T1B

Didn't Arkansas's QB fumble by basically using the ball and his hand to stop himself from falling against Tennessee in '98 when Tennessee went undefeated?

I would think the ground, as well as that QB's stupidity caused that fumble.

Shawn Marion wrote:Didn't Arkansas's QB fumble by basically using the ball and his hand to stop himself from falling against Tennessee in '98 when Tennessee went undefeated?

I would think the ground, as well as that QB's stupidity caused that fumble.

I think BTH is referreing to AD's fumble against Texas when he used his hand to steady himself and then the ball hit the ground and he fumbled. The call was correct and Texas took the ball.

Maybe *technically* it's not true that the ground can't cause a fumble, but for the ball to come out as a result of the player hitting the ground, he would have to be down by contact with the ground at the same time, so there can't be a fumble. The exception, of course, would be the case where only the hand (or ball) hits the ground, in which case it should be a fumble.

Mikey wrote:Maybe *technically* it's not true that the ground can't cause a fumble, but for the ball to come out as a result of the player hitting the ground, he would have to be down by contact with the ground at the same time, so there can't be a fumble. The exception, of course, would be the case where only the hand (or ball) hits the ground, in which case it should be a fumble.

Exactly.

"The ground can't cause a fumble" has traditionally referred to when the ball squirts out as a result of the ball carrier's body hitting the ground, at which point the ball carrier is down by contact with the ground.

This does not refer to when a ball carrier merely uses the ball to steady himself by placing it on the ground in an effort to help him keep his balance.

Van wrote:

Mikey wrote:Maybe *technically* it's not true that the ground can't cause a fumble, but for the ball to come out as a result of the player hitting the ground, he would have to be down by contact with the ground at the same time, so there can't be a fumble. The exception, of course, would be the case where only the hand (or ball) hits the ground, in which case it should be a fumble.

Exactly.

"The ground can't cause a fumble" has traditionally referred to when the ball squirts out as a result of the ball carrier's body hitting the ground, at which point the ball carrier is down by contact with the ground.

This does not refer to when a ball carrier merely uses the ball to steady himself by placing it on the ground in an effort to help him keep his balance.

Thanks for giving us a synopsis of Mikey's comment. That was quite helpful.

PS, do you feel lost/naked if you don't have a comment in a particular thread, van?

Believe the Heupel wrote:Stoerner

Rack your spelling again.

Believe the Heupel wrote:

Are you related to the guy or something?

Naaah. I'm just of the contention that if you polled 20 people here and aksed them to spell Stoerner, 15 would be incorrect.
Rack it.

Mikey wrote:Maybe *technically* it's not true that the ground can't cause a fumble, but for the ball to come out as a result of the player hitting the ground, he would have to be down by contact with the ground at the same time, so there can't be a fumble. The exception, of course, would be the case where only the hand (or ball) hits the ground, in which case it should be a fumble.

Isn't "The ground can't cause a fumble just another John Maddenism, iow taking a simple, easy to understand concept and dumbing it down to one sentence for the retarded viewers to understand?

You know, like:

[maddenvoice]"Well, when you take the ball up the middle and into the end zone, you've scored a touchdown"[/maddenvoice]