it is argued the Dawgs won.......... on to TCU. GO DAWGS!!!!!

 

[ddavis1120]

If a hand established "in bounds" you could dive outside the pylon on the goal line and slap the goal line with your free hand.

See post #80 above

 

[weagle]

See post #80 above

Does not apply. A hand is not the same as your foot or other body part that can establish "in bounds"

If you spun around backwards in the air, caught a ball on the sideline and slapped a hand down in bounds, it would not be a completion.

 

[weagle]

And it would be a TD

You are kidding? right?

 

[poohbear]

Was just going to post the same thing. But I'm tired of explaining it. It's over. We won. I'm happy!

I know people all the time want to blame the calls and personnel injured when they don’t win , and sure there are bad calls that effect out comes of games but most of the time the calls even their self out . Bad calls and injuries are part of the game which ever team over comes what is thrown at it wins . The Dawgs have just been able to do that as of late. I’m sure one day ol Lady Luck will run off on us , but until then I’m going smile and Injoy the ride, it’s been along time coming.

 

[MudDucker]

One fine piece of coaching! Guys in the booth earning their keep.

‘Kirby said it was his call and that he wasn’t on the special teams line to hear them.