• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

BC @ WFU – Sat 10/22 – 3:30 ACCN

Not at all. I am saying that a play begins with the snap and ends with the referees whistle. Possession and location of the ball are determined then. If the team that snapped the ball has possession at the whistle, then down and distance to line to gain are based on the situation at the snap. (next down, line to gain if the dead ball spot is not beyond the line to gain). If the defense has possession at the whistle, then that team has the ball with first down etc.

In your scenario, under my theoretical rule, the defense would have possession at the spot the play was whistled dead.

In a more analogous situation, if a defender intercepts a pass, makes one or more football moves, then is tackled and fumbles and the team originally on offense recovers, the dead ball spot with respect to the line to gain at the start of the play would control whether or not it was a first down. If the spot was not past the line to gain, then it would be the next down.

Example: Team A has the ball 2nd down, 7 yards to go at their own 30. Defender from team B intercepts at the 50, runs, is tackled and fumbles. Team A recovers said fumble at their 35 yard line. Under my hypothetical rule, team A would the ball with third down and two yards to go.

Alternatively if the fumble recovery and ensuing dead ball spot was the 40 yard line, team A would have first down there.

Bottom line, I am not in favor of declaring "change of possession has occurred" until the whistle declaring end of play has sounded.
Not trying to be a smart-ass, but if you can find where a single coach, official, player or semi-credentialed talking head has ever agreed with or even contemplated the possible legitimacy of your take I'd be surprised.
Just imagine if BC had the ball 3rd and 1 our 5 yard line, they fumble and our guy scoops and takes off and almost scores, but has it punched out from behind right before crossing the goal line for a 95 yard fumble/td return. If BC recovered on their own 1 yard line, under your scenario they'd now have the ball 4th and 95 yards to go.
 
I think if I were a coach I would make any defender who tried to scoop up a fumble run sprints on Monday. I don’t care if he scores. It may be exciting but I think more balls get booted or fumbled or not recovered trying to scoop than just falling on it probably 10-1. Only worse idea is returning am INT out of the endzone and slightly worse than fielding a punt on a bounce (which we did Saturday and was stressful).
 
There’s a fair argument that the offense should have possession until they kick it away on a punt or kickoff. The main reasons to support the current rule is it is the current rule. I assume that’s because the game has roots in rugby and soccer where possession changes frequently.
 
I think if I were a coach I would make any defender who tried to scoop up a fumble run sprints on Monday. I don’t care if he scores. It may be exciting but I think more balls get booted or fumbled or not recovered trying to scoop than just falling on it probably 10-1. Only worse idea is returning am INT out of the endzone and slightly worse than fielding a punt on a bounce (which we did Saturday and was stressful).
A scoop and 90 yard fumble return was responsible for Syracuse nearly burying Clemson on Saturday
 
I remember a while back that a Panthers DB intercepted a ball near the end zone and his momentum carried him into the end zone, where he knelt. It was counted a safety.

I think they changed the rule so current momentum didn't count as moving into the end zone.
 
There’s a fair argument that the offense should have possession until they kick it away on a punt or kickoff. The main reasons to support the current rule is it is the current rule. I assume that’s because the game has roots in rugby and soccer where possession changes frequently.
Do away with fumbles that result in a turnover? There's no fair argument for that.
 
A fumble/interception would still count if the defense ends the play with the ball.
 
A fumble/interception would still count if the defense ends the play with the ball.

I don’t understand the purpose of these hypotheticals. The process of a turnover and establishing possession are both clearly established in college football, what would be the purpose of this new rule about fumbles? It’s unnecessary and illogical. Possession of a live ball can change infinity times until the game clock runs out, why would the game revert to a previously completed set of downs just because a team re-recovered the ball? The set of downs is over when you lose the ball, period. That’s how football works.
 
I think if I were a coach I would make any defender who tried to scoop up a fumble run sprints on Monday. I don’t care if he scores. It may be exciting but I think more balls get booted or fumbled or not recovered trying to scoop than just falling on it probably 10-1. Only worse idea is returning am INT out of the endzone and slightly worse than fielding a punt on a bounce (which we did Saturday and was stressful).
I think it depends on the team and the situation. Our offense is so good that there is no need to advance the ball, just fall on it. But if you’re a member of the panthers defense, you might reasonably believe it’s your teams only chance to score points.
 
I think it depends on the team and the situation. Our offense is so good that there is no need to advance the ball, just fall on it. But if you’re a member of the panthers defense, you might reasonably believe it’s your teams only chance to score points.
I think this is right and also to reply to BBDeac. If I’m an underdog on the road and playing aggressively then sure, or if you are a defense first team that relies on defense to set up the offense. But not us. We fall on that I’m sure we score but when they got the ball back there was no question they were going to score. That’s potentially a 14 point swing. Not to mention on the same drive we let the punter run up the middle twenty yards.
 
I think this is right and also to reply to BBDeac. If I’m an underdog on the road and playing aggressively then sure, or if you are a defense first team that relies on defense to set up the offense. But not us. We fall on that I’m sure we score but when they got the ball back there was no question they were going to score. That’s potentially a 14 point swing. Not to mention on the same drive we let the punter run up the middle twenty yards.

That was BC’s longest run of the game.
 
It was weird having a different PA guy yesterday, and overall he did a good job (absent his Michael Buffer-like 3rd down shtick).
But it did bring to mind where this guy came from: obviously he does this on the reg somewhere, i.e. not just a pull from the marketing dept., so good for Wake for lining him up. Curious to what his "regular" PA gig is.
 
It was weird having a different PA guy yesterday, and overall he did a good job (absent his Michael Buffer-like 3rd down shtick).
But it did bring to mind where this guy came from: obviously he does this on the reg somewhere, i.e. not just a pull from the marketing dept., so good for Wake for lining him up. Curious to what his "regular" PA gig is.
Are we sure it wasn’t @mako1331? I’m sure that’s one of his regular jobs.
 
Watching replay on ACCN...now I understand what y'all meant about the announcers. Sam's tipped INT was "karma" for roughing the passer call? Jeez.
 
Back
Top