»
Topic: Rules Expert on "Controversial Calls"
Replies: 52   Last Post: Jan 2, 2020, 9:33 PM by: 81TigerKen
This topic has been archived - replies are not allowed.


[ Archives - Tiger Boards Archive ]
Start New Topic
Replies: 52  

Rules Expert on "Controversial Calls"

emoji_events [60]
Posted: Jan 1, 2020, 8:27 AM
 

I watched the ESPN telecast last night so I could catch all the commentary. I found the ESPN Rules Official's comments to be interesting.

On the overturned TD pass to Dobbins, his comment was, "...clearly an incomplete pass. This will be overturned." When Fowler asked him if he thought Dobbins had possession when the ball broke the plane of the goal line, his response was that he did not maintain the catch all the way to the ground. My own opinion (which I know doesn't matter) was that he NEVER had possession of the ball. In any event, INCOMPLETE PASS.

On the Targeting call, Herbstreit asked him if he saw it as targeting, and his immediate response was, "...clearly targeting. He made forceable contact with the crown of his helmet to the QB's head in the process of wrapping up the tackle." Fowler followed up with, "...it looked like Lawrence lowered his head..." and the Rules official said, "that doesn't matter." My own opinion, which I know doesn't matter, was that if that was NOT Targeting, then I need an explanation of what is. In any event, clearly TARGETING.

On the Ross incomplete/fumble call, Kirk and Chris both agreed (with each other) that Ross had possession long enough for it to be a catch. They noted that JR8 "took several steps" although neither noted that those "steps" were a result of the defender pushing him backwards (and therefore arresting his forward progress). Then they asked the Rules Official for his judgement. Without missing a beat, he replied, "with all due respect, I disagree with you. That was clearly an incomplete pass, and the call will be reversed." Then the "but, but, buts..." started, during which both Fowler and Herbie argued that the slo-mo "clearly" showed that Ross held the ball long enough for it to be a catch. At that point, Bill (Rules Official) made a very astute point. He said that when trying to determine if the receiver had possession, officials prefer to work with a real-time replay, because slo-mo can be deceptive. His position was that Ross did not have the ball long enough to "make a football move." The ESPN guys questioned him about what constituted a football move, and ultimately, they agreed to disagree. My own opinion was that in real time, I thought the pass was incomplete; looking at the first two slo-mo replays, I thought it was a fumble; looking at the third replay (which was not slowed down as much), I thought it was incomplete. The most revealing replay was real-time, and I don't think anyone could watch that and say anything other than "incomplete pass," especially if you don't know which team is which. Again, I know my opinion doesn't matter... but neither does Kirk's or Chris's!

I think the take away is that the Rules Expert NEVER hesitated on his calls (for any of the three), and his explanations were concise and straight to the point. I give him credit considering he was going up against two guys who were CLEARLY in Ohio State's corner.

My last word on the Fiesta Bowl is that it was one helluva ballgame, probably in the top two or three I've seen in all my years (65+) of watching college football. I think it's a shame that OSU fans can't congratulate their team for a great game and a great season and move on...


Message was edited by: 7173TIGER®


2021 orange level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg link

I appreciate that!***

[2]
Posted: Jan 1, 2020, 8:32 AM
 



link

Re: Rules Expert on "Controversial Calls"

emoji_events [6]
Posted: Jan 1, 2020, 8:44 AM
 

Targeting was correct based on this:

Targeting does not solely occur when players initiate helmet-to-helmet contact. It's defined as occurring when a player "takes aim at an opponent for purposes of attacking with forcible contact that goes beyond making a legal tackle or a legal block or playing the ball." Instances include, but are not limited to:

* Launch--a player leaving his feet to attack an opponent by an upward and forward thrust of the body to make forcible contact in the head or neck area.
* A crouch followed by an upward and forward thrust to attack with forcible contact at the head or neck area, even though one or both feet are still on the ground.
* Leading with helmet, shoulder forearm, fist, hand or elbow to attack with forcible contact at the head or neck area.
* Lowering the head before attacking by initiating forcible contact with the crown of his helmet.
[]



Message was edited by: TigerOmally®


2021 white level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg link

Re: Rules Expert on "Controversial Calls"

[1]
Posted: Jan 1, 2020, 8:56 AM
 

No question about Targeting. I was bothered by the fact that even watching the initial replays, neither commentator "mentioned" that perhaps it was targeting. I don't think for one second that if the situation was reversed and it was Fields hit like that, Herbstreit would have no doubt suggested that the play should be reviewed, and his opinion would have been, "of course it's targeting."

