Clint Stoerner said D. Williams is clearly the best choice for us

[blacklistedbully]

Was just sorta listening to the SECN and the aTm game was being rebroadcast. Stoerner was talking about how much better a QB D Will is over Fitz, in part because he could make all the throws/stretch the field or some such nonsense. I believe he was basing this on how we did vs S. Bama.

Is this guy truly that stupid? Yes, I know Fitz didn't get much of a chance to show anything that game...but Stoerner is getting paid to be an SECN color announcer, and was himself an SEC & NFL QB. Its his job to know what the hell he's talking about.

I could be wrong, but it seems to me this guy is one of the worst on the SECN when it comes to talking down about us.

[Taog Redloh]

He's still mad about 1998. I would be too if I was him. They were a stumble/fumble (lulz) and a miracle play away from playing for a national championship.

[WSOPdawg]

Stoerner just mad cuz he couldn't handle UT 15 years back (give or take) allowing us to overtake the Hogs and go to Atlanta. Had a burr under his saddle ever since.

[thf24]

Non-local media just assumes if a QB isn't a runner then he can "make all the throws." It is amazing though that these guys get paid so much for being almost completely out of touch regarding non-marquee teams.

[Commercecomet24]

It's that Arkansas education kicking in. His analysis on our QB situation is about as good as my analysis would be on brain surgery.

[EdDawg]

Just understand that even though someone played in the SEC and NFL doesn't mean they know the game.

I've met guys that were SEC players, and didn't know jack about coaching, evaluating, or analyzing the game. Some just get by on raw talent.

[Todd4State]

Well then Clint Stoerner is an idiot. I mean it's not like Fitzgerald didn't just complete 67% of his passes and set a school rushing record for a QB or anything like that.

[Tripp McNeely]

I've listened to Stoerner talk a lot on the SECN over the last 6 months about, not just us, but all 14 teams, and I've come to the conclusion is that he's just really dumb. He makes Booger sound like a genius. I can't imagine the stories McElroy tells the wife some nights after taping. He's REALLY not smart.

[blacklistedbully]

Well then Clint Stoerner is an idiot. I mean it's not like Fitzgerald didn't just complete 67% of his passes and set a school rushing record for a QB or anything like that.

To be fair, he said this before the SCar game...but still, I'm sure this guy has all kinds of access to past film, both games and practice, etc. He's able to read. He should have known better. Even if he was relying too much on the S Bama game, it was abundantly clear by the end that D Williams is not able to make-the-throws, etc.

Really, really stupid analysis. Whatever that guy's getting paid...its too much.

[Maroonthirteen]

I heard the guy when he was on radio in Little Rock It was like listening to Bubba from BFE, AR give his take on the weekend games. I can't believe he has been to last with sectv this long.

I'll give him this though....the ladies loved him in the Rock.

[gtowndawg]

I can think of so many former SEC players that would give great insight on SEC Network. There must not be many that go into communications if the best we have to offer is Booger and Clint. I really don't get it.

[oldjoedawg]

Was just sorta listening to the SECN and the aTm game was being rebroadcast. Stoerner was talking about how much better a QB D Will is over Fitz, in part because he could make all the throws/stretch the field or some such nonsense. I believe he was basing this on how we did vs S. Bama.

Is this guy truly that stupid? Yes, I know Fitz didn't get much of a chance to show anything that game...but Stoerner is getting paid to be an SECN color announcer, and was himself an SEC & NFL QB. Its his job to know what the hell he's talking about.

I could be wrong, but it seems to me this guy is one of the worst on the SECN when it comes to talking down about us.

I'm pretty sure he did our Spring game and was saying the same thing then.....D Williams was the best we had.... He really is never at a loss for words and always at a loss for accurate analysis....

[#660000]

I can think of so many former SEC players that would give great insight on SEC Network. There must not be many that go into communications if the best we have to offer is Booger and Clint. I really don't get it.

Exactly. These guys are paid because they are good at communication and to a lesser extent analysis and opinions.

[mic]

DW is what he is.. A back up SEC QB.,
And Stoerner is what he is a backup or 3rd string mouth piece for the SECN..

[MSUDawg99]

I think it's because he hadn't seen Fitz play. If he said it after USA game & not SC, then therein lies the prob. He probably would've said differently after SC game...at least, I would think.

