Batting penalty...

[Erial_Lion]

Picture this scenario: A QB laterals to a back twenty yards away and five yards behind him on a third and nine A blitzing back penetrates and bats the ball to prevent the completion of the lateral. He catches up to the ball and runs it in for a TD. Result is a penalty and a first down for the lateralling team? Rule should be changed to the last team to possess the ball cannot bat it towards the opponent's goal. Ten yard penalty from the spot where the ball was batted.

Another scenario under the current rule: A returner takes a kick in his own end zone. He runs it back down the right sideline and a defender punches the ball out at the kicking team's twenty. The returner bats the ball out of bounds at the fifteen to keep a defender from recovering it. How does the penalty get assessed?

First play is legal since it falls under the “Batting a Backwards Pass in Flight” part of the rule, which a defender can do.

Second play depends if he batted the ball forward...if not, then no penalty and 1st and 10 for the receiving team from where it was last possessed, so the 20...If yes, then it is a penalty enforced 10 yards from the spot if the foul, so 1st and 10 for the receiving team once it’s enforced.

 

[Obliviax]

Not sure that is right Obli if a player is airborne and grabs and throws the ball before hitting the ground is he really considered taking possession [thus a lateral]. In the case above IF Toney had grabbed the ball [taken possession] thrown it back in bounds and UM recovered is it automatic first for UM on another possession change?

Yep. If the player establishes possession it is a lateral/fumble. The trick is to pretend you are trying to establish possession and then bat it.

 

[Obliviax]

FYI... veteran nfl official >>>

 

[PSULionsDub]

FYI... veteran nfl official >>>

View embedded media

There you go, it was an INCORRECT call.

 

[Erial_Lion]

FYI... veteran nfl official >>>

View embedded media

When I saw it go about 4 yards forward, I thought it was Toney's bat that pushed it forward. But McAulay is right in that it was pretty much batted sideways (maybe slightly forward, but not enough to call it), then hit Brooks in the leg to kick it forward. Unfortunately, it's not a reviewable play, so the officials on the field would have had to catch that in live action.

 

[Roar More]

First play is legal since it falls under the “Batting a Backwards Pass in Flight” part of the rule, which a defender can do.

Second play depends if he batted the ball forward...if not, then no penalty and 1st and 10 for the receiving team from where it was last possessed, so the 20...If yes, then it is a penalty enforced 10 yards from the spot if the foul, so 1st and 10 for the receiving team once it’s enforced.

In the second instance, suppose the defender bats the ball back to the twenty-five where a team mate scoops it up and returns it for a TD? What is considered the original line of scrimmage?

I think I am too far into the woods on this.

 

[Erial_Lion]

In the second instance, suppose the defender bats the ball back to the twenty-five where a team mate scoops it up and returns it for a TD? What is considered the original line of scrimmage?

I think I am too far into the woods on this.

If he bats it backwards, it's legal, so it's just still a live ball with no penalty. If he bats it forward, it's a penalty, but the ball is still live, so the other team can still recover, but if his own team recovers, it's 10 yards from the spot of the penalty.

In your example of the returned fumbling it at the opponent's 20, a defender batting it to the 25 would be forward. It would be the receiving team's ball, 1st and 10 at the 10 yard line.

 

[blion72]

I have to agree it is the correct call. But it is also a call typically never made. 49/51 call. I see this all the time and it is never called. Amazing how many weird things happen to make psu one of the worst turnovers teams in the nation.

I think this is the relevant point. On many fumbles there is quite a bit of batting, but never called. in the video posted earlier, the announcers are actually complementing the player who has committed an infraction. no flag.

 

[LionJim]

I have only seen this penalty called on offense where the bat was an attempt to advance the ball.

Chalk this one up to the list of questionable to downright egregious calls against Penn State in the PSU-UM saga of games. These calls in the series are the reasons why there is instant replay in CFB.