2021 orange level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg link

Re: Rules Expert on "Controversial Calls"

[1]
Posted: Jan 1, 2020, 9:04 AM
 

If I were putting together a film on what are textbook penalties, the best example for targeting may not be the hit on TL but it would definitely be on the list.

military_donation.jpg link

Re: Rules Expert on "Controversial Calls"

[1]
Posted: Jan 1, 2020, 9:11 AM
 

Somebody posted the rules to what consistute a catch. I don’t have the exact rule but it is to the affect that Ross is not able to tuck the ball or even ##### the ball. The rule listed several other examples and non was the number of steps taken.

2021 orange level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg link

"Clemson Is Coming" says Stephone Anthony (Class 2011)"
"Why NOT Clemson"
"Why Not Dabo"


Re: Rules Expert on "Controversial Calls"

[1]
Posted: Jan 1, 2020, 9:30 AM
 

Section 4, Article 3(a)(3) is the rule. Pretty clear that the Ross issue was in fact an incompletion after reading the rule.

link

Re: Rules Expert on "Controversial Calls"

[2]
Posted: Jan 1, 2020, 9:48 AM
 

The rule states:
Maintains control of the ball long enough to enable him to perform an act common to the game, i.e., long enough to pitch or hand the ball, advance it, avoid or ward off an opponent, etc

As we all know, Ross did not have time to do any of these things. This is pretty cut and dry to me, even considering I have a bias. I'm really surprised at reports of other officials coming out and saying it was a catch. I know they are the experts, but have they even read the rule?

link

null


Slow-motion can make the speed of light appear

emoji_events [6]
Posted: Jan 1, 2020, 9:18 AM
 

to move at a snail's pace.

Real time reveals the truth: 186,000+ miles per second. Those disputing the call are blowing smoke up their own asssssses, grasping for straws.

2021 orange level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpg link

Of course slo-mo slows things down (makes the speed of

[2]
Posted: Jan 1, 2020, 11:11 AM
 

light appear to move at a snail's pace), but it doesn't reveal anything that is not happening; it just allows us to see what is in fact happening, at a slower pace. In this case, slo-mo allowed us to see that by rule, Ross in fact did not make the catch, and allowed us to see what was much more difficult to determine at real speed. I have never understood this anti-slo-mo argument at all.

2021 purple level memberbadge-donor-15yr.jpg link

"Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard."
- H. L. Mencken


in slo-motion it looks like a catch to me


Posted: Jan 1, 2020, 1:06 PM
 

it seems that he has plenty of time to do something with the ball

2021 orange level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpg link


He never had enough control to pitch or hand it,

[1]
Posted: Jan 1, 2020, 3:23 PM
 

advance it, avoid or ward off an opponent, etc., which the rule requires. The whole time he was trying to gain that degree of control, but never attained it. That was clear to me on replay, and to the replay officials.

2021 purple level memberbadge-donor-15yr.jpg link

"Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard."
- H. L. Mencken


Re: Rules Expert on "Controversial Calls"

[4]
Posted: Jan 1, 2020, 9:27 AM
 

What’s frustrating about the whole thing was that he was trying to make a football move, and that football move was tucking the ball to his body. He was never able to complete the football move because the defender knocked it out in the process of his attempt to make the football move. Don’t know why there’s such heartburn about this call. I was surprised they even thru the bean bag down and called it incomplete. Watching it real time my gut was saying what the ####, there was no way he had time to complete that catch.

Granted it looks bad in slow motion, but I thought the rules expert gave a good reason why they don’t solely use slow motion to determine whether it was a catch or not.

Additionally, if the protocol is to throw the bag in the field, call it a fumble and let the booth sort it out it would make logical sense that the bar for overturning it would not be as high. If the call was as 50-50 as Ohio State fans say it was when arguing that it shouldn’t have been overturned, there’s also a provision in the rules that states that if the catch is in question to generally defer to it not being a catch.

