fair point that
- Member for
- 5 years 6 weeks
- View recent blog entries
|2 days 51 min ago||I'll admit||
I had to Google who Adam Biggers was.
|2 days 8 hours ago||This looks like||
another bad targeting call, actually. The refs are always at fault.
|3 days 53 min ago||Who is this "Hoke"||
everyone is referring to? Never heard of him. Pretty sure he's never existed.
|3 days 3 hours ago||It seems to be a control thing.||
He knows what he means by his own weird metaphors (worms with guns) but won't accede to others because he's not sure what they mean by them. He's controlling the dialog and everything is on his terms.
Fascinating insight into how his mind works.
|3 days 19 hours ago||To answer your question,||
you have to compete the pass first. Once the receiver demonstrates possession of the ball, he becomes a runner. A runner in possesion of the ball beyond the goal line is awarded a touchdown.
Since he was hit as he caught it and fell down,to complete the pass he had to demonstrate unambiguous control of the ball all the way through the contact with the ground.
Unfortunately, he did not. Thus the pass was incomplete and there was no touchdown scored.
The refs called it very correctly.
|3 days 20 hours ago||John Navarre did it in 2003:||
288 vs. Northwestern
278 vs. Ohio State
271 vs. USC in the Rose Bowl.
|3 days 20 hours ago||Because it's two distinct situations.||
Making a clean catch at the 1 turns the receiver into a runner. Then he runs the ball across the goal line. That's no different from anybody running it in from any distance, so it's not controversial at all.
If he initially contacts the ball at the 1, but then juggles it across the line and drops it as he falls, then he has never had possession of the ball beyond the goal line. It's an incomplete pass, not a touchdown.
Same is true for a ball caught in the endzone. Make a clean catch, demonstrate clear possession, and the receiver becomes a runner possessing the ball beyond the goal line. Touchdown. An incomplete pass means there was never possession, so it's not a TD.
Demonstrating possession of the ball is easy when you stay on your feet. That's the "football move and one foot inbounds" clause. If you catch the ball falling down, though, you can't advance it any further - so the only way you can demonstrate possession is by maintaining complete control even after you fall down.
|3 days 21 hours ago||He didn't carry the ball into the endzone.||
He caught the ball in the endzone, so it has to be a completed catch before the touchdown can be awarded. And completing the catch means maintaining control when falling down.
He fell down and lost control of the ball, therefore it was not a catch. Since it was not a catch, he never had possession in the endzone and it's not a touchdown.
Again, you're getting two different rules confused. If he caught the ball at the 1 yard line, then carried across the line and fell down, that's a completed pass and a touchdown the instant he crosses the goal line. It then doesn't matter if he falls down, as the play is already over.
Catching a pass in the endzone means you have to complete the pass, first and foremost, before anything else can be ruled on.
|3 days 21 hours ago||There absolutely is||
and always has been.
|3 days 21 hours ago||There are two clauses for completing a pass.||
1) Catch the ball while standing and make a "football move" to prove you have possesion and then the pass is complete and the receiver becomes a runner.
2) If caught when falling, the ball has to be kept in control until the play is completely over. No "football move" involved. Player must demonstrate complete control throughout the process of the catch.
The confusion here is people not keeping the two clauses separate. If he was falling down, it doesn't matter how many steps he takes or what moves he makes. Clause 2 applies and what matters is maintaining control.
In this case, the refs seem to have ruled that since he fell down he had to maintain control of the ball, and he didn't - therefore it's incomplete.
By the way, the "process of the catch" rule has been around since 1911 and the burden of proof has always been on the receiver of the forward pass to demonstrate complete control of the ball. The default has always been that if there is any doubt, the pass is incomplete - so this is not some new thing that has been cooked up in the last few years. It's always been like this.
|4 days 3 hours ago||Very satisfying win.||
We weren't great, screwed plenty of stuff up, but got it done when it mattered and came out on top.
Every game isn't going to be a one-sided shutout (although I want them to be!), so getting through a slog like this one was a job well done.
|4 days 21 hours ago||I have seen that sort of call before||
and the explanation was that the clock ticks to zero when the time drops below 1 second - not when it hits actual zero - so there is actually another second yet when the clock hits zero.
Without a tenths digit it's impossible to know if that's the case here or not.
|4 days 23 hours ago||Their quarterback||
was really bad, too. Couldn't even throw a forward pass.
|4 days 23 hours ago||Kids these days||
and their grammatically incorrect slogans.
Get off my lawn!
|1 week 2 days ago||Since when||
is the playoffs more important than the Rose Bowl?
The playoffs are for all those other loser conferences who don't get to go to Pasadena.
|1 week 3 days ago||Wilson is making them respectable.||
They're still losing, but losing close. They'll start winning some of these close ones next year. They're not going to be an automatic win anymore.
Props to doormats picking themselves up off the floor.
|2 weeks 1 day ago||That's very true,||
but wouldn't change anything. The rules are not determined and enforced by popular opinion. I think the refs got the call right on that play.
