hawkeyebob62
Well-Known Member
Exactly.
A lot of people question the Easley-fumble-touchback rule
- Thread starter uihawk82
- Start date
Exactly.
hawkeyebob62
Well-Known Member
You SAW him fumble BEFORE he broke the plane? Xray vision must be cool.
BigD
Well-Known Member
To me it appeared the ball came loose before crossing the goal line. I hated it and it pi$$ed me off but I believe it was the right call.
hawkeyebob62
Well-Known Member
The thing is, it wasn't even the worst call/overturn of the game. The most egregious, IMO--and the Hawks were clearly the beneficiary--was the PI call on UNT on a ball that was CLEARLY tipped. How NO official saw that is beyond me. The fact that isn't "reviewable", but the "intent" of a targeting call IS "reviewable", is mind-numbing.
hawkeyebob62
Well-Known Member
How in hell did you see that? NObody else did, at least to the point of "indisputable". If you can find the footage with the angle showing it, please post it here.
BigD
Well-Known Member
On replay you can see from a front view that he fumbled the ball AS SOON as second player hit him. Then from the side view you can see the second player hit him before he and the ball crossed the goal line. Yes it is very close.
mopkins
King Kong
I thought it came loose before the goal line but I certainly didn't there there was indisputable proof of it to be overturned.
The interference happened prior to the ball being tipped.
mopkins
King Kong
I think you are misinterpreting the rule a little bit. You can call PI on a tipped ball as long as PI happens BEFORE the ball is tipped. So in this case:
NT defender interferes with Iowa WR -> NT defender tips pass -> Pass interference is the correct call
Just because a ball is tipped doesn't automatically mean PI doesn't exist. Otherwise you could theoretically tackle a receiver, stand up and bat the ball away and there would be no PI because the ball was tipped.
homes
Well-Known Member
Rules can be changed if they're bad rules. That's different than saying don't enforce the current rule. This rule seems like a bad rule to me, and should be changed. The officials are only enforcing the rule, as dumb as it seems to be. Give them a different rule, and they'll enforce that one. It's make no sense that a ball that goes out 6 inches before the end zone stays with the offense, but a ball that goes out 6 inches past the end zone goes to the defense. Place the ball where the runner is down, easy.
The Holy Roller play is a different circumstance than this rule - that was designed to prevent a team from "fumbling" the ball forward so it ends up in the end zone and recovered by the team for a TD.
GotTimDodge
Well-Known Member
Make an intentionally fumbling rule!
SheagleHawk
Well-Known Member
This. It sure looked like from the sideline angle that he was 2 yds into the end zone before the ball started coming out. I had to ask my wife if I was blind bc I thought it was obvious , or at least no way they could overturn it. Then I watched the rest of the game and realized why it was overturned. Geezus those were some bad officials.
Just know that had NT fumbled through end zone we would all be cheering loudly for it.
D
DDThompson
Guest
Not every official is watching the ball.
What I saw was the Iowa receiver being held/hit before the tip ball.
Edit: couple of others answered and I didn't see their post. Sorry.
And no, I wasn't one of the officials on Saturday.
Adam
Well-Known Member
The worst part for me was that Easley took a helmet to the earhole that knocked him unconscious for a second. You can tell by the way his arms fall to his side all limp like. He proceeds to face plant in a triangular shape in the end zone before a defender jumps on him and flattens him out. So the fumble should have been null and void since it was the result of illegal head to head contact. I have watched it about 15 times in slow motion and I am convinced.
deanvogs
Well-Known Member
You can't try to merge two different views. IE you need clear visual evidence on the one view you are looking at. You can't say from one view you see the fumble started as soon as he was hit, but in that view can't determine if that was before or after the goal line. Then in another view see that he was hit before the goal line, but can't tell if the ball is loose in that view.
Both have to be clear in one view to determine if he fumbled. I am betting that they had a view that wasn't shown.
mrolympia
Well-Known Member
it was probably put in place to prevent 4th and goal "fumbles" in close games with not a lot of time left. Regardless common sense should be offense's ball at the spot of the fumble but common sense and football don't go hand in hand, much like the TE covered up at the LOS rule.
proudhawkfan21
Well-Known Member
Offense is supposed to take care of the football. If you possess the football and you run or kick it or fumble it, its yours to recover or if you dont or it goes ob...its no longer yours. Tis the way it is now, and the way it always has been....forward pass is the only exception. Hang onto it!
ClintonIAfan
Well-Known Member
The bast view to see that he's still controlling it is at :26. Any part of the ball only has to cross the vertical plane going directly upward from the front of of the white line. You can see that the ball is still in has left arm as it crosses that plane.
If the big 10 conference has an angle that they looked at that was not shown to the public they owe it to us to release it. Otherwise they will remain under scrutiny.
If the big 10 conference has an angle that they looked at that was not shown to the public they owe it to us to release it. Otherwise they will remain under scrutiny.