I know I would have felt like we would have gotten screwed over if those points had been given to OSU.

link

Re: Rules Expert on "Controversial Calls"

[1]
Posted: Jan 1, 2020, 10:53 AM
 

yeah, watching it in real time, my first thought was, "well, too bad, incomplete pass. that would have been a useful gain." and then suddenly the refs were not blowing the whistle. then I thought, "well, they're taught not to blow plays dead if there's any doubt." still, in slow motion I started to worry.

link

Re: Rules Expert on "Controversial Calls"

[2]
Posted: Jan 1, 2020, 10:13 AM
 

Thanks, 7173. These are good explanations of the calls. I copied them to give to my wife's OSU relatives and friends and my neighbor across the street.

I'll also remind them that the refs should have called at least 100 yards of offensive holding penalties plus another 100 yards for defensive PI and holding. Our slot receiver was mugged on the Ross pass play, and that was not called.

link

Can someone explain why a football move makes it a catch

[1]
Posted: Jan 1, 2020, 10:20 AM
 

but a shoestring catch where there is no way to make a football move, but is clearly a catch, is a catch? Is it the fact that you are down, but even if you weren't you could make a football move?

2021 orange level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpg link


Re: Can someone explain why a football move makes it a catch

[2]
Posted: Jan 1, 2020, 10:42 AM
 

I think that is described by the Rules Official in the first replay (Dobbins drop)... when you're going to the ground during the catch, you have to maintain control "all the way to the ground."

2021 orange level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg link

so its maintain control all the way to the ground or

[1]
Posted: Jan 1, 2020, 1:05 PM
 

maintain control long enough to make a football move. He clearly did not do either.

2021 orange level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpg link


Re: Rules Expert on "Controversial Calls"

[1]
Posted: Jan 1, 2020, 10:24 AM
 

It was clearly targeting, blew my mind that the refs didn’t call it on the field instantly. Now, I am in the camp that they should have 2 versions, intentional and unintentional, where a player can stay in the game if it was deemed non intentional. I hate to see kids kicked out of the game, especially games like that one where it could be their last college game as well as the playoff. Now the one in the Oklahoma vs LSU was one imo where the player should be removed from the game.

Also few of my buckeyes buddies blame it on Trevor ducking which is dumb, Wade went high and with crown of helmet. I just send them gifs of Isaiah Simmons deleting qbs with perfect form, so monster game changing hits can be executed correctly and at a high level.

link

The problem is that intent doesn't matter.

[1]
Posted: Jan 1, 2020, 10:45 AM
 

What occurs matters, regardless of a subjective guess at "intent" by the officials.

link

Re: Rules Expert on "Controversial Calls"

[1]
Posted: Jan 1, 2020, 11:37 AM
 

I recall that the rules official indicated that it was NOT about helmet-to-helmet. So TL ‘ducking’ prior to impact is irrelevant. The defensive player lowered his head and struck with the crown. I don’t think it matters if it was head or shoulders, etc.

2021 white level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg link

“Clemson wasn’t that much better with Trevor Lawrence, if at all.”


Re: Rules Expert on "Controversial Calls"


Posted: Jan 2, 2020, 9:33 PM
 

Trevor did not duck his head. He moved it slightly to the right.

link

trevor is 6’6”

[1]
Posted: Jan 1, 2020, 1:06 PM
 

Even by ducking a bit (which he barely ducked) it would be the same as going at someone who was around 6’2”. The guy still went high and led with the crown of his helmet. Some people forget that the rule is there to protect the DEFENSIVE player as well.

2021 white level member link

Re: trevor is 6’6”


Posted: Jan 2, 2020, 12:44 PM
 

The rules expert on the broadcast later addressed his height and him ducking. He said it didn't matter - you can't hit the opponent with crown of helmet from his head to toe. So it doesn't matter if he hit Trevor's head or not...per the expert's response. Got to remember - the targeting rule is to make game safer for all players - defense and offense. Players who launched and attacked with crown of helmet often times are injured as much or more than the offense players.

link

Re: Rules Expert on "Controversial Calls"

[1]
Posted: Jan 1, 2020, 10:38 AM
 

Your analysis is spot on. According to the expert in the broadcast booth the officials got it right every time. In slow motion they can make almost anything look like a catch. Kudos to you and to the officials!

link

By rule, both calls were correct. If somebody disagrees,

[2]
Posted: Jan 1, 2020, 11:01 AM
 

then they don't understand either rule. If they don't like it, then they just don't like the rule. And it has nothing to do with real time vs. slow motion. Of course things look different in slow motion, but slo-mo is a perfectly legitimate tool when trying to determine what actually happened. It seems some are suggesting that slo-mo should be ignored in favor of real time, which makes no sense at all.