[Bubb Rubb]

Well then Clint Stoerner is an idiot. I mean it's not like Fitzgerald didn't just complete 67% of his passes and set a school rushing record for a QB or anything like that.

you left out the "against an SEC defense" part.

[Spiderman]

He's still mad about 1998. I would be too if I was him. They were a stumble/fumble (lulz) and a miracle play away from playing for a national championship.

So glad that call went the way it did. But one thing no one has ever said about that play is that it shouldn't have been called a fumble.

The rule clearly states the ground can not cause a fumble. If you put the ball down on the ground like he did it should have been blown dead at that spot.

But again, so glad they called it that way.

[Schultzy]

That was definitely a fumble; I don't remember anyone even questioning it.

[Original48]

For the youngsters...(and I don't remember it being questioned either)
http://youtu.be/GWl3cg-gdD8

[blacklistedbully]

So glad that call went the way it did. But one thing no one has ever said about that play is that it shouldn't have been called a fumble.

The rule clearly states the ground can not cause a fumble. If you put the ball down on the ground like he did it should have been blown dead at that spot.

But again, so glad they called it that way.

Pretty sure that rule applies only to the ground not causing a fumble when your body hits it due to a tackle. Clint flat out put the ball on the ground and lost control of it. That's a fumble.

[Bubb Rubb]

Pretty sure that rule applies only to the ground not causing a fumble when your body hits it due to a tackle. Clint flat out put the ball on the ground and lost control of it. That's a fumble.

This is correct - that was, is, and will always be a fumble.

[Spiderman]

That was definitely a fumble; I don't remember anyone even questioning it.

It wasn't a fumble and you are right, nobody questioned it.

If it happened today it would be over turned.

[I seen it dawg]

Stoerner needs to be in the concussion protocol

[Spiderman]

If a player were to stumble, as he did, and the ball touches the ground while player is in possession of the ball, The play is dead at that point. Should the player lose possession of the ball due to the ball coming into contact with the ground while the player had full possession, the play is dead at that point.

He had full possession, never bobbled the ball, therefore it was dead under both scenarios.

Most folks have no idea why a touchdown is called a touchdown.

At one time the ball had to be "Touched Down" on the ground across the goal. The play wasn't dead until the ball touched the ground. It came from the roots of the game rugby, which still requires the ball be touched to the turf across the goal for what they call a try, equivalent to our touchdown.

When a player "touches" the ball to the ground the play is dead, still to this day.

That's why the ground can't cause a fumble, which it did in this case.

[DancingRabbit]

If a player were to stumble, as he did, and the ball touches the ground while player is in possession of the ball, The play is dead at that point. Should the player lose possession of the ball due to the ball coming into contact with the ground while the player had full possession, the play is dead at that point.

He had full possession, never bobbled the ball, therefore it was dead under both scenarios.

Most folks have no idea why a touchdown is called a touchdown.

At one time the ball had to be "Touched Down" on the ground across the goal. The play wasn't dead until the ball touched the ground. It came from the roots of the game rugby, which still requires the ball be touched to the turf across the goal for what they call a try, equivalent to our touchdown.

When a player "touches" the ball to the ground the play is dead, still to this day.

That's why the ground can't cause a fumble, which it did in this case.

In the NFL, I think you may be right. But in college, that's a fumble.

ETA, I think it's a fumble in the NFL too. I'm pretty sure there is not a "ground cannot cause a fumble" rule, per se. That's a dumbed down explanation that announcers use.

[Spiderman]

In the NFL, I think you may be right. But in college, that's a fumble.

ETA, I think it's a fumble in the NFL too. I'm pretty sure there is not a "ground cannot cause a fumble" rule, per se. That's a dumbed down explanation that announcers use.

Sorry, no

[mic]

Stoerner needs to be in the concussion protocol

**** that guy... Beat ya to it..

[Leroy Jenkins]

Stoerner called the spring game on SECN back then he said it was Fitz who was the clear starter. Strange.

[blacklistedbully]

Sorry, no

Sorry, but you are wrong.