I can’t believe there wasn’t even an attempt to do a replay review. One could certainly make a case that Toney was attempting to recover and hit the ball because he was off balance and out of control. That should have been a consideration. But just another typical Referine call in favor of Me-cheat-agin.

You’re probably old enough to remember this being called the Dave Casper Rule.

 

[Connorpozlee]

First play is legal since it falls under the “Batting a Backwards Pass in Flight” part of the rule, which a defender can do.

Second play depends if he batted the ball forward...if not, then no penalty and 1st and 10 for the receiving team from where it was last possessed, so the 20...If yes, then it is a penalty enforced 10 yards from the spot if the foul, so 1st and 10 for the receiving team once it’s enforced.

Didn’t the refs yesterday mark it ten yards from the line of scrimmage?

 

[Erial_Lion]

Didn’t the refs yesterday mark it ten yards from the line of scrimmage?

Yes...the application of the rule is different on those two different plays.

 

[Connorpozlee]

Yes...the application of the rule is different on those two different plays.

Oh..... I thought that was what we were talking about. I have no idea what the hell is being discussed at this point. Anyway, I’ll go with the McAulay who says it was the wrong call.

 

[Erial_Lion]

Oh..... I thought that was what we were talking about. I have no idea what the hell is being discussed at this point. Anyway, I’ll go with the McAulay who says it was the wrong call.

Roar More was asking about what happens on a batted ball on a kickoff after a player has fumbled.

 

[Pennoyer]

This should end the debate.

 

[CJFisJoePaII]

Just to throw gasoline on the fire......once a ball is fumbled no on has possession. It’s a free ball.

An offensive backwards pass (i.e., a lateral) is also considered a "loose ball" (as is a fumble that is airborne, before it touches the ground) - that is why all "loose balls" are covered under the same section of the rulebook in both the NCAA and NFL rulebooks. However, an offensive fumble is most definitely considered to be "in the possession" of the offensive team unless, and until, the defensive team establishes possession in the field of play (which is specifically why the offense maintains possession BY RULE if the ball goes out-of-bounds without the defense possessing it before it goes out-of-bounds). An offensive "loose ball" (be it a fumble or intentional backwards pass - i.e., a lateral) is absolutely not considered in the possession of both teams; it is, by rule, in the possession of the offense unless, and until, the defense establishes possession in the field of play. It is a "live ball", but absolutely in the possession of the offense unless, and until, the defense is able to establish possession in the field of play. The party who keeps claiming otherwise is full of shit and dead wrong about the rule covering Offensive "Loose Balls". His confusion is the fact that the NFL has two different rules for the batting of an Offensive "Loose Ball" (regardless if it is airborne without touching ground resulting from an intentional backward pass or fumble by the offense) by a defensive player - one NFL rule covers Offensive "Loose Balls" that are airborne and never touch the ground, and a second rule with completely different language for an Offensive "Loose Ball" that first touches the ground before the batting. The NCAA has no such bifurcation for Offensive "Loose Balls" (i.e., airborne fumbles or laterals that are batted prior to touching the ground AND batted Offensive "Loose Balls" that hit the ground prior to the batting.). The NCAA only has one rule and standard for batted Offensive "Loose Balls". According to Mr. Wrong, it is illegal in the NCAA for a defensive player to bat an Offensive "Loose Ball" backwards from the offensive LOS which is airborne and has never touched the ground regardless of weather it is a lateral or fumble (it is absolutely legal under both rulebooks for a defensive player to bat such a ball backwards - i.e., away from the original offensive LOS. His absurd confusion is that the NFL Rulebook has a different rule, with completely different language and standards, for an Offensive "Loose Ball" that has touched the ground prior to the defensive batting - THERE IS NO SUCH SECOND RULE FOR OFFENSIVE LOOSE BALLS THAT HAVE TOUCHED THE GROUND IN THE NCAA RULEBOOK. There is only one rule in the NCAA Rulebook covering this situation and it is consistent with the NFL Rule for airborne Offensive "Loose Balls" that are batted before they've touched the ground. Otherwise, it would be illegal for a defensive player to bat an Offensive "Loose Ball" such as a lateral or fumble that is airborne without touching the ground and it absolutely is not illegal for a defensive player to do this in either the NCAA or NFL Rulebook.).

