In partnership with CBSSports.com
The No. 1 'Bama fan community on the Internet
BOL message board for off-topic posts
Tailgating, recipes, cooking, food & drink
Buy, sell or swap tickets
You have no favorite boards.
The most viewed topics.
The most replied to topics.
The most up-voted topics.
The most down-voted topics.
The most up-voted posters.
The most down-voted posters.
The most followed posters.
Anybody else get irate watching on tv when the clock was stopped at :13 seconds because of Hill's "injury?"
He clearly didn't get out of bounds. The side judge clearly signaled to wind the clock, indicating he didn't get out of bounds. But we made Hill's azz quit and he was fed up and literally hobbled a foot or two to get off the field. He gave up. But the SAME side judge who signaled to roll the clock stopped the clock for him.
And when he got off the field, they never wound the clock back into play. An "injury" that should've stopped action for no more than a second or two allowed LSU to essentiallty get set completely for a final play.
It didn't matter anyways, but those conspiracy theory morons who claim Bama owns the refs should watch that. Absolutely awful.
See other thread...ball was fumbled out of bounds by Hill. Clock stoppage was legit. Just for record I thought exact same thing up until about 10 mins ago. Lol
I saw it too and was screaming at the tv that the clock should have been running. Still don't know what happened, but I forgot about it after the sack until you posted this.
i screamed to, but he fumbled the ball out of bounds which caused the stoppage.
...and now I know. I don't have to agree with the call do I?
Fine if he fumbled it out of bounds, but why did the side judge staring right at it initially wind his arm to indicate a continuation of play? That's what I don't get.
And, I'm surprised there isn't a 10-second run off rule inside 1 minute for this kind of thing. They should look into that. I mean, what's to stop a player (who is absolutely trying to stop the clock in that situation) who clearly sees he won't get out of bounds from just tossing the ball out of bounds by "accidentally" fumbling it?
It's like a penalty inside a certain time period at the end of game - like the way our MSU game ended.
I noticed that as well. My only answer is he probably didn't realize that Hill lost the ball immediately. I know they try to be quick with the signal in critical situations. Definitely a valid point about what's to stop someone from intentionally "fumbling" the ball out of bounds.
The side judge/linesman initially called in bounds winding his arm because the player was in bounds. If you can rewatch the play....he then a few seconds later corrects himself - OR it may have been another ref coming up and marking the ball out at the side lines - no matter you see then them signal out of bound by waving their arms in the stopping the clock motion. They got it in the end with their motions correctly
Hope that explanation makes sense the way I typed it lol,.
This post was edited by BB2One 20 months ago
The same ref that winded arm is the same one that stopped the clock. If you look almost immediately he stopped the clock right after he initally wound it.
Unfortunately you cant really flag a play that you cant tell if it was a true fumble or if he kind of just loses the ball on purpose out of bounds. That is to close to call in a situation like that. I thought he handled it perfectly with not seeing the guy fumble right away.
It makes sense. And if he fumbled it, it's the correct call. I just don't understand how a guy who's looking right at it can miss that? Then again...SEC refs. They're lucky if they even wind up in the right stadium some nights.
I still think they should look at that rule. Shouldn't allow a player's error (fumbling) to enable his team to gain competitive advantage. It probably happens very infrequently, but imagine if that same scenario had played out on our 30 yard line instead of their's? What if a play like that allows a team to get their FG unit out to line up? What if we'd lost on the next play? Dude was a full yard away from getting out.
Yeah. The rule allows the refs to penalize the offense or the player with the ball IF they deem he fumbled on purpose to try and stop the clock. In this case, and I can't say if its the right call or not - they obviously deemed it fumble and not a throw out of bounds . But to touch on what you mean by looking at the rule - it is in place but they have to deem it On Purpose.
If you watch the replay, the Referee signals for the clock to start before the snap of the ball on that last play, and it never starts, LSU clock operator I guess.
AND ...I have in the past also seen refs even when it looks as if the player is just forcing the ball out of bounds....say NO - mark him where he's down in bounds and keep winding the clock. Just as if the ball never came free or saying you were down so everything after means nothing. This is the nice way I guess of just saying your in bounds clock runs....get up and play.
That's the play clock - not the game clock. He motions ready for play, winds his arm to start the play clock again.
I have no idea if the fumble had any effect on stopping the clock, but according to the LSU stats, that was play not ruled a fumble. Russell Shepard was credited with their only fumble of the game early in the third quarter. I have not seen a replay, but at the time I thought the ball came out after Hill was down, and that the play was stopped due to Hill's injury. As a FWIW, their stats credited them with an onside kick recovery, but I do not know the correct ruling for that type of play.
There's no doubting the play was goofy at best. I think we all believe if it was a fumble out of bounds, which is the only way the clock can stop in that circumstance, it almost had to be forced by the runner. In that case, the clock should have just been ran or a penalty reflecting what he did. Neither was. The refs deemed it by their actions a fumble and yet - LOL lsu isn't counting it as one. Go figure....
I don't know if anyone else noticed, but after the Yeldon TD the clock read 50 seconds, after the extra point they put 1 sec back on the clock. I have never seen this without their being some instruction from the referee.
I don't know why the clock was stopped because it wasn't a fumble (he was down before ball came loose). So whether they stopped it because of the fumble (very bad call) or for some other reason, it did get stopped.
Now, go back and look and you will see that when the referee gave the winding signal, the play clock was already running. And in fact it had been running since the play ended (starting at 40 seconds like it's supposed to). So when the referee gave the winding signal it was to start the game clock. However, the game clock didn't stop until well after the snap.
If play is stopped because of a penalty, injury, timeouts, etc., the referee will give the signal to start play (see S1 signal in the rulebook) which starts the play clock (not the winding signal). So I think there was definately some home cooking with the clock operator.
Butta Hurtta: You've been banned from reading this site.Your ban will expire 1/1/2080 12:00:00 AM
Thank you. Exactly how I saw it as well.
so the ground can cause a fumble now too? he was obviously down and the ref standing right there knew it, but let them stop the clock anyway.
Hill was down. They didn't rule that a fumble. Just bad officiating.
I don't know why he didn't turn up the field to get a first down and them spike it, in the end it made no difference.
It really was a stupid play by Hill.
He needed to run 3 yards upfield after the catch to get a first down and stop the clock, which he could have easily done. Instead, he ran 15 yards from well inside the hash to the sideline to get out of bounds, gained no yardage, and still didn't get out of bounds.
Then when the play was over he feigned an injury and waved his hands in disgust as he walked off the field to more or less say "eff this, I'm out."
That was the ultimate MTAQ moment.
I was guilty of that too. I was screaming 'WHY IS THE CLOCK STOPPED???' :)))
Frankly, I'm glad it happened. Without that "fumble," we wouldn't have had the opportunity to gleefully watch Mettenwusser collapse as he saw Square coming.
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports