Was it really a touchback?

[achrist70]

I know it was close but I would say that Carlos Anderson's fumble after a long run that went out of the endzone may not have went out of the endzone.

[Chitown Panther]

Re: Was it really a touchback?

Only thing I can think of, is Sinkfield's left hand touched out of bounds before gaining control of the ball.

[Hail Our Panthers]

Re: Was it really a touchback?

Very close...cant really blame the ref

[Purrrrrfect]

Re: Was it really a touchback?

By rule it was fumbled into the endzone by the offensive player last, therefore ruled a touchback. It didn't matter if he recovered it or not. Had the defensive player knocked it out, it would be a different story. However, after re-watching the game, it was fumbled by the offensive player.

[Panther-Sheik]

Re: Was it really a touchback?

By rule it was fumbled into the endzone by the offensive player last, therefore ruled a touchback. It didn't matter if he recovered it or not. Had the defensive player knocked it out, it would be a different story. However, after re-watching the game, it was fumbled by the offensive player.

Huh?



.

[TravelingPanther]

Re: Was it really a touchback?

By rule it was fumbled into the endzone by the offensive player last, therefore ruled a touchback. It didn't matter if he recovered it or not. Had the defensive player knocked it out, it would be a different story. However, after re-watching the game, it was fumbled by the offensive player.

But if he recovered it, as shown in the picture, it is a TD.

[95UNIGRAD]

Re: Was it really a touchback?

If someone recovers a fumble in the end zone and they are on the offense, it's a TD. No matter - we had several chances to finish the ground buffaloes yesterday, and wasted too many opportunities. The one I'd really like to see again is the "fumble" down by the goalline in the 4th qtr. that they returned. Guess I'll watch the weekly show tonight.

[UNI83]

Re: Was it really a touchback?

By rule it was fumbled into the endzone by the offensive player last, therefore ruled a touchback. It didn't matter if he recovered it or not. Had the defensive player knocked it out, it would be a different story. However, after re-watching the game, it was fumbled by the offensive player.

What the hell are you talking about?

[UNIpanther99]

Re: Was it really a touchback?

What the hell are you talking about?

I think he's thinking about a rule against fumbling the ball forward, but there is no such rule in high school for sure, and I would assume it's the same in college. It certainly could have been a touchdown.

[UNI83]

Re: Was it really a touchback?

I think he's thinking about a rule against fumbling the ball forward, but there is no such rule in high school for sure, and I would assume it's the same in college. It certainly could have been a touchdown.

If a ball is fumbled forward and the offensive team recovers the fumble it is a touchdown...period.

However, if it happens at the 50 yard line the ball can't be advanced but it can be recovered.

[Khan4Cats]

Re: Was it really a touchback?

The picture that is posted does not make it clear that he has possession and control of the ball. It looks loose/uncontrolled in the picture and if the player touches the out-of-bounds before, it doesn't matter where the ball is-he is out of bounds.

[UNI Fight]

Re: Was it really a touchback?

I have the game recorded on DVR, I thought the roughing the QB call on Boothby was bunk, but watching the recording there's clearly a whistle and he throws him down, couldn't hear the whistle in the stands. I watched the touchback, I think this picture captures the moment before all of their momentum carries them out of bounds, but it was close. I think it was a decent call for not being able to review the play. The one that didn't make ANY sense after review was the Carlos Anderson "fumble" where everyone is standing around, even bison, b/c the play should've been blown dead. No whistle, so they picked it up, the ref that spots the ball puts his arms up asking if it was really a fumble and the referee just motions first down kind of unsure but just goes with it. I watched it ten times and cannot see how it could have been a fumble, the camera doesn't capture it perfectly but forward progress had stopped, Carlos was down, shouldn't have been a fumble just based on common sense.

[Casey'sitsallgood]

Re: Was it really a touchback?

I could be wrong but I think the ruling in the event of a fumble out of the back of the endzone is based largely on who has possession of the ball on the play in which the fumble took place, therefore, because UNI had possession and turned it over without definite possession by NDSU, it is a touch back. If an NDSU player would have picked up the ball, tried to advance it, made it out of the endzone, reversed field and ended up being downed inside the endzone, I think it would have been a safety. Or if NDSU started the play with possession and the ball went out of bounds, similar to what happens on bad snaps on punts or shotguns, it is a safety.

[Big_Al]

Re: Was it really a touchback?

Frankly, I think UNI was fortunate to end up with the touchback. Carlos should have protected the ball better on that play.

The other fumble called on Carlos, however, was total crap. He was down and the play should have been whistled.

[UNIpanther99]

Re: Was it really a touchback?

Frankly, I think UNI was fortunate to end up with the touchback. Carlos should have protected the ball better on that play.

The other fumble called on Carlos, however, was total crap. He was down and the play should have been whistled.

What would be the less fortunate option than a touchback in that situation?