 

[Erial_Lion]

An offensive backwards pass (i.e., a lateral) is also considered a "loose ball" (as is a fumble that is airborne, before it touches the ground) - that is why all "loose balls" are covered under the same section of the rulebook in both the NCAA and NFL rulebooks. However, an offensive fumble is most definitely considered to be "in the possession" of the offensive team unless, and until, the defensive team establishes possession in the field of play (which is specifically why the offense maintains possession BY RULE if the ball goes out-of-bounds without the defense possessing it before it goes out-of-bounds). An offensive "loose ball" (be it a fumble or intentional backwards pass - i.e., a lateral) is absolutely not considered in the possession of both teams; it is, by rule, in the possession of the offense unless, and until, the defense establishes possession in the field of play. It is a "live ball", but absolutely in the possession of the offense unless, and until, the defense is able to establish possession in the field of play. The party who keeps claiming otherwise is full of shit and dead wrong about the rule covering Offensive "Loose Balls". His confusion is the fact that the NFL has two different rules for the batting of an Offensive "Loose Ball" (regardless if it is airborne without touching ground resulting from an intentional backward pass or fumble by the offense) by a defensive player - one NFL rule covers Offensive "Loose Balls" that are airborne and never touch the ground, and a second rule with completely different language for an Offensive "Loose Ball" that first touches the ground before the batting. The NCAA has no such bifurcation for Offensive "Loose Balls" (i.e., airborne fumbles or laterals that are batted prior to touching the ground AND batted Offensive "Loose Balls" that hit the ground prior to the batting.). The NCAA only has one rule and standard for batted Offensive "Loose Balls". According to Mr. Wrong, it is illegal in the NCAA for a defensive player to bat an Offensive "Loose Ball" backwards from the offensive LOS which is airborne and has never touched the ground regardless of weather it is a lateral or fumble (it is absolutely legal under both rulebooks for a defensive player to bat such a ball backwards - i.e., away from the original offensive LOS. His absurd confusion is that the NFL Rulebook has a different rule, with completely different language and standards, for an Offensive "Loose Ball" that has touched the ground prior to the defensive batting - THERE IS NO SUCH SECOND RULE FOR OFFENSIVE LOOSE BALLS THAT HAVE TOUCHED THE GROUND IN THE NCAA RULEBOOK. There is only one rule in the NCAA Rulebook covering this situation and it is consistent with the NFL Rule for airborne Offensive "Loose Balls" that are batted before they've touched the ground. Otherwise, it would be illegal for a defensive player to bat an Offensive "Loose Ball" such as a lateral or fumble that is airborne without touching the ground and it absolutely is not illegal for a defensive player to do this in either the NCAA or NFL Rulebook.

Blah Blah Blah...you're wrong. Everyone else here knows you are wrong. You can keep typing novels, but it doesn't change the fact that batting a loose ball on a fumble towards the opponents end zone is a penalty at every level of football, regardless of which team had possession of a play.

The only question on this play is whether the ball was batted sideways or forwards, and after seeing it hit Brooks' foot, it seems more sideways and was a questionable call. But your claims of what the actual rule is continue to be completely wrong.

Trust people that actually know what they're talking about. The defense batting a loose fumble towards their opponent's end zone is ruled the same at every level of football. And don't put words in my mouth, as I never stated "According to Mr. Wrong, it is illegal in the NCAA for a defensive player to bat an Offensive "Loose Ball" backwards from the offensive LOS which is airborne and has never touched the ground regardless of weather it is a lateral or fumble (it is absolutely legal under both rulebooks for a defensive player to bat such a ball backwards - i.e., away from the original offensive LOS. " I'm the one that showed you the difference in the rule between a fumble and a backwards pass.

