Did we ever get an explanation of the fumble in the UF-Bama game?

[BigOrange Maniac]

The one where a Bama defender grabbed the ball from Brantley and was proceeding untouched to the end zone before the line judge blew the play dead?

The only explanation I've heard is the one that the toad upstairs and his illustrious partner speculated on - that Florida was awarded a time out before the play began...I didn't pay attention on the next play to see whether they placed the ball at the original LOS or at the spot of the sack. It really doesn't make sense that UF called time out because if there was a whistle, not one person out of 22 on the field heard it. Everyone played through on that play. The only other thing that would've made sense would've been if the officials ruled that Brantley had recovered the fumble...which he may have, though I didn't think he ever had control of it.

Anyone know? I saw it as another mind-boggling officiating screw-up that happen all too often with our officials in this conference.

[ReVOLver]

By definition he had control of it. He was on top of the ball and touched down. Since he was down and touched then by definition the defender can't rip it away from him. The TV crew made a big deal out of nothing. The head ref missed the control but the linesman saw it.

I thought they clearly got it right and the TV crew really contributed to people's confusion on what was really a normal play... sack, fumble, QB recovers.

[TheRealOrange]

By definition he had control of it. He was on top of the ball and touched down. Since he was down and touched then by definition the defender can't rip it away from him. The TV crew made a big deal out of nothing. The head ref missed the control but the linesman saw it.

I thought they clearly got it right and the TV crew really contributed to people's confusion on what was really a normal play... sack, fumble, QB recovers.

Yep, that's what I was saying (from the recliner I never leave) from the time the play first happened.  The announcers really missed that one big time (among many other things).

[VinnieVOL]

By definition he had control of it. He was on top of the ball and touched down. Since he was down and touched then by definition the defender can't rip it away from him. The TV crew made a big deal out of nothing. The head ref missed the control but the linesman saw it.

I thought they clearly got it right and the TV crew really contributed to people's confusion on what was really a normal play... sack, fumble, QB recovers.

I used to like Danielson enough to be able to tune out Verne for the most part... but I think Verne has infected him.   

[BigOrange Maniac]

By definition he had control of it. He was on top of the ball and touched down. Since he was down and touched then by definition the defender can't rip it away from him. The TV crew made a big deal out of nothing. The head ref missed the control but the linesman saw it.

I thought they clearly got it right and the TV crew really contributed to people's confusion on what was really a normal play... sack, fumble, QB recovers.

But what did they get right? There was never an explanation, as there should've been. Was it ruled a fumble recovery by Brantley? Was there an inadvertent whistle thus giving UF possession whether or not Brantley had control? It was never explained. And why on earth wouldn't that play be reviewed regardless of the ruling on the field? That makes about as little sense as not reviewing the final play of the Carolina-Auburn game.

You'll get no argument from me on the broadcast crew, though. A blowed up toad frog and a weasel...they're quite a team.

[ReVOLver]

But what did they get right? There was never an explanation, as there should've been. Was it ruled a fumble recovery by Brantley? Was there an inadvertent whistle thus giving UF possession whether or not Brantley had control? It was never explained. And why on earth wouldn't that play be reviewed regardless of the ruling on the field? That makes about as little sense as not reviewing the final play of the Carolina-Auburn game.

You'll get no argument from me on the broadcast crew, though. A blowed up toad frog and a weasel...they're quite a team.

Yeah, the explanation was lacking. But really, whether they ruled no fumble or fumble recovered by Brantley, the spot was the same anyway so I don't see it as that big a deal.

I like Danielson generally but I thought he mailed it in last night.