How was Croom's ball not a catch, yet the Iowa guy got credit

[kg21]

for his?

Here is a rule I'd love to see changed. If the ball is touching the ground while being caught it's incomplete.

That catch for Iowa was a flipping joke!

 

[BilldGopher]

!!!!!!

Full agreement.

 

[Marooned]

I'm assuming the late 4th quarter one (2nd to last IA drive IIRC)? That was egregious. On the TV replay, they kept showing the angle from the MN end zone which admittedly could've been either way, but then they showed the one from the IA end zone and it clearly showed the ball hit the ground, semi rotate while on the ground, then the TE cradling it. I was shocked that wasn't overturned.

 

[GopherGold01]

I thought the long pass on the first drive was the most egregious mis-call, ball hit ground and then came free and had to regain control. The two calls that went Iowas way weren't consistent with the one against Minnesota.

 

[fmlizard]

It was pure BS. Both were inconclusive and should have remained catches as called. And the Iowa TE's clearly ground-aided grab on a 3rd and long late was the worst of all.

That, along with the stat sheet, eye test, and letter of the rules are why no Gopher should feel guilty about getting a call in our favor on the punt return.

 

[PMWinSTP]

He had three other drops that were completely catchable.

 

[Bob_Loblaw]

It was pure BS. Both were inconclusive and should have remained catches as called. And the Iowa TE's clearly ground-aided grab on a 3rd and long late was the worst of all.

That, along with the stat sheet, eye test, and letter of the rules are why no Gopher should feel guilty about getting a call in our favor on the punt return.

Maybe the worst call on a catch I've ever seen in the replay era.

 

[spermophilus]

Just ask the NBC “Rules Analyst” Reggie Smith - both were obvious . . . well, to him, at least.

 

[Spaulding!No!]

Just ask the NBC “Rules Analyst” Reggie Smith - both were obvious . . . well, to him, at least.

Agreed. That was ridiculous.

 

[stocker08]

Pretty weak. Think the refs saw that Crooms, when the ball hit the ground, had his hand come slightly off the ball. But it looked like he had brought the ball into his body and was cradling it at that point. Just don't see how you call one complete and the other incomplete.

 

[short ornery norwegian]

unless there is blatantly obvious video evidence, it comes down to a judgement call. it all depends on who is reviewing the play, their own personal interpretation of the rules, and maybe what kind of a mood they're in.

on a bigger picture, the whole point of review is to correct obvious mistakes by the officials.

when it's not obvious, that's where it gets murky.

 

[MaxyJR1]

Seems odd that both were ruled catches and the on with the worst/furthest away camera angle was overturned. I thought both were fine as catches and didn’t see anything in review to overturn one of them.