Anyone that has ever officiated football at any level and knows what they are talking about will tell you which direction "forward" is from a defensive standpoint when officiating this play.

 

[Connorpozlee]

Blah Blah Blah...you're wrong. Everyone else here knows you are wrong. You can keep typing novels, but it doesn't change the fact that batting a loose ball on a fumble towards the opponents end zone is a penalty at every level of football, regardless of which team had possession of a play.

The only question on this play is whether the ball was batted sideways or forwards, and after seeing it hit Brooks' foot, it seems more sideways and was a questionable call. But your claims of what the actual rule is continue to be completely wrong.

Trust people that actually know what they're talking about. The defense batting a loose fumble towards their opponent's end zone is ruled the same at every level of football.

Possibly ruled the same way, but I’ve never seen it called before yesterday.

 

[Erial_Lion]

Possibly ruled the same way, but I’ve never seen it called before yesterday.

It's rarely called because a) the player going for the fumble will always get the benefit of the doubt and b) the player batting the ball rarely makes it so obvious that he's simply trying to bat the ball. I'll see it called a few times a year, but those calls are always much more obvious than our play yesterday (hence why I said it appeared to be very ticky tack).

 

[wilbury]

I have to agree it is the correct call. But it is also a call typically never made. 49/51 call. I see this all the time and it is never called. Amazing how many weird things happen to make psu one of the worst turnovers teams in the nation.

I don't agree that it's the correct call because the application of the rule is to keep someone from continuing to advance a fumble (avoiding immediate recovery) to move the ball toward their opponents endzone. That's not what happened here at all. The intent here was to keep the ball from going out of bounds and from being recovered by the opponent.

 

[CJFisJoePaII]

First play is legal since it falls under the “Batting a Backwards Pass in Flight” part of the rule, which a defender can do.

Second play depends if he batted the ball forward...if not, then no penalty and 1st and 10 for the receiving team from where it was last possessed, so the 20...If yes, then it is a penalty enforced 10 yards from the spot if the foul, so 1st and 10 for the receiving team once it’s enforced.

You're wrong dipshit - the NFL makes no distinguishment between airborne Offensive "Loose Balls" that haven't touched the ground (i.e., doesn't matter whether it is airborne from lateral or fumble - only matters whether ball has touched ground first). It is the NFL that makes this distinction, not the NCAA. You're absurdly claiming that it is legal for a defender to bat an airborne Offensive Fumble that has not touched the ground away from the original LOS (i.e., backward) in both the NFL and NCAA, but illegal once the ball has touched the ground. Complete bs - it is the NFL that has the unique rule covering balls that have hit the ground before the batting, NOT THE NCAA. What Toney did is legal in the NCAA just as it would be if the ball were airborne without touching the ground first - only the NFL bifurcates Offensive "Loose Balls" by those batted prior to touching the ground and those that hit the ground before the defensive batting, not the NCAA.

 

[Erial_Lion]

You're wrong dipshit - the NFL makes no distinguishment between airborne Offensive "Loose Balls" that haven't touched the ground (i.e., doesn't matter whether it is airborne from lateral or fumble - only matters whether ball has touched ground first). It is the NFL that makes this distinction, not the NCAA. You're absurdly claiming that it is legal for a defender to bat an airborne Offensive Fumble that has not touched the ground away from the original LOS (i.e., backward) in both the NFL and NCAA, but illegal once the ball has touched the ground. Complete bs - it is the NFL that has the unique rule covering balls that have hit the ground before the batting, NOT THE NCAA. What Toney did is legal in the NCAA just as it would be if the ball were airborne without touching the ground first - only the NFL bifurcates Offensive "Loose Balls" by those batted prior to touching the ground and those that hit the ground before the defensive batting, not the NCAA.