A sometimes controversial rule is usually referred to as "the ground cannot cause a fumble". If a player is tackled and loses control of the ball at or after the time he makes contact with the ground, the player is treated as down and the ball is not in play. However, in the NFL and CFL, if a ball carrier falls without an opponent contacting him, the ground can indeed cause a fumble. This is because in those leagues the ball carrier is not "down" unless an opponent first makes contact, or the runner is out of bounds. If a player fumbles in most other leagues, as soon as the knee or elbow touches the ground, the ball carrier is considered down. It is also possible for the ground to cause a fumble in college football if the ball hits the ground before any part of the ball carrier's body (other than the hand or foot) touches the ground. An example was the fumble by Arkansas quarterback Clint Stoerner vs. Tennessee in 1998.

And there is this answer to the question by former NCAA official Victor Winnek:

"When the runner uses the ball to regain balance while maintaining possession, the runner is not deemed down and the ball is alive. If the ball pops free as a result of the runner's attempt to use it for balance, the ball is considered to be a fumble and remains a live loose ball not in player possession.

The ground is not causing the ball to come loose, the player is loosing his firm grasp of the ball which allows him control of the ball. "

[WSOPdawg]

What u talking about, Spidey? One of the all-time greatest plays in Bulldog history (Stoerner's fumble, that didn't go against us). I remember being at Houston's restaurant in Memphis watching the game while me and my buds (one a big UT fan) were eating prior to going to a Shania Twain concert (yeah, she was hot and still is hot) at the Pyramid. Damn that was a great night!!! =D

[Spiderman]

Sorry, but you are wrong.

A sometimes controversial rule is usually referred to as "the ground cannot cause a fumble". If a player is tackled and loses control of the ball at or after the time he makes contact with the ground, the player is treated as down and the ball is not in play. However, in the NFL and CFL, if a ball carrier falls without an opponent contacting him, the ground can indeed cause a fumble. This is because in those leagues the ball carrier is not "down" unless an opponent first makes contact, or the runner is out of bounds. If a player fumbles in most other leagues, as soon as the knee or elbow touches the ground, the ball carrier is considered down. It is also possible for the ground to cause a fumble in college football if the ball hits the ground before any part of the ball carrier's body (other than the hand or foot) touches the ground. An example was the fumble by Arkansas quarterback Clint Stoerner vs. Tennessee in 1998.

And there is this answer to the question by former NCAA official Victor Winnek:

"When the runner uses the ball to regain balance while maintaining possession, the runner is not deemed down and the ball is alive. If the ball pops free as a result of the runner's attempt to use it for balance, the ball is considered to be a fumble and remains a live loose ball not in player possession.

The ground is not causing the ball to come loose, the player is loosing his firm grasp of the ball which allows him control of the ball. "

The ball was touched down.

Under the rule they can't have it both ways. I've seen players dive and the 1st thing to hit the ground is the ball no fumble.

A strict interpretation of the rule, says no fumble. That guy was covering the refs in that games ass. I've asked many refs about it. They say as the rule is written fully, the player is down.

I've seen and had players do that, not lose possession, and be declared down.

[Schultzy]

Love Spidey, he has some epic posts so we need to provide him with concussion protocol.

[Coldsleeve Jr.]

The ball was touched down.

Under the rule they can't have it both ways. I've seen players dive and the 1st thing to hit the ground is the ball no fumble.

A strict interpretation of the rule, says no fumble. That guy was covering the refs in that games ass. I've asked many refs about it. They say as the rule is written fully, the player is down.

I've seen and had players do that, not lose possession, and be declared down.

So why isn't the fumble-rooski blown dead?

[Commercecomet24]

Here is the official NCAA Rule 4.1.3

Ball Declared Dead
4.1.3
When any part of the ball carrier’s body, except his hand or foot, touches the ground or when the ball carrier is tackled or otherwise falls and loses possession of the ball as he contacts the ground with any part of his body, except his hand or foot [Exception: The ball remains alive when an offensive player has simulated a kick or at the snap is in position to kick the ball held for a place kick by a teammate. The ball may be kicked, passed or advanced by rule] (A.R. 4.1.3.I).

So by rule the ball would not be whistled dead.

[StatesboroBlues]

Stoerner called the spring game on SECN back then he said it was Fitz who was the clear starter. Strange.