2021 purple level memberbadge-donor-15yr.jpg link

"Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard."
- H. L. Mencken


Re: By rule, both calls were correct. If somebody disagrees,

[1]
Posted: Jan 1, 2020, 11:50 AM
 

Smiling Tiger-- I don't think the ESPN Rules Official was downplaying the importance of slo-mo... they use all views and all speeds. When the Referee was interviewed after the game, he emphasized that. The statement by the ESPN guy that replay officials prefer to use real-time to determine plays of this type was a revelation to me, but it makes sense (at least it does to me). If you watch the first two replays shown at the game (I'm assuming they were the same as on ESPN), they were really slowed down, and my reaction was "oh, crap, catch and fumble." The third replay was not slowed down as much (but was slo-mo), and changed my mind from fumble to incompletion-- it looked like the ball came out as soon as it arrived (again, JMO). Take a look at it if you have the video of that sequence, and give me your opinion. Finally, when they showed real-time and Kirk said, "here's what it looked like in real time" it appeared that from the time the ball touched JR's hand until it was on the ground was probably less than 0.5 seconds.

In any case, I agree with you that the doubters either don't understand or don't like the rule.

2021 orange level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg link

I don't remember everybody who has made the anti slo-mo

[1]
Posted: Jan 1, 2020, 11:57 AM
 

argument, but I have seen it a lot, as if somehow slo-mo distorted what happened, and gave a false impression, and therefore the decision should have been based on real time impressions. To me, that is such obvious bullshid and is totally nonsensical. I never understood why anybody made that silly argument.

2021 purple level memberbadge-donor-15yr.jpg link

"Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard."
- H. L. Mencken


That is illogical. Slo-mo can definitely change the perception

[2]
Posted: Jan 1, 2020, 12:11 PM
 

of catch/no catch. If in real time, the time of possession was a half second, in slo-mo, that looks like 2 or 3 seconds, which looks totally different!

2021 white level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg link

Not what I said. Of course it can change perception.

[1]
Posted: Jan 1, 2020, 12:26 PM
 

I just said it doesn't give a false impression. Slo-mo only illuminates, if anything, and gives a clearer picture of what actually happened. In other words, it can't make a drop look like a catch. If a player gets a toe down in bounds with control, it won't falsely make it appear that the player did NOT get a toe in bounds. For example, On the amazing Tee Higgins sideline catch a few weeks ago, I, along with almost everybody else, thought it was an incomplete pass in real time. Slo-mo, however, changed that perception, and showed that in fact he did have control and did get a toe in bounds. It did not create a false perception, it showed us the correct one. Again, I don't understand the anti slo-mo argument.

2021 purple level memberbadge-donor-15yr.jpg link

"Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard."
- H. L. Mencken


Re: Not what I said. Of course it can change perception.

[2]
Posted: Jan 1, 2020, 12:51 PM
 

What you're referring to here is exactly what the rules official said about determining to in/out of bounds, fumble before knee down, etc. He said this is the "best use" of slo-mo. He said it doesn't work as well as the "sole factor" in plays like the catch/fumble or incomplete Saturday night, which is why he likes to see those in real-time.

As to the catch by Tee in the ACCCG, I've seen that from all angles and at all speeds and even though I saw it with my own eyes, I still can't believe he made that catch! WOW. Even Trevor said he thought he was throwing it away! Tee makes the amazing look easy!

2021 orange level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg link

You do understand, don't you, that slo-mo showed very

[1]
Posted: Jan 1, 2020, 1:03 PM
 

clearly that by rule, Ross did NOT make a catch? A lot of people seem to think that the replay somehow muddied the waters, and made it appear that Ross did indeed make a catch and then fumbled, and therefore think in this case that "real time" gave a better, more accurate look at what really happened, but they are wrong, and they simply don't understand the rule. Slo-mo verified, and proved that it was not a catch.