Stop embarrassing yourself...

http://www.ncaapublications.com/productdownloads/FR20.pdf

Rule 9, Section 4 - (copied word for word from the 2020 NCAA rule book)...

SECTION 4. Batting and Kicking

Batting a Loose Ball
ARTICLE 1.
a. While a pass is in flight, only a player who is eligible to touch the ball may bat it in any direction (Exception: Rule 9-4-2).
b. Any player may block a scrimmage kick in the field of play or the end zone.
c. No player shall bat other loose balls forward in the field of play or in any direction if the ball is in the end zone (Rule 2-2-3-a) (Exception: Rule 6-3- 11) (A.R. 6-3-11-I, A.R. 9-4-1-I-X and A.R. 10-2-2-II).
PENALTY—10 yards and loss of down for fouls by Team A if the loss of down is not in conflict with other rules [S31 and S9] [Exception: No loss of down if the foul occurs when a legal scrimmage kick is beyond the neutral zone].

Batting a Backward Pass in Flight
ARTICLE 2. A backward pass in flight shall not be batted forward by the passing team.
PENALTY—10 yards [S31].

 

[CJFisJoePaII]

I don't agree that it's the correct call because the application of the rule is to keep someone from continuing to advance a fumble (avoiding immediate recovery) to move the ball toward their opponents endzone. That's not what happened here at all. The intent here was to keep the ball from going out of bounds and from being recovered by the opponent.

Well if you look above, Terry McAulay, an extremely respected official nationally (one of the most respected former NFL Officials) posted a tweet that he watched the video several times and it was "absolutely an incorrect call" and application of the rule. Go figure, the B1G has made no such statement regarding the absurd call.

 

[Shadow99]

Here ya go...

Batting a Loose Ball ARTICLE 1. a. While a pass is in flight, only a player who is eligible to touch the ball may bat it in any direction (Exception: Rule 9-4-2). b. Any player may block a scrimmage kick in the field of play or the end zone. c. No player shall bat other loose balls forward in the field of play or in any direction if the ball is in the end zone

Technically it wasn't batted "forward" from the original perspective of the play...I agree with the poster above that the intent seems to be focused on the offense but in this case the defense was inexplicably penalized.

 

[CJFisJoePaII]

Stop embarrassing yourself...

http://www.ncaapublications.com/productdownloads/FR20.pdf

Rule 9, Section 4 - (copied word for word from the 2020 NCAA rule book)...

SECTION 4. Batting and Kicking

Batting a Loose Ball
ARTICLE 1.
a. While a pass is in flight, only a player who is eligible to touch the ball may bat it in any direction (Exception: Rule 9-4-2).
b. Any player may block a scrimmage kick in the field of play or the end zone.
c. No player shall bat other loose balls forward in the field of play or in any direction if the ball is in the end zone (Rule 2-2-3-a) (Exception: Rule 6-3- 11) (A.R. 6-3-11-I, A.R. 9-4-1-I-X and A.R. 10-2-2-II).
PENALTY—10 yards and loss of down for fouls by Team A if the loss of down is not in conflict with other rules [S31 and S9] [Exception: No loss of down if the foul occurs when a legal scrimmage kick is beyond the neutral zone].

Batting a Backward Pass in Flight
ARTICLE 2. A backward pass in flight shall not be batted forward by the passing team.
PENALTY—10 yards [S31].

Too funny, the putz who has yabbered for 2 consecutive days about how it was the "correct" call is saying others are embarrassing themselves when one of the most respected Football Officials in the nation, Terry McAulay, goes out of his way to post a Tweet saying how "absolutely incorrect" the call was. LMFAO!

 

[Erial_Lion]

Too funny, the putz who has yabbered for 2 consecutive days about how it was the "correct" call is saying others are embarrassing themselves when one of the most respected Football Officials in the nation, Terry McAulay, goes out of his way to post a Tweet saying how "absolutely incorrect" the call was. LMFAO!

