Laporta's overturned catch

[JoeyLabasForPresident]

It's not clear enough to overturn. I agree that it probably wasn't a catch but his hand is under the ball so I still disagree that they had conclusive evidence to overturn the call.

This, you’d need a camera an inch off the ground with just the right angle under his body to actually tell whether the ball touched the ground. The angle wasn’t there to definitively overturn. I think we all agree that it likely wasn’t a catch, but the angle wasn’t there to overturn the call on the field.

 

[smitharooney]

They have angles that you don’t in your living room and they aren’t homers...you realize that...right? Plus, it hits the ground

The ball can hit the ground if you have control with your hands

 

[ssckelley]

They have angles that you don’t in your living room and they aren’t homers...you realize that...right? Plus, it hits the ground

You have proof of this? I know they have extra cameras in baseball, that’s because they have more than one telecast televising the game. But I’ve never heard any announcer say they have extra camera angles in college football.

 

[LGEND24]

They have angles that you don’t in your living room and they aren’t homers...you realize that...right? Plus, it hits the ground

No, they don't.

 

[dahlhawk]

No angle we saw could have overturned the call, again whether the pass was caught or not you have to confine your calls on the criteria that the conference has set up, "indesputable evidence".
That replay was an overstep, a judgement call. Replay is not supposed to do that.

 

[uihawk82]

IMO, the view from the endzone showed that he didn't have control of the ball and the ball moved when it hit the ground.

The endzone replay from behind Iowa's LOS showed the ball probably touching the ground but they had an endzone shot from the other end and that one showed what was his hand still under the ball.

That to me made it inclusive. It didnt matter except to take away a really good coach

 

[uihawk82]

Who cares. Bottom line is he should have caught it in a manner that left no doubt. He had to essentially double catch it anyway. Catch it the first time and it is a big play. Way too many dropped passes yesterday

I am almost sure the defensive back scraped and grabbed his left arm to knock the ball loose so give Laporta a break that he had the catch got it knocked away then regathered it and almost pulled it in.

 

[zellchiro]

No, they don't.

Yes they do. Officials have routinely come out and stated that the replay booth has more cameras and angles than the tv audience. They have had to explain this to coaches as well. Not always. But in most instances they do. That is why you see what looks like obvious calls either overturned or confirmed when it looks to be the contrary. I have heard that from numerous coaches and talking heads.

 

[1hawkeye1]

Catch or no catch, just make a GD call! That review took an eternity, and if I recall correctly, didn't they come out of that review session and then delay the game some more trying to figure out only God knows what?
I remember when they used to call it "instant replay". Well, instant replay has ruined what used to be a fast moving game. It's now been ground to a halt while these officials examine every bit of minutia possible.

I say scrap the replays, make a call, and lets move on with our lives. Yes, sometimes you'll get screwed. But even with replay, you still get screwed. There was not enough evidence in those replays to definitively over rule the call on the field.

/end Monday morning rant.

 

[ssckelley]

Yes they do. Officials have routinely come out and stated that the replay booth has more cameras and angles than the tv audience. They have had to explain this to coaches as well. Not always. But in most instances they do. That is why you see what looks like obvious calls either overturned or confirmed when it looks to be the contrary. I have heard that from numerous coaches and talking heads.

Actually they don't you are thinking NFL and/or MLB where they have extra cameras set up or have multiple broadcasts covering the game. Big Ten, MAC, and SEC only allowed broadcast video (for games that are televised) to be used to determine the correct call (per Wiki).

Show me evidence that says otherwise.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replay_review_in_gridiron_football

 

[HawkeyeDenis]

We've been waiting all season for a TE to step up and even tho that was a no catch it was important. He was open and a threat down the middle. He could be big threat in the last half of the season. Now defenses can't just focus on the wide outs. Now there's a middle threat.

 

[hawkeyebob62]

Yet...when you do have a clear view, sometimes they call it a catch. Take Ski-Ron-nic's catch in last year's Iowa -NW game. The ball rolled around on the ground, he kicked it a few times, rubbed his balls with one hand, and still got the catch.

I just don't get the Big Ten officiating. It's freaking terrible. I'm watching Nebraska and Indiana yesterday and Indiana throws a ball to the end zone...the official right on the play...i mean two feet from the play makes a no call...the Nebraska defender was holding him from the 5 yard line yet the official from the other side of the field threw the flag because it was so obvious. I'm watching that thinking...this dude is trying to keep Nebraska in the game.

Michigan mugged our receivers. Penn State got away with murder against Michigan. They need replay...on pass interference in my opinion.

They needed replay on that atrocious "false start" against Purdue, as well.

It amazes me that they can overturn a targeting call where a guy actually gets injured, but they can't wave off an obvious PI, false start or encroachment, or other penalty that is easily reviewed.

 

[JoeyLabasForPresident]

They needed replay on that atrocious "false start" against Purdue, as well.

It amazes me that they can overturn a targeting call where a guy actually gets injured, but they can't wave off an obvious PI, false start or encroachment, or other penalty that is easily reviewed.

Agreed, especially when those penalties in particular are ones that the refs don’t need to review film for more than ten or fifteen seconds to get it right. Barely any stoppage in play for the right call? Fine by me. When we get north of two minutes is where I get annoyed. I’d personally like to see a timer for reviews. If a call is so close that it take more than two minutes, or whatever predetermined amount, let the call stand as called and move on.

 

[hawkeyebob62]

Agreed, especially when those penalties in particular are ones that the refs don’t need to review film for more than ten or fifteen seconds to get it right. Barely any stoppage in play for the right call? Fine by me. When we get north of two minutes is where I get annoyed. I’d personally like to see a timer for reviews. If a call is so close that it take more than two minutes, or whatever predetermined amount, let the call stand as called and move on.

Didn't the NFL have a time limit on reviews, initially?

The other thing that is stupid is the idea a team can "hurry up", and snap the ball to avoid a review. If the booth needs to review, halt play. Period.

 

[JoeyLabasForPresident]

Didn't the NFL have a time limit on reviews, initially?

Apparently a timer of 90 seconds was suggested initially, but never approved:

“A new system was approved for testing in 10 preseason games in 1996. Coaches could challenge rulings on the field and replay now covered three categories of plays: out of bounds, number of players on the field and scoring plays.

Each coach could challenge three plays per half — at the cost of a timeout per review. The league went away from the old version of replay officials in skyboxes and gave referees the authority to review plays on the field inside a booth equipped with monitors. And referees now had only 90 seconds to make their ruling.

Despite the changes, owners voted against implementation for the 1997 regular season. The main hang-up centered on each review costing teams a timeout, even when a challenge was successful.”

And then these rules, which I don’t think have been altered since except the number of challenges, other than the new challenge rule this season and different definitions for PI, etc., were approved for the 1999 season:

“To minimize delays, the league cut the number of challenges from three to two per half.

Coaches, unwilling to trade a timeout for any review, would now be charged a timeout only for unsuccessful challenges.

And so coaches could focus at the end of each half on which plays to call and not which calls to challenge — a replay assistant initiated all reviews inside the final two minutes of each half.

https://operations.nfl.com/the-game/history-of-instant-replay/

The other thing that is stupid is the idea a team can "hurry up", and snap the ball to avoid a review. If the booth needs to review, halt play. Period.

I was pleased to see the refs stop play right after the ball was snapped in the Cleveland vs. New England game last night to adjust the spot of the ball on fourth down. Just get it right.

 

[N8theGr8]

Was at the game so I didn't get to see TV replay, but can say there was a ref who was trying to signal incomplete the entire time. And I think they went with what he thought he saw plus the video evidence of the bobble, which isn't supposed to be how it works, but I guess is understandable.

I obviously wasn't as close as the refs, but I was in the first row of the south endzone and had a darn near straight on look at it and I'm almost positive he cradled it. Everyone around me, hawks and wildcats alike, thought it was a catch.

 

[uihawk82]

They needed replay on that atrocious "false start" against Purdue, as well.

It amazes me that they can overturn a targeting call where a guy actually gets injured, but they can't wave off an obvious PI, false start or encroachment, or other penalty that is easily reviewed.

The NFL is and will try to stay away from replay on many judgement calls. Their game are so long now and it is hard to watch all the stoppages.

If the college game goes to more replays it will turn off some fans. Keep the college reviews as they are and I dont know how many challenges a coach gets but I think it is 1. I would give each coach 2 challenges so they can review a play like that false start in the Purdue game which let a wide lead and a game that was over get tighter and tighter.

Reviewing that PUrdue false start would give the head referee a chance to ask the official who threw the flag and made the call what he saw. Then look at it on replay.

Right now the replays cover a wide range of judgement calls on whether a whistle has been blown, a ball was fumbled, a knee was down, etc. I actually think PI calls would be easier to call with some replay :

But so far the NFL has not changed many challenges to PI calls. Hardly any

 

[Hawkeyes5]

Of course it did. Your whole purpose on this board is to be contrary.

I have to agree....we are biased but it did hit the ground. Let's focus on Wisky dicks and applaud the young and bright future of Mr. LaPorta!

 

[SteveGarvey1]

The deal is, some replay refs need actual 100% video evidence to overturn a call,while others use a rationale that it probably should be overturned because, like in this case, it probably most likely hit the ground and therefore it should be called. There's no consensus within refereeing right now which standard to use. Pardon the pun but they keep moving the goalposts.

 

[MelroseHawkins]

I'm just glad that Iowa found a TE that can effectively go down the middle.