2021 purple level memberbadge-donor-15yr.jpg link

"Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard."
- H. L. Mencken


Re: Rules Expert on "Controversial Calls"

[1]
Posted: Jan 1, 2020, 11:09 AM
 

I thought all of this was settled on the field at the game.

2021 orange level member link

Re: Rules Expert on "Controversial Calls"

[2]
Posted: Jan 1, 2020, 11:11 AM
 

Quote; "At that point, Bill (Rules Official) made a very astute point. He said that when trying to determine if the receiver had possession, officials prefer to work with a real-time replay, because slo-mo can be deceptive. His position was that Ross did not have the ball long enough to "make a football move." The ESPN guys questioned him about what constituted a football move, and ultimately, they agreed to disagree. My own opinion was that in real time, I thought the pass was incomplete; looking at the first two slo-mo replays, I thought it was a fumble; looking at the third replay (which was not slowed down as much), I thought it was incomplete. The most revealing replay was real-time, and I don't think anyone could watch that and say anything other than "incomplete pass," especially if you don't know which team is which. Again, I know my opinion doesn't matter... but neither does Kirk's or Chris's!"

Excellent explanation ..... the same observation I have made. The point that has gone over all of the OSU fan's head, and some here, is that the ref emphasized that they watched it is slow motion and real time. Slow motion is great for determining when a ball comes our before a knee touches the ground or whether a foot in in bounds, but it doers not determine whether a player has an opportunity to make a move "common to the game" Therefore in real time, there was NO QUESTION that it was an incomplete pass!

military_donation.jpg link

Re: Rules Expert on "Controversial Calls"

[2]
Posted: Jan 1, 2020, 12:13 PM
 

I don't see how anyone watching that incompletion/fumble
on a real time replay, could think it was a completion! Sure, it looks like it on slow-mo, but not real time! I assure you, if a Clemson player had recovered it, all we would hear from the bucknuts would be, "Incompletion"!

As for as the targeting call, that was so obvious, and the bucknut were lucky that Chase Young wasn't also hit with "unnecessary roughness" for grabbing Trevor around the neck and twisting it. Young probably should have been ejected!

2021 white level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg link

But it does NOT look like a catch in slo-mo

[1]
Posted: Jan 1, 2020, 12:51 PM
 

if you understand the rule. That's the point I've been trying to make all along, and why I don't understand the anti slo-mo argument, and why it makes no sense. Slo-mo proves that Ross did NOT make a catch by rule.

2021 purple level memberbadge-donor-15yr.jpg link

"Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard."
- H. L. Mencken


Re: Rules Expert on "Controversial Calls"

emoji_events [5]
Posted: Jan 1, 2020, 12:21 PM
 

IF it was ruled a completion THEN because his forward progress was STOPPED by the defender the whistle should be blown to end the play. JR8 did not make any attempt at forward progress because he was trying to keep from being driven to the ground. The "steps" he took were not an attempt to become a "runner" rather just to stay upright. He never became a runner. He never made a "football move" which would be to secure the ball (it was never brought back to his body), he didn't turn to go upfield thereby becoming a runner, etc, etc, etc.

Thus, it was an incomplete pass. If it was complete then the whistle should have been blown and the ball spotted there.

Those are the only two choices per the rules.

badge-donor-15yr.jpg link


Very good! I wish everybody would pay attention and try

[1]
Posted: Jan 1, 2020, 1:15 PM
 

to understand the rule. Here is what is required for a completed pass, from the rule book itself:

ARTICLE 3. a. To catch a ball means that a player:
1. Secures firm control with the hand(s) or arm(s) of a live ball in flight
before the ball touches the ground, and
2. Touches the ground in bounds with any part of his body, and then
3. Maintains control of the ball long enough to enable him to perform an
act common to the game, i.e., long enough to pitch or hand the ball,
advance it, avoid or ward off an opponent, etc.
, and
4. Satisfies paragraphs b, c, and d below.


Ross neither had control long enough to pitch or hand the ball, advance it, avoid or ward off the opponent, or make any other football move. SLO-MO REPLAY CONFIRMED THIS; it did not contradict it as some erroneously seem to believe.