Read my posts...I agree with McAulay in that it was a close play that shouldn’t have been called...that’s because I actually understand the rule...which you’ve proven for two days that you don’t.

Then again, Bushwood is gonna Bushwood...you’re the one that can’t understand which direction is forward, or thinks the call was so egregious that the Big 10 should be issuing a statement on how they might have missed a bang-bang call.

Never change Bushy

 

[CJFisJoePaII]

Read my posts...I agree with McAulay in that it was a close play that shouldn’t have been called...that’s because I actually understand the rule...which you’ve proven for two days that you don’t.

Then again, Bushwood is gonna Bushwood...you’re the one that can’t understand which direction is forward, or thinks the call was so egregious that the Big 10 should be issuing a statement on how they might have missed a bang-bang call.

Never change Bushy

Read my posts...I agree with McAulay in that it was a close play that shouldn’t have been called...that’s because I actually understand the rule...which you’ve proven for two days that you don’t.

Then again, Bushwood is gonna Bushwood...you’re the one that can’t understand which direction is forward, or thinks the call was so egregious that the Big 10 should be issuing a statement on how they might have missed a bang-bang call.

Never change Bushy

Too funny, more of your typical bullshit, self-serving twisting of facts (McAulay's statement in this case). You clearly are not "in agreement" with McAulay (nor does McAulay remotely say it was a "close play" as you claim) - lmao, you're such a lame little twat.

Here's is precisely what McAulay said:

"I’ve seen the video of the illegal bat in Michigan/Penn State and the call is absolutely incorrect.".

You've been posting endlessly for two days about how "correct" the call was and now you're claiming that McAulay "agrees" with you (and that he says it was a close play) when McAulay IN FACT AND REALITY says the diametric opposite of what you claim - i.e., "the call was absolutely incorrect". What an f'ing complete tool and douche.

 

[Erial_Lion]

Never change Bushy...I’ve been saying it was a tough call against us, but my issue is your complete inability to comprehend this rule (and specifically which direction in “forward”), and the thinking that this was some completely incomprehensible error (when in actuality, it was a pretty tough call)

I need to look at a rule book, but I’m almost positive that the bat has to be forward to be a penalty. Thought it was a tough call (unless I’m wrong).

Do you realize which direction “forward” is? It certainly wasn’t a bad call. It might have been ticky-tack, but it wasn’t wrong, and the ball ultimately went about 3-4 yards forward.

It went about 4 yards forward and about 2-3 yards sideways. Tough call and he wasn’t necessarily trying to bat it forward, just doing whatever he could to keep it in play.

That should have been a penalty, but they’ll give guys the benefit of the doubt if it’s not clear...you even saw Franklin coaching him up after the play telling him to make it look like he’s going for it and not just batting it.

When I saw it go about 4 yards forward, I thought it was Toney's bat that pushed it forward. But McAulay is right in that it was pretty much batted sideways (maybe slightly forward, but not enough to call it), then hit Brooks in the leg to kick it forward. Unfortunately, it's not a reviewable play, so the officials on the field would have had to catch that in live action.

 

[royboy]

Read my posts...I agree with McAulay in that it was a close play that shouldn’t have been called...that’s because I actually understand the rule...which you’ve proven for two days that you don’t.

Then again, Bushwood is gonna Bushwood...you’re the one that can’t understand which direction is forward, or thinks the call was so egregious that the Big 10 should be issuing a statement on how they might have missed a bang-bang call.

Never change Bushy

You usually know your stuff, but you should read again what McAulay said and bow out of this.

 

[Erial_Lion]

You usually know your stuff, but you should read again what McAulay said and bow out of this.

View embedded media

Read my posts again then...I certainly understand the rule, and that it was a tough call against us...my issue is with the fact that Bushwood doesn’t understand it, and continues to claim that batting the ball towards the Michigan end zone would be legal.