"Forced" doesn't have to mean the defender beat him up and threw him out of bounds. In this case, the receiver would have had to commit OPI to avoid going out of bounds, so I think he was actually forced.
The point of the rule is to prevent hidden-receiver plays, which were popular in the early days of the forward pass. The receiver would deliberately run out of bounds and get lost in the substitutes on the sideline, then reemerge 20 yards downfield uncovered. Hence the distinction between going out of bounds voluntarily and being forced.
In this case I think he was legitimately forced out and thus the refs made the correct call.
|2 weeks 1 day ago||You missed the most important ones:||
1894 - Michigan defeats Kansas, 22-12
1917 - Michigan defeats Cornell, 42-0
1923 - Michigan defeats Quantico Marines, 26-6
1928 - Michigan ties Navy, 6-6
1956 - Michigan defeats Illinois, 27-7
1963 - Michigan defeats Illinois, 14-10
1973 - Michigan defeats Illinois, 21-6
1984 - Michigan defeats Minnesota, 31-7
1990 - Michigan defeats Illinois, 22-17
2001 - Michigan defeats Minnesota, 31-10
2012 - Michigan defeats Northwestern, 38-31
Don't really know much about the rest of the stuff you listed.
|2 weeks 1 day ago||I love Harbaugh.||
I have no idea what you're going on about. I think it's hilarious that Harbaugh tried such a youth league trick.
I have no patience with people whining about refs making an obviously correct call, that is the sum total of my issue here.
|2 weeks 1 day ago||He could.||
But he won't. We already had plenty of QBs who are better at it than him.
|2 weeks 2 days ago||To quote an actual referee answering a question about the play,||
"This is so obviously A.R. 9-2-2-III that there should always be flag and no coach in their right mind could honestly claim that he doesn't know that it is illegal."
Join the discussion at Refstripes if you think you're smarter than them. Refs make plenty of bad calls, but this wasn't one of them.
I'm calling you a homer because you obviously are one. The refs made a very correct call against your team and you're desperately trying to pretend it wasn't
|2 weeks 2 days ago||Harbaugh is pissed because he lost.||
He was competing against the refs and the rules and thought he had outsmarted them. He didn't.
Saying the refs don't understand the "spirit of the rules" is just homer-speak for the refs making a correct call that went against your favorite team, which you want to pretend was a bad call regardless.
Just admit Harbaugh tried something a bit too clever and didn't get away with it. Let it go. Laugh and appreciate that he tried it.
|2 weeks 2 days ago||Love the Lonesome End reference.||
I immediately thought of him myself at the time - and how they made hideout plays like it illegal about 50 years ago.
I didn't realize that one of his coaching mentors was Pop Warner, who did stuff like that routinely at Carlisle and Cornell over 100 years ago. Maybe next week he'll stuff the ball up the back of someone's jersey on a kick return, or sew leather football-shaped patches to the belly of everyone's jersey. :)
Seeing as he admitted inquiring about the rule weeks ago, the Butt play was clearly deliberate. I love the attitude, but I'd prefer to stay focused on football and not tricks. Most of them have been tried before and are now illegal, anyway.
|2 weeks 2 days ago||I'm not really sure why||
it's so damn important to let a few highly exceptional players become multi-millionaires a few years earlier than they would otherwise.
I don't see where the benefit to a handful of players outweighs the negative effects on the system as a whole. The only enforceable limit is zero.
|2 weeks 2 days ago||As a proud Michigan alumnus and fan,||
this is not something I'm proud of. It's just LARPing. bleh.
|2 weeks 2 days ago||It came shortly after free substitution was allowed||
in 1964. Coaches very quickly learned that the chaos of players entering and exiting the field could be used to advantage. Hence a flurry of rules to regulate the process and keep everything on the up-and-up.
|2 weeks 2 days ago||That was not the problem.||
The problem was that there was a group of players actually leaving the field at the same spot Butt was heading for. He looked like he was running to catch up with them, and would leave the field along with them. But then he didn't.
That's what was deceptive about it. If Butt had been heading to the other side of the field, there would have been no deception, as that was the Rutgers sideline and there were no subs exiting the field in that area.
That's the rule of thumb refs use in deciding whether something is deceptive or not: If it would look the same heading toward the other sideline, it's OK.
|2 weeks 3 days ago||There are plenty of streaming sites available.||
You can watch pretty much anything you want if you do a bit of Googling. I haven't watched sports on TV in years, and yet I watch more games than ever. Just make sure you have a pretty hefty ad blocker installed on your browser - most of the streaming sites are unusable without one.
|2 weeks 3 days ago||Or maybe you're just a blatant homer||
who doesn't understand the rules and how they're enforced. Actual referees looking at it are laughing at how obvious it was.
Refstripes is a pretty good source for checking on rules and their enfocement. I've found that most of the calls people complain about are actually correct and enforced properly.
|2 weeks 3 days ago||They're not allowed to split out||
and get lost among subs going off the field, which is what Butt did. It gave the appearance of using the substitution process to sneak a receiver out to the sideline unnoticed and uncovered, which is why it was called.
Like I said before, I don't think Butt did it deliberately, but it broke the rule regardless.