Did lack of PT contribute to the Fumble?

[woundedknees]

Last season, the play of LGB was a much better late game mesh with Masoli.

There is no substitute for actual reps in a game.

The really sad thing is the size of the hole that had opened up for that play.

Without it, the fumble never reaches the end zone.

[duckgrad99]

You could certainly second guess and say that James should have been in the game at that point, but you can second guess a lot from the game. Personally, I don't think lack of PT contributed to the fumble.

[woundedknees]

At that point, I believe James was in the X-Ray room.

[whosyourwally]

At that point, I believe James was in the X-Ray room.

which i really believe killed our second half momentum. his absence made offense hard to come by in the third, which led to an exhausted defense that couldnt make stops in the 4th quarter when we needed them. barner had a great game, and he's amazing in space, but james just wills his way when nothings there, and the moment he came back you saw what we were missing.

[duckfan96]

I agree...when LMJ went down...the offense sputtered

[odux]

I'd also think that the timing was off on that play. If you remember, they faked the fly sweep that had worked so good, and tried to get it to him. And every time the Ducks ran the fly sweep, it was with James in the backfield. And if Masoli was expecting Blount to be farther away, that would be why his hand off was in his chest. Just a thought, but I loved the play call and I love that fly sweep.

[UofDuck]

That fumble is at least part on Masoli, You can't put the ball up in the shoulder pads on a handoff.

[midwestduck82]

Blount never had the ball. That's why he punted it into the the side of the endzone. Masoli should take most of the blame.

I was hoping to see more of Barner after LMJ's injury.

[uodux1212]

Lack of PT definitely didnt help!

On a somewhat related topic... why does the D get the ball if the O fumbles out of the endzone? There's something about that rule that just doesn't add up to me. The D never has possession of the ball, but they get it at the 20?!? What?!? Am I the only one who doesn't understand this rule?

Its been a complaint of mine since Cal game in 2007.

In this case the punishment (turning over the ball) doesn't fit the crime (non defense recovered fumble). If the O recovers a forward fumble in the middle of the field they get it at the spot of the drop, not the recovery, so why does the D get the ball if fumbled through the endzone?!?

I dont get it...

[Oregonian]

Lack of PT definitely didnt help!

On a somewhat related topic... why does the D get the ball if the O fumbles out of the endzone? There's something about that rule that just doesn't add up to me. The D never has possession of the ball, but they get it at the 20?!? What?!? Am I the only one who doesn't understand this rule?

Its been a complaint of mine since Cal game in 2007.

In this case the punishment (turning over the ball) doesn't fit the crime (non defense recovered fumble). If the O recovers a forward fumble in the middle of the field they get it at the spot of the drop, not the recovery, so why does the D get the ball if fumbled through the endzone?!?

I dont get it...

It's not about punishment, it's more back to the rugby of it.

The "end zone" that the defense is protecting is "their end zone", meaning it's what they must protect. Thus, if the ball rolls out of the other team's possession and then goes out of bounds in your team's end zone, it is rightfully yours.

Consider this: if the ball is fumbled by the offense and goes out of the end zone, what would you rather have happen? The ball mystically goes back to where the offense lost it?
Ball control is all on the offense if you ask me, and while it has screwed us twice now, the rule makes sense.

[AutzenMember]

Lack of PT definitely didnt help!

On a somewhat related topic... why does the D get the ball if the O fumbles out of the endzone? There's something about that rule that just doesn't add up to me. The D never has possession of the ball, but they get it at the 20?!? What?!? Am I the only one who doesn't understand this rule?

Its been a complaint of mine since Cal game in 2007.

In this case the punishment (turning over the ball) doesn't fit the crime (non defense recovered fumble). If the O recovers a forward fumble in the middle of the field they get it at the spot of the drop, not the recovery, so why does the D get the ball if fumbled through the endzone?!?

I dont get it...

It's not about punishment, it's more back to the rugby of it.

The "end zone" that the defense is protecting is "their end zone", meaning it's what they must protect. Thus, if the ball rolls out of the other team's possession and then goes out of bounds in your team's end zone, it is rightfully yours.

Consider this: if the ball is fumbled by the offense and goes out of the end zone, what would you rather have happen? The ball mystically goes back to where the offense lost it?
Ball control is all on the offense if you ask me, and while it has screwed us twice now, the rule makes sense.

While your explanation makes sense, I completely disagree with the rule making sense. Back to rugby? We're playing football! I would prefer to see something like a 10 yard penalty from the spot of the drop and a loss of down, rather than a turnover. The defense, while protecting "their" endzone, should have to EARN a turnover, by possessing it, rather than getting such a huge gift. Consider this: the only time this rule comes into play is when the offense has EARNED their way down the field and is knocking on the door to score. The change of possession is way too extreme, IMHO.

[uodux1212]

Lack of PT definitely didnt help!

On a somewhat related topic... why does the D get the ball if the O fumbles out of the endzone? There's something about that rule that just doesn't add up to me. The D never has possession of the ball, but they get it at the 20?!? What?!? Am I the only one who doesn't understand this rule?

Its been a complaint of mine since Cal game in 2007.

In this case the punishment (turning over the ball) doesn't fit the crime (non defense recovered fumble). If the O recovers a forward fumble in the middle of the field they get it at the spot of the drop, not the recovery, so why does the D get the ball if fumbled through the endzone?!?

I dont get it...

It's not about punishment, it's more back to the rugby of it.

The "end zone" that the defense is protecting is "their end zone", meaning it's what they must protect. Thus, if the ball rolls out of the other team's possession and then goes out of bounds in your team's end zone, it is rightfully yours.