 

[CJFisJoePaII]

Never change Bushy...I’ve been saying it was a tough call against us, but my issue is your complete inability to comprehend this rule (and specifically which direction in “forward”), and the thinking that this was some completely incomprehensible error (when in actuality, it was a pretty tough call)

McAulay doesn't just say it was an incorrect call, but says it was an "absolutely incorrect call", but this, according to Douches Rex, is McAulay agreeing with you that the "correct call" was made - go figure, LMAO! Never change Douchebag, never change.

 

[royboy]

Read my posts again then...I certainly understand the rule, and that it was a tough call against us...my issue is with the fact that Bushwood doesn’t understand it, and continues to claim that batting the ball towards the Michigan end zone would be legal.

Blame the other poster if you choose to, but you're on the wrong side of this. Time to move on.

 

[Erial_Lion]

Blame the other poster if you choose to, but you're on the wrong side of this. Time to move on.

How am I “on the wrong side of this”?

Bushwood came into this stating “Exactly, the rulebook clearly defines forward and backward by the team with offensive possession ("forward pass", "backward pass"...... "forward lateral", "forward progress", etc...). The ball was batted "backwards" (very slightly backward, but backward) under rulebook definitions.”.

That is completely incorrect...I’ve said from the start that it was a tough call against us...while the ball ended up going forward, it was mostly a sideways bat that ended up going several yards forward because it hit Brooks foot. I’m sure if the officials saw it again, they’d like to let this play stand, but the thought that this was some inexplicable error where they don’t know forwards from bavkwards and need to issue an apology is laughable.

 

[CJFisJoePaII]

Read my posts again then...I certainly understand the rule, and that it was a tough call against us...my issue is with the fact that Bushwood doesn’t understand it, and continues to claim that batting the ball towards the Michigan end zone would be legal.

Yea, he understands the rule just like McAulay which is why he's been endlessly claiming for 2 straight days that the "correct call" was unquestionably made... and McAulay says unequivocally that the call was "absolutely incorrect". LMAO, what a complete douche.

 

[Erial_Lion]

Yea, he understands the rule just like McAulay which is why he's been endlessly claiming for 2 straight days that the "correct call" was unquestionably made... and McAulay says unequivocally that the call was "absolutely incorrect". LMAO, what a complete douche.

Accurate as always Bushy...

I need to look at a rule book, but I’m almost positive that the bat has to be forward to be a penalty. Thought it was a tough call (unless I’m wrong).

It went about 4 yards forward and about 2-3 yards sideways. Tough call and he wasn’t necessarily trying to bat it forward, just doing whatever he could to keep it in play.

When I saw it go about 4 yards forward, I thought it was Toney's bat that pushed it forward. But McAulay is right in that it was pretty much batted sideways (maybe slightly forward, but not enough to call it), then hit Brooks in the leg to kick it forward. Unfortunately, it's not a reviewable play, so the officials on the field would have had to catch that in live action.

 

[PSUeng]

That’s not correct...forward means towards the end zone you are trying to score in. Which team has possession is meaningless in establishing which direction is forward.

Then why can you bat a

Yep. If the player establishes possession it is a lateral/fumble. The trick is to pretend you are trying to establish possession and then bat it.

if he never gets a foot inbounds can he obtain possession?

 

[Obliviax]

Then why can you bat a

if he never gets a foot inbounds can he obtain possession?

I have no idea what you are asking. Nobody’s foot was OOB.

 

[PSUeng]

I have no idea what you are asking. Nobody’s foot was OOB.

i thought to have possession you need control of the ball and a body part inbound. after all the crap on this thread I am to lazy to look it up. but I thought you asked if a player jumped and got the ball and threw it back in before touching? I think the same rule would apply. sorry if mistaken. all is good

 

[LafayetteBear]

I think I am too far into the woods on this.

We ALL are, dude. Thank God that, for once, the Lions did not lose on a call like this one.