2021 purple level memberbadge-donor-15yr.jpg link

"Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard."
- H. L. Mencken


Re: Rules Expert on "Controversial Calls"


Posted: Jan 1, 2020, 12:24 PM
 

My take

Roughing the punter - no doubt

Targeting - no doubt the rule was applied appropriately Whether it warranted an ejection that is a rule issue and not the way it was applied.

Fumble - I agree with Cowherd’s take. In real time I thought it was incomplete and kept waiting for them to blow it dead. It may have been a reach to overturn but what originally should have been Called was the result. To a degree both Clemson fans and OSU fans are a bit hypocritical. If that play took place in the end zone and was overturned as incomplete we would be screaming and they would be in agreement.

link

Re: Rules Expert on "Controversial Calls"

[4]
Posted: Jan 1, 2020, 12:36 PM
 

I think the big stink on the fumble-TD play is that REFS DID NOT BLOW THE WHISTLE and allowed it to play out. If the ref immediately said "I blinked and wasn't sure what happened so I thought I'd let replay crew figure it out" then I think a lot fewer people would be pissed off. They see it as a legit call that the replay guys had no business overturning. Anyhow, a ref would never admit he blinked at an inopportune time... Lol

badge-donor-15yr.jpg link


Plays like this

[2]
Posted: Jan 1, 2020, 12:57 PM
 

should NOT have a "ruling on the field." The official did exactly what he's taught to do, and that is to let the play continue. This was such a bang-bang play that I don't think he could have possibly formed an opinion as to whether it was complete or not. I strongly feel that plays of this type should NOT be called one way or another on the field. They should simply be referred to the replay team for complete re-officiating, and with no pre-judgement by the guys on the field unless the field crew has a solid basis for making "a ruling on the field."

You are absolutely correct-- this might avoid a lot of controversy.


Message was edited by: 7173TIGER®


2021 orange level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg link

Re: Plays like this


Posted: Jan 2, 2020, 2:13 PM
 

Sorry but this doesn't make any sense. You have to make a call on the field - by not blowing the whistle, you are calling it a fumble.

link

Re: Rules Expert on "Controversial Calls"


Posted: Jan 2, 2020, 11:39 AM
 

What is a catch has become the "grey"est call in both Pro and College.

Ross makes an awesome one-handed and one footed catch on the sideline. One handed, and going out-of-bounds, he also does not have the ability to make a "football" move... and yet... it's a catch because he completes the process.

This time around, it certainly looked like he completes the process of the catch, but did not make a football move... not a catch

The call on the filed was a fumble and TD. I don't think there was CLEAR evidence to overturn it. However, Clemson punted and OSU threw an interception on the ensuing possession. OSU had every opportunity to overcome and didn't.

Clemson did!!

Beat the Bayou Bengals!!

link

I though movement in forward direction is a football move


Posted: Jan 2, 2020, 11:53 AM
 

In the natty he wasn't being driven back which would have stopped his forward progress. If in the Fiesta he was moving in the forward direction with his multiple steps then I would call it a fumble.

badge-donor-15yr.jpg link


Re: Rules Expert on "Controversial Calls"

[4]
Posted: Jan 1, 2020, 1:36 PM
 

Hey we got a National Championship to play, let the poor classless losers continue to look like the worst losers ever!

Go Tigers

2021 white level member link

“Let’s make the others want to be like us” Dabo Swinney!!

The best is yet to come!! I’m so grateful for Clemson Football going into the 2020’s


Re: Rules Expert on "Controversial Calls"


Posted: Jan 2, 2020, 11:42 AM
 

29 to 23

link

No disagreement

[1]
Posted: Jan 2, 2020, 11:59 AM
 

from me on the explanation of the calls by the official.

That being said, if the calls were made on Clemson I'd probably complain about the targeting and definitely the fumble.

While the targeting call was textbook strike with the crown of the helmet, I don't think that was the intent and I didn't catch it in real time either. And again the penalty for this type of targeting is far too punitive. OSU lost one of their top defenders for that call. Ideally it's a 15 yard penalty with no ejection but there's no rule that allows for that, as intent is subjective.

