The ball bounced up just as it went out of bounds. It was last touched by Hamilton on the inbounds side of the field. It was last touched by a Bomber before it touched the ground in the out of bound territory. That player was laying on the ground, his belly out of bounds touching the ground, his feet were touching the ground in bound.
Aside Observation - A passed ball can be in the air and on the out of bounds side of the line out but if caught by a player who's feet are in bounds, is considered a legal catch.
If my observation of "the fumble" is correct, what should the ruling have been? Who gets the ball.
I'm thinking Hamilton should have retained possession since the Bomber player's gut was touching the ground out of bounds when he touched the ball even though his feet were in bounds.
Anybody out there who is clear on the proper ruling?
PS This is a repeat posting of this message. The first time I clicked "submit" the message did not post and the site showed me as not logged in. I WAS logged in! Why in the world does this site magically log me out? This has happened before and it's as frustrating as watching Montreal winning week after week. Please don't tell me it is because of bush league "no audio."
As I explained earlier in the "In Bounds or Not" thread, citing the league replay rule, there must be an audio hookup for the referee to the video booth. If there isn't, there can be no challenge BY RULE.
The issue was having no audio to the booth -- the video situation was not at issue.
The rationale is that it is the only way the ref can direct the booth to give him particular angles to look at and ask for zooming, changes in spped of the replay, etc.
A failsafe backup method (walkie talkie, etc.) needs to be available to avoid such debacles again.