Consider this: if the ball is fumbled by the offense and goes out of the end zone, what would you rather have happen? The ball mystically goes back to where the offense lost it?
Ball control is all on the offense if you ask me, and while it has screwed us twice now, the rule makes sense.

While your explanation makes sense, I completely disagree with the rule making sense. Back to rugby? We're playing football! I would prefer to see something like a 10 yard penalty from the spot of the drop and a loss of down, rather than a turnover. The defense, while protecting "their" endzone, should have to EARN a turnover, by possessing it, rather than getting such a huge gift. Consider this: the only time this rule comes into play is when the offense has EARNED their way down the field and is knocking on the door to score. The change of possession is way too extreme, IMHO.

Couldnt agree more... its not a situation that presents itself too often so its not thought about very much, but when it does happen it really bites. See 2007 Cal game, 2010 RB.... Uggggh.

[echo31]

Lack of PT definitely didnt help!

On a somewhat related topic... why does the D get the ball if the O fumbles out of the endzone? There's something about that rule that just doesn't add up to me. The D never has possession of the ball, but they get it at the 20?!? What?!? Am I the only one who doesn't understand this rule?

Its been a complaint of mine since Cal game in 2007.

In this case the punishment (turning over the ball) doesn't fit the crime (non defense recovered fumble). If the O recovers a forward fumble in the middle of the field they get it at the spot of the drop, not the recovery, so why does the D get the ball if fumbled through the endzone?!?

I dont get it...

It's not about punishment, it's more back to the rugby of it.

The "end zone" that the defense is protecting is "their end zone", meaning it's what they must protect. Thus, if the ball rolls out of the other team's possession and then goes out of bounds in your team's end zone, it is rightfully yours.

Consider this: if the ball is fumbled by the offense and goes out of the end zone, what would you rather have happen? The ball mystically goes back to where the offense lost it?
Ball control is all on the offense if you ask me, and while it has screwed us twice now, the rule makes sense.

While your explanation makes sense, I completely disagree with the rule making sense. Back to rugby? We're playing football! I would prefer to see something like a 10 yard penalty from the spot of the drop and a loss of down, rather than a turnover. The defense, while protecting "their" endzone, should have to EARN a turnover, by possessing it, rather than getting such a huge gift. Consider this: the only time this rule comes into play is when the offense has EARNED their way down the field and is knocking on the door to score. The change of possession is way too extreme, IMHO.

Couldnt agree more... its not a situation that presents itself too often so its not thought about very much, but when it does happen it really bites. See 2007 Cal game, 2010 RB.... Uggggh.

Add me to the list of people that hate the rule. The defense did nothing that would warrant them having the ball, let alone have it at the 20 yard line. If the ball had gone out at the 1 yard line, it wouldn't have been Ohio State's ball at the 1 because they never had possession of the ball. It's a stupid rule that should be changed. Give the ball back to the offense at the spot of the fumble with a loss of downs, but don't give it to the defense if they never possessed the ball. That's just stupid!

[odux]

Lack of PT definitely didnt help!

On a somewhat related topic... why does the D get the ball if the O fumbles out of the endzone? There's something about that rule that just doesn't add up to me. The D never has possession of the ball, but they get it at the 20?!? What?!? Am I the only one who doesn't understand this rule?

Its been a complaint of mine since Cal game in 2007.

In this case the punishment (turning over the ball) doesn't fit the crime (non defense recovered fumble). If the O recovers a forward fumble in the middle of the field they get it at the spot of the drop, not the recovery, so why does the D get the ball if fumbled through the endzone?!?

I dont get it...

It's not about punishment, it's more back to the rugby of it.

The "end zone" that the defense is protecting is "their end zone", meaning it's what they must protect. Thus, if the ball rolls out of the other team's possession and then goes out of bounds in your team's end zone, it is rightfully yours.

Consider this: if the ball is fumbled by the offense and goes out of the end zone, what would you rather have happen? The ball mystically goes back to where the offense lost it?
Ball control is all on the offense if you ask me, and while it has screwed us twice now, the rule makes sense.

While your explanation makes sense, I completely disagree with the rule making sense. Back to rugby? We're playing football! I would prefer to see something like a 10 yard penalty from the spot of the drop and a loss of down, rather than a turnover. The defense, while protecting "their" endzone, should have to EARN a turnover, by possessing it, rather than getting such a huge gift. Consider this: the only time this rule comes into play is when the offense has EARNED their way down the field and is knocking on the door to score. The change of possession is way too extreme, IMHO.

Couldnt agree more... its not a situation that presents itself too often so its not thought about very much, but when it does happen it really bites. See 2007 Cal game, 2010 RB.... Uggggh.

Add me to the list of people that hate the rule. The defense did nothing that would warrant them having the ball, let alone have it at the 20 yard line. If the ball had gone out at the 1 yard line, it wouldn't have been Ohio State's ball at the 1 because they never had possession of the ball. It's a stupid rule that should be changed. Give the ball back to the offense at the spot of the fumble with a loss of downs, but don't give it to the defense if they never possessed the ball. That's just stupid!

In this case the defense did nothing. Masoli and Blount screwed up. OSU did nothing, but knock it out of the endzone. However, should you reward the offense for fumbling the ball? Should the offense be rewarded for fumbling the ball out of the endzone? Lets just say, that a defensive player put a hit on a ball carrier that causes a fumble. And the ball goes out of the endzone, according to most of you, you should reward the offensive player who fumbled and not the defense for causing that fumble?

Lets say OSU was on a scoring drive, and they fumble out of the endzone. Now how dumb is this rule? The rule is complicated, doesn't make it a dumb or bad rule.