How the hell is 3 steps with the ball secure not a completion? Especially when it was originally called one?
Printable View
How the hell is 3 steps with the ball secure not a completion? Especially when it was originally called one?
Yeah, can't argue with that. I just hate the argument that P5 teams blowing out other P5 teams should mean that G5 teams don't deserve a shot.Quote:
Originally Posted by Christopher Moen
No, it shouldn’t be an excuse. College football fans and players deserve better.Quote:
Originally Posted by Professor Chaos
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Yeah. Sketchy overturn.Quote:
Originally Posted by bisonp
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Dabo happy.
Nice turnaround there for Clemson. Looked like the making of a blowout and became an instant classic.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Met him at a clinic in Virginia 3 years ago and still talk occasionally. I'll need to ask him about that game. The ACC has some very good and long term referees, but he's definitely one of them. Excited to see him get this assignment.
Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk
Two huge mistakes really cost the Buckeyes. The targeting and roughing the punter leading to 2 scores.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Those first half field goals didn't beat Clemson.
Lawrence had his head bouncing against the turf and he is out for just one play? WTF was Stig coaching?
I wasn't quite sure if it was that initial hit that rattled him or that sleeper hold that Chase Young tried to put him in on the way down. I actually thought forearm to the neck was a more dangerous hit than the initial hit was. They could've called targeting on both if they wanted to enforce the rule to the letter since Young's hit was "forcible contact above the shoulders on a defenseless ball carrier" (since he was going to the ground in the arms of a teammate with his forward progress stopped). I'm glad they didn't though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vet70
Exciting game, but really think the officiating had too much of an effect on the outcome.
Sent from my moto z3 using Tapatalk
The short jerseys showing the gut need to be banned
Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
I thought I read that they were. The jersey no matter how long could not be above the belt, like being chopped off or rolled up. Indy?Quote:
Originally Posted by westnodak93bison
Neither Trey Lance nor Christian Watson are going to like this.Quote:
Originally Posted by westnodak93bison
They should be but fairly low on the priority list. Can you imagine how much the officials would be vilified if they send out the top player to touch in his jersey? We hate being the fashion police!Quote:
Originally Posted by StL Bison Fan
Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk
One would hope the coaching staff could self police?
Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
Against MSU I saw a S ref pull down Tre Fort’s jersey down (may have just come unrolled?) then next series I saw he had it rolled back up under his pads.
Know that some of these guys like to show individualism... I'd rather they didn't though. But I'm just a lowly fan so I don't really have any say.
Sent from my Pixel 3a XL on a bullet train from Hillsboro.
Tie this together with the targeting call and OSU has a gripe about last night. I get that both of these by the letter of the law were probably called correctly, but it doesn't mean that it's right. So apparently they need to clean up some rules about both of these.Quote:
Originally Posted by bisonp
3 steps with complete control, that has to be a catch. Now if they would have said forward progress had stopped, different story, but that's not what they called.
There are so many rules out there now that the defense basically has to read the offenses mind before making a play. The targeting didn't look like it in real time, but what I did see on the replay is Lawrence ducked his head and turned right before the hit was to be made. If Lawrence stays in the same position before, he gets hit right in the ribs with the helmet on the side is what I thought. Since he turned and ducked his helmet gets in the way of the defenders helmet, and he gets kicked out because of it?? I get letter of the law, but that doesn't seem right.
The OSU defender did lead with his helmet. However Lawrence ducked and turned. That is why the hit was high.Quote:
Originally Posted by stevdock
It appears defenders need to lower their target even lower. Hit Lawrence at the knees. Maybe end his pro career before it starts. Them college will have NFL rules about hitting QBs low.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The targeting hit had nothing to do with where Lawrence was hit. It was entirely due to the fact the defender hit him with the crown of the helmet. Lower your head and lead with the crown you run the risk of targeting.Quote:
Originally Posted by NorthernBison
That being said I personally didn't think it was a forcible and punishing hit but it's friendly l definitely supportable. Both calls could have gone either way. No matter what they called there would be people saying they were horrible calls. It's a no win situation for the officials.
Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk
That’s pretty much what I said. The defender lead with his helmet. Letter of the rule says targeting. The acting job by Lawrence didn’t hurt either. And, yeah, he did act. Only missed one play.Quote:
Originally Posted by IndyBison
Personally, I’d have preferred seeing him destroy Lawrence’s knee with a brutal low kill shot. But, that might have something to do with what I think of Clemson, Lawrence, Dabo, etc.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sure on the targeting call but over ruling that fumble was a horrible call.Quote:
Originally Posted by IndyBison
Not horrible at all. Without replay that is most likely ruled incomplete as it was a bang bang play with the ball coming out very quickly. Slow motion makes it look more like a catch but it's not obvious either way. Neither call would be horrible but I guarantee if the catch/fumble stood there would be just as many people screaming it was a horrible call.Quote:
Originally Posted by EC8CH
Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk
You said the fact Lawrence lowered and turned is why he was hit high. The actions of Lawrence had no impact on this call. A player initiating forcible contact with the crown of the helmet is a foul whether he hits him high, in the chest, in the hip, or the knee. That targeting foul protects the hitter more than the hittee. Hitting with the crown can compress your neck or result in a concussion for the hitter. The other targeting foul has to do with hitting a defenseless player high. That wasn't applicable here.Quote:
Originally Posted by NorthernBison
Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk
Couldn't they have called Chase Young for targeting also for raking Lawrence across the neck as he was going down? By definition Lawrence was a "defenseless player" in that scenario since his forward progress was stopped and he was already in the process of being taken down by another Ohio St defender when Young raked him across the neck with his forearm. Targeting is defined as "making forcible contact to the head or neck of a defenseless player".Quote:
Originally Posted by IndyBison
Like I said earlier I'm glad they didn't call a penalty on Young there but for all the hand-wringing from Ohio St fans about Wade getting tossed for targeting it could've been even worse had the replay official really wanted to go to the letter-of-the-law in regards to targeting on that play. I don't think I've ever seen two players tossed for targeting on the same play but if it happened in a play and game of that magnitude I'd imagine that's all anyone would be talking about today and into the offseason when it comes to rule changes.
What's wrong with Clemson?Quote:
Originally Posted by NorthernBison
Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
True. But get serious, the crown of the helmet to the chest happens a lot without targeting getting called.Quote:
Originally Posted by IndyBison
QB takes any shot high and lays on the ground gets way more attention.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Lmao what the fuck is wrong with you? Rooting for a 19/20 year old kid to get his knee destroyed because you don't like where he goes to school?Quote:
Originally Posted by NorthernBison
Jesus H. bud, maybe take a step back and reevaluate.
It wasn't ruled incomplete. It was ruled a fumble in real time.Quote:
Originally Posted by IndyBison
I think what he's saying is that it would've been ruled incomplete if the officials knew they didn't have the benefit of replay to correct a mistake. Seems like in those situations where it's close they'll rule it a fumble more often than not to let the action play out and then rely on replay to overturn it if necessary.Quote:
Originally Posted by EC8CH
So then reply confirms he had clear control of the ball for 4 steps, but it's not a catch why? Because he didn't tuck it away after the second step before getting stripped? Just dumb. How many steps does it take with control of the ball to be considered a catch?Quote:
Originally Posted by Professor Chaos
If both teams have a valid complaint about the call how can there be enough evidence to overturn the original call then?
I don't think they count steps at all. They wait for him to tuck it away and turn up field before they call the catch process complete. I guess they ruled he hadn't done that yet. If you watch it in real-time the ball does come out pretty quickly but at some point you have to punish a receiver who doesn't try to tuck the ball away.Quote:
Originally Posted by EC8CH
Why? So if he catches it and runs it in for a TD without ever tucking it away and spikes it, that's a fumble? Dumb.Quote:
Originally Posted by Professor Chaos
Correct. Steps has nothing directly to do with the NCAA catch rule. Don't confuse it with the NFL rule. Based on the NCAA rule they prefer this to play out and then make a ruling on replay. At that point they aren't necessarily confirming or reversing the call on the field. They are making a ruling. That's where it could go either way but the best way to rule on this play is in real time not slow motion. That's why I think the better call was incomplete. But I would have understood catch/fumble as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by Professor Chaos
FWIW...the play in the Bison game should have probably let it play out and then let replay rule forward/backward. No idea how replay would have ruled on that one. In that example a game without replay would have likely been ruled forward and incomplete.
Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk
Well, if he turns up field then it doesn't matter if he tucks it away.Quote:
Originally Posted by EC8CH
What if he just runs sideways out of bounds for a first down? Id say 4 times as many steps to prove you are in bounds should be enough to prove you had possession of the ball and made the catch.Quote:
Originally Posted by Professor Chaos
Correct. No requirement to tuck it to complete it. But if that's your first act you'll need to maintain possession during that tuck to complete the catch because it's part of the process of the catch. That didn't really apply in this case IMO. Watch the play in real time and determine if you get her had it long enough. You will never get unanimous agreement either way from any group of officials on a play like that. Ultimately the decision is based on the judgement of the replay official.Quote:
Originally Posted by EC8CH
Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk
Well then he's an idiot.Quote:
Originally Posted by EC8CH
The in bounds/out of bounds argument is silly because you can get one foot in bounds but if you don't maintain control of the ball either when hitting the ground or a defender out of bounds it's also not a catch.
His first act in this case wasn't tucking it either. He kept it away from his body for a few steps then tried tucking it. By then he had possession and had already completed the catch. I don't think the replay official had clear enough evidence to over turn the call.Quote:
Originally Posted by IndyBison