The incompletion / fumble arguement. While I'm not sure I fully grasp the rule, what I grasped was he possessed the football for enough time that I felt it was a catch and fumble and I stated that when I saw it first play out live. The replays only confirmed what I felt I saw. Obviously I'm not an official, but I do know if that same type of play goes against Clemson, I'm livid. Especially the way it went down in that there had to be "indisputable" evidence to overturn what was called on the field. I just didn't see anything indisputable.

All that said, OSU essentially had 4 turnovers (2 penalties that kept drives alive and 2 interceptions) and if they play a clean game they probably win, so I don't feel any of these calls cost them the game.

link

Does this ease your mind and educate?


Posted: Jan 2, 2020, 12:07 PM
 

https://www.tigernet.com/forum/message/Very-good-I-wish-everybody-would-pay-attention-and-try-26640337

badge-donor-15yr.jpg link


Re: Rules Expert on "Controversial Calls"


Posted: Jan 2, 2020, 12:04 PM
 

I was watching the game on ACCN and when i went back the other day and watched it on ESPN i was surprised so many OSU fans were so sure it was a fumble when the rules expert explained during the review why it was an incomplete pass. On another note, it did seem like both Kirk and Chris were a little biased towards OSU. Not just in that one play but you could tell in their tone when Clemson would make a big play compared to when OSU made a big play. Not mad at Kirk, if i was calling a Clemson game i would be the same way.

link

Re: Rules Expert on "Controversial Calls"


Posted: Jan 2, 2020, 12:23 PM
 

Great summary.

It's frustrating that after several years of a targeting penalty being part of the game, folks still don't know the penalty. "The offensive player ducking his head" BS shows a person doesn't know the rule. If he'd hit him in the legs its still targeting. You can't lower your head and tackle.

I get how it looked like a catch in slow mo, but that was 7/10 of a second. If that play had been in the endzone, would it have been considered a touchdown? No way.

link

Re: Rules Expert on "Controversial Calls"


Posted: Jan 2, 2020, 3:40 PM
 

With real time and slow Mo with a play like that is this, in slow Mo your mind is telling you that was plenty of time at processing ball bc of the delayed time that slow Mo presents. In real time, the play is bam bam and the ball was only in his hands for a split second, then it was on its way to ground. Slow Mo is absolutely worthless in determining the time of possession bc real time is probably 10 frames faster than Slow Mo, and that is why Slow Mo gives fans a false sense of how long the time of possession actually was. Anybody that thought that was a fumble when it happen, they were only seeing the defenders hands knocking the ball out that actually made it look like Ross had fumbled the ball.

2021 orange level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpg link


Yeah, but in defense of the idiot fan who thinks this...


Posted: Jan 2, 2020, 4:09 PM
 

...they are counting the number of steps taken while he supposedly had possession. Over and over again they ignore the "football move" part of the equation that does not include being driven backwards to negative yardage. Had those "step" been in the positive direction then we could be having a different conversation. The negative yardage steps were not voluntary but rather just trying to keep from ending up on the ground.

badge-donor-15yr.jpg link


Re: Rules Expert on "Controversial Calls"


Posted: Jan 2, 2020, 7:47 PM
 

This was my point in earlier discussions, and why the Rules Expert said that they prefer to use real-time in these cases. When you look at the ultra slow motion replays (that I referred to as the "first two replays") these take the approximate 1/2 second between when the ball contacted JR's hand and when it was on the ground and turn it into a 5-6 second replay time-lapse. Again, my sequence at the stadium was (1) real time I thought it was incomplete, due to the bang-bang action, (2) replays 1 and 2 in ultra slo-mo, in which I thought "oh, crap, that's a fumble", and (3) the 3rd replay which was not ultra-slo, in which I thought that he never gained possession (by rule) and it was incomplete. Interestingly, my thought process followed exactly the same progression as what the game Referee (williamson) and the ESPN replay expert ("Bill", sorry don't recall his last name).

My other take-away is that replay might be overused... because of the media. They are so focused on turning every call into a 0.01 second thing...

2021 orange level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg link

Replies: 52  

TIGER TICKETS

FB GAME: Season Tickets
FOR SALE: 4 best seats in WZC, Sec 108, Front row splitting the goal post. We had first priority in picking ou...

Buy or Sell CU Tickets and More in Tiger Tickets!

[ Archives - Tiger Boards Archive ]
Start New Topic
6120 people have read this post