Big Ten refs blow it again
This was the Wisconsin TD that was overturned
https://twitter.com/YahooDrSaturday/status/668212966903422976
What's the point of instant replay if you keep getting it wrong...
November 21st, 2015 at 8:41 PM ^
that's not the best angle. i was watching it. he started to lose control as he was falling. then the ball does hit the ground. this replay makes it appear the ball he drops the ball as he's getting up.
that said, i hate the "complete the process" rule. my thought is that if you have 3 different points down; ie 2 feet and a knee, i don't care what happens when you hit the ground. in this case, the guy has like 4 points down, much like calvin johnson did.
November 21st, 2015 at 8:41 PM ^
Here's the embed with the video - looks like he had possession all the way inbounds. Wisconsin got fucked there.
This was the Wisconsin TD that was overturned pic.twitter.com/5sAA7qzj9W
— Dr. Saturday (@YahooDrSaturday) November 21, 2015
November 21st, 2015 at 11:54 PM ^
WTF - clearly a catch. Just sad.
November 21st, 2015 at 8:42 PM ^
Is there another angle...I watched that play live and I thought the other angle show the ball move around in his hands when he hit the ground.
November 21st, 2015 at 8:47 PM ^
but he took eleventy billion steps in the end zone with the ball before he went to the ground
November 21st, 2015 at 9:12 PM ^
If it was the wrong call, I've seen much worse on catches.
November 21st, 2015 at 10:03 PM ^
while he was taking those steps in bounds, unforunately. It's hard to see with that compression but the ball was spinning/sliding around in his hand as the defender is pushing him.
November 21st, 2015 at 8:42 PM ^
November 21st, 2015 at 8:47 PM ^
Basically, the rule is dumb.
November 21st, 2015 at 8:48 PM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
November 21st, 2015 at 9:21 PM ^
coach I can remember. Bo was notorious for it too. Izzo does it too. I think it worked to their advantage. Bo may have gotten bad calls in bowl games where the refs didn't know him. Maybe that's an issue for Harbaugh in his first season.
November 21st, 2015 at 9:26 PM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
November 21st, 2015 at 9:03 PM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
November 21st, 2015 at 9:13 PM ^
What about the four steps he takes in the endzone while holding the ball before the six second mark?
November 21st, 2015 at 9:21 PM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
November 21st, 2015 at 10:26 PM ^
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.
November 21st, 2015 at 10:38 PM ^
Ok, but the question obviously becomes "how many steps must be taken before falling before you are considered to have done something other than fall?" If a running back took three steps into the endzone and then fell and dropped the ball, no one would say he didn't carry the ball through the endzone for three steps. How many steps must a receiver take before his fall is far enough removed from the catch to not transform the catch into a non-catch?
....also that last part is why this keeps coming up. It's so obvious to everyone watching that e.g. Calvin Johnson caught the ball that when the rule declares up to be down, people get upset. I'm not saying the rule was incorrectly applied, but it's possible it's a badly defined rule.
November 21st, 2015 at 10:47 PM ^
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.
November 21st, 2015 at 11:07 PM ^
Your example I think gets at exactly what people don't like here. If he catches the ball at the one, takes three steps while crossing the plane, and then falls down but the ball comes out, it's a touchdown (right?). If he catches the ball in the endzone, takes three steps in the endzone, and then falls down with the ball coming out, it's not a touchdown. I accept you're correct about what the rule says, but why should this be the case?
November 21st, 2015 at 11:23 PM ^
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.
November 21st, 2015 at 10:28 PM ^
If he was bobbling the ball before from the time he caught it (but of course he can't have caught it or it would be a touchdown...) to the time he starts to go to the ground, then sure. If he was, I couldn't see it on the video in this thread.
November 21st, 2015 at 9:12 PM ^
I did not see the play live, but if that TD on the clip was overturned.... well its Stunning... even by Big Ten Shit standards.
wow
November 21st, 2015 at 9:14 PM ^
November 21st, 2015 at 9:29 PM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
November 21st, 2015 at 10:02 PM ^
November 21st, 2015 at 10:41 PM ^
and always has been.
November 21st, 2015 at 9:20 PM ^
November 21st, 2015 at 9:20 PM ^
November 21st, 2015 at 9:32 PM ^
Embarrassingly awful. He takes four step in the endzone with possession.
November 21st, 2015 at 9:34 PM ^
That was not a catch, because he actually bobbles it twice.
It's hard to see on that video, but on the TV replays you could see when he's taking his first several steps, the ball is moving in his stomach. No possession yet, so these first 3 steps he takes well in bounds are irrelevant.
He finally gains control as he's going down and does still have a foot down, but he hits the ground immediately after and completely bobbles the ball out of bounds. At that point, he would need to maintain control to complete the process like any other sideline catch.
November 21st, 2015 at 9:43 PM ^
If you need two paragraphs to explain why that wasn't a catch, you've lost the argument.
November 21st, 2015 at 9:51 PM ^
bobbled it twice, never had possession til out of bounds.
happy?
November 21st, 2015 at 9:53 PM ^
No, because you're still wrong. But at least you're expending less energy.
November 21st, 2015 at 9:56 PM ^
I'm actually right, and I explained why. You just can't be bothered.
November 21st, 2015 at 10:23 PM ^
November 21st, 2015 at 10:25 PM ^
November 22nd, 2015 at 8:56 AM ^
"If you need two paragraphs to If you need two paragraphs to explain why that wasn't a catch, you've lost the argument."
This is the strangest argument I have ever seen. What if he needed 1 1/2 paragraphs? Where is the cut off for arguments that are automatically wrong?
Also, let me try a shorter form:
November 21st, 2015 at 10:22 PM ^
November 21st, 2015 at 9:35 PM ^
That was an atrocious call, yet sadly I'm so used to them that the rage barely registered.
November 21st, 2015 at 9:37 PM ^
What was the justification for it to be overturned? Looks like a clear touchdown to me.
November 21st, 2015 at 9:37 PM ^
My current working theory: Delaney doesn't give a shit about the quality of officiating because it doesn't negatively affect revenue. Plus he can go out and hire half-blind, Taco Bell rejected nitwits on the cheap and give himself another fat raise with difference.
Yep, these officials brought to you by the same asshat that brought Maryland and Rutgers to the Big 10-14.
November 21st, 2015 at 9:40 PM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
November 21st, 2015 at 11:02 PM ^
November 21st, 2015 at 9:44 PM ^
Wisconsin got boned earlier in the game on a punt return touchdown called back due to fair catch signal misintepreted. Same signal the same guy used later in the game that wasn't seen as a fair catch.
Not that I feel bad for them though.
November 21st, 2015 at 9:52 PM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
November 21st, 2015 at 10:36 PM ^
November 21st, 2015 at 10:04 PM ^
If THAT was not a TD, then there is NO WAY the UNC "TD" in OT against VT was a TD.
But the B1G refs thnk PSU wears shoulder pads as jocks, so yeah....
Mind-boggingly incompetent.
November 21st, 2015 at 10:34 PM ^