If I am not mistaken...on H2H, didn't Wyatt talk about it should be Williams going forward after the USA game? Pretty sure I was told this...if that is the case Stoerner may have gotten it from Wyatt.

[blacklistedbully]

Even after the SCar game Clint was talking about how, "Fitz looked good running the ball, but he needs to show he can pass, because he's going to need that when we're down 14+ points to an SEC program with a good, fast defense." Said he still needs to see if Fitz can pass before he can say Fitz is better than Williams.

Hey Clint...Fitz was 19-29 for 178 yds with at least 5 dropped passes. Should have finished no worse than 24 of 29 for 250+ yards.

Clint....you're an idiot.

[blacklistedbully]

Just reiterating Clint Stoerner is an idiot.

[WSOPdawg]

I 2nd this, but we all know Stoerner is still a little butt-hurt from his fumble vs UT that opened the door for us back in '98. We're probably his least favorite SEC team (all because he choked back in the day).

[JoseBrown]

Stoerner jumped on the Dam Williams train at the spring game. Either someone told him Dam would be our QB or he assumed it based on experience and liked his completion rate in that game.

[lastmajordog]

Reminds me of the talking head saying Washington Redskins needed RG3 instead of Luck simply from a racial standpoint......racism is so ugly especially coming from that angle in this day in age.....

[JoseBrown]

If I am not mistaken...on H2H, didn't Wyatt talk about it should be Williams going forward after the USA game? Pretty sure I was told this...if that is the case Stoerner may have gotten it from Wyatt.

Yes. He said you gotta pick one and go with him. He picked Dam and said you gotta go forward with him as your starter. That pissed me off hearing him say that bs. Fortunately, Dan didn't take his advice. Oh. I heard Wyatt say it in post-game comments, not on H2H, not saying he didn't I don't listen to H2H.

[RocketDawg]

So glad that call went the way it did. But one thing no one has ever said about that play is that it shouldn't have been called a fumble.

The rule clearly states the ground can not cause a fumble. If you put the ball down on the ground like he did it should have been blown dead at that spot.

But again, so glad they called it that way.

If that's the case, then every play that has a fumble would be dead as soon as the fumbled ball hits the ground, and it's not.

[TUSK]

I think it's because he hadn't seen Fitz play. If he said it after USA game & not SC, then therein lies the prob. He probably would've said differently after SC game...at least, I would think.

I think you're correct... he prolly doesn't get up that early....


*

[smootness]

The ball was touched down.

Under the rule they can't have it both ways. I've seen players dive and the 1st thing to hit the ground is the ball no fumble.

A strict interpretation of the rule, says no fumble. That guy was covering the refs in that games ass. I've asked many refs about it. They say as the rule is written fully, the player is down.

I've seen and had players do that, not lose possession, and be declared down.

It's a fumble, dude. When a player touches the ball to the ground while still in possession of it, if he's not going to the ground himself, the play is not dead. That is allowed in college football.

There is nowhere in the rulebook where it says 'the ground can not cause a fumble'. That is simply an explanation of instances where a player goes to the ground and his body hits the ground, thus blowing the play dead, but the ball also comes out. That play is dead from the moment the player hits the ground, thus the ground can't cause the fumble. In this instance, the play is never to be blown dead because no part of Stoerner's body (outside of his feet/hands) touched the ground.

[TUSK]

It's a fumble, dude. When a player touches the ball to the ground while still in possession of it, if he's not going to the ground himself, the play is not dead. That is allowed in college football.

There is nowhere in the rulebook where it says 'the ground can not cause a fumble'. That is simply an explanation of instances where a player goes to the ground and his body hits the ground, thus blowing the play dead, but the ball also comes out. That play is dead from the moment the player hits the ground, thus the ground can't cause the fumble. In this instance, the play is never to be blown dead because no part of Stoerner's body (outside of his feet/hands) touched the ground.

Yeah, that's what I thought, as well....

[Tripp McNeely]

I've listened to Stoerner talk a lot on the SECN over the last 6 months about, not just us, but all 14 teams, and I've come to the conclusion is that he's just really dumb. He makes Booger sound like a genius. I can't imagine the stories McElroy tells the wife some nights after taping. He's REALLY not smart.

Tripp McNeely for the win!!