Maybe the worst call in history??

Donate To GopherHole
R

rctc_2466

New member
Joined
Sep 8, 2009
Messages
12
Reaction score
0
Points
1
how that is not a catch is beside me? they sure missed a nice catch there. :mad:
 

rctc_2466 said:
how that is not a catch is beside me? they sure missed a nice catch there. :mad:
Click to expand...

This is a major, major "error" by the officials. I wonder how much money the booth official has on the game. Apparently enough to help Northwestern cheat.
 

So when you flip the ball to the referee, does that constitute the ball "coming loose?" Give me a break.
 

My question is how you can review the play 2 times and have 2 different decisions.
 

I hope we get word on this from the B10 offices during the week. How you can "reverse" a call that was completely obvious is beyond me???
 


I was thinking Brewster should have asked for a 3rd review. They probably would have changed it back to the original call.
 

Yea, when NW called timeout I was hoping for a third review.
 

IMO it wasn't a catch. He didn't control it all the way down. The 2 reviews is BS, but they made the right call, he wasn't flipping it to the ref.
 

I agree that it wasn't a catch but how the heck can they review the call 2 times. That makes no sense to me.
 



I thought that was an NFL only rule???

I thought the notion of the receiver needing to "control the ball all the way to the ground" was an NFL rule. If Decker catches the ball, has his knee hit the field inbounds.... isn't it dead right there? The fact that he then slid about five feet on his back before having the ball come loose should be all after the play. Am I wrong, or is this a case of officials using a rule from a different level/league.
 

Not only did he have 2 hands on the ball and a knee down prior to sliding out of bounds, but how is it plays can have multiple reviews? The official confirmed the catch, then re-reviewed it. That's ridiculous.
 

rctc_2466 said:
how that is not a catch is beside me? they sure missed a nice catch there. :mad:
Click to expand...

Definitely usurped by the job the Michigan refs made against Indiana just a couple hours later...

by the way, I don't think it was necessarily a catch by Decker, however, it was so close that I don't think that the play could be overturned, either. Because of the fact that the on-field officials called it a catch, and the initial review called it a catch, there is no reason that it should have been overturned.
 

It was absolutely a catch. If you have possession in bounds and hit the ground out of bounds still with possession, it does not matter what happens next.

It is the instant you are down. In this case it was the instant any of his body hit the ground out of bounds. At that point he had possession. It makes exactly ZERO difference what happens after that instant.

The only argument you can make is that he NEVER had possession, but I just don't buy that.
 



The replay officials thought that the call on the field was "incomplete" so they confirmed that call. When they found out the on-field call was "complete" they overturned the ruling. I don't know what they saw to overturn. And Indiana was robbed.
 

borninthebarn said:
It was absolutely a catch. If you have possession in bounds and hit the ground out of bounds still with possession, it does not matter what happens next.

It is the instant you are down. In this case it was the instant any of his body hit the ground out of bounds. At that point he had possession. It makes exactly ZERO difference what happens after that instant.

The only argument you can make is that he NEVER had possession, but I just don't buy that.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, you are wrong on this one. On any pass reception, you MUST maintain control though the contact with the ground. I just watched it again right now, and Decker was still moving when the ball came out. And it slipped out, it wasn't tossed.

Even if he had stopped moving, the refs would have a hard time calling that a catch on replay, as much as I wanted it to be one.

In or out doesn't matter.
 

borninthebarn said:
It was absolutely a catch. If you have possession in bounds and hit the ground out of bounds still with possession, it does not matter what happens next.
Click to expand...
Bingo. The instant his butt touches down out of bounds, the play is over. Doesn't matter what happens next.
 

highwayman said:
Unfortunately, you are wrong on this one. On any pass reception, you MUST maintain control though the contact with the ground. I just watched it again right now, and Decker was still moving when the ball came out. And it slipped out, it wasn't tossed.
Click to expand...
Isn't that a pro rule? Either way, it doesn't make sense to me why you should have to maintain control of the ball while you are rolling out out of bounds.
 

gopher7 said:
Isn't that a pro rule? Either way, it doesn't make sense to me why you should have to maintain control of the ball while you are rolling out out of bounds.
Click to expand...

It's about completing the act of making the catch. It's a judgment call and sometimes a hard one. I'm a baseball umpire and baseball has similarly challenging rules about what is a catch and isn't.

I will say that in these types of judgment calls (completing the act of making the catch), the on field ruling should always be final. Somehow things often look different in video and I think it can actually distort the judgment, especially when you slow the video down. It's a ruling better left to on field officials.
 

year of the gopher said:
It's about completing the act of making the catch. It's a judgment call and sometimes a hard one. I'm a baseball umpire and baseball has similarly challenging rules about what is a catch and isn't.

I will say that in these types of judgment calls (completing the act of making the catch), the on field ruling should always be final. Somehow things often look different in video and I think it can actually distort the judgment, especially when you slow the video down. It's a ruling better left to on field officials.
Click to expand...


Yeah, but baseball doesn't have out of bounds. This rule is a total joke. As laughable as the force out rule. Incredibly stupid.
 

There has to be incontrovertible evidence that the call was wrong to turn it over. The first review said the call was correct. So they review it again? Absolute BS call.
 

ncgo4 said:
There has to be incontrovertible evidence that the call was wrong to turn it over. The first review said the call was correct. So they review it again? Absolute BS call.
Click to expand...

Agreed, as I said above, leave these "continuing action" kinds of judgment calls to those on the field in the first place.
 

gopher7 said:
Bingo. The instant his butt touches down out of bounds, the play is over. Doesn't matter what happens next.
Click to expand...

Whether we like it or not, section 4 part XIII. NCAA football rules interpretation says:

"Airborne receiver A85 grasps a forward pass and in the process of going to the ground, first contacts the ground with his left foot inbounds as he falls to the ground out of bounds. Immediately upon A85 hitting the ground out of bounds, the ball comes loose.

RULING: Incomplete pass regardless of whether or not the ball hits the ground because the receiver is out of bounds."

So even though it seemed he had control, both "immediately" is also subject to interpretation.

When I first saw the play live, it seemed incomplete. You have to maintain possession "all the way" through a play. The ball squirted out of the side of Decker's arms. It was a 50-50 call at best.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom