ferentz4life
Well-Known Member
Just wondering about this. Under the new rule, and assuming the celebration was the same, would McNutts TD be erased?
New celebration rule-does Iowa lose v. MSU in 09???
- Thread starter ferentz4life
- Start date
Hawkfromnorwalk
Well-Known Member
No because from what I have read of the rule is that it only applies when you begin celebrating before the goal line, like high stepping, or pointing to the crowd before you cross the line or diving unnecessarily for the goal line.
ShadasRevenge
Well-Known Member
Correct; there was no taunting.
ColumbusHawk
Well-Known Member
Also, time had expired.
tm3308
Well-Known Member
This. This is why I don't understand all the outrage over taking points off the board. As long as you're not a dumba** BEFORE you get into the endzone, the TD still stands.
DexterMorgan
Well-Known Member
I'm sorry but if a dude points into the stands as he's about to cross the goal line it's complete crap to not allow the touchdown. How is that not having a gigantic effect on the game for such a minuscule penalty.
hawkeyescott
Well-Known Member
This, the celebration happened after the game was over.
tm3308
Well-Known Member
Pointing to the stands is the only one that I would disagree with. High-stepping, showing the ball to the defense, etc. is all garbage that we can all easily live without and still have fun.
okeefe4prez
Well-Known Member
No, the game was not over. After a TD, a team must attempt the conversion.
Did we attempt one in the Capital One Bowl?
The rule is stupid. We've already seen where refs made bad "regular" celebration calls. The intent is nice, but will fail horribly in most cases. Just my opinion. I doubt we (Iowa)see the effects of it at all or too much, but we will see how much worse it makes the game this year.
Prediction: A 1 year rule, and rightfully so.
No need to add a celebration rule onto the celebration rule that already had issues.
Prediction: A 1 year rule, and rightfully so.
No need to add a celebration rule onto the celebration rule that already had issues.
Hawkfromnorwalk
Well-Known Member
No because we beat LSU by more than two. So the point after attempt was not needed. With MSU, because at the time we were only up by two, we had to make the attempt, only because if they blocked the kick and ran it back they could potentially tie the game.
tm3308
Well-Known Member
You only have to attempt the PAT if it makes a difference. At MSU, had they blocked the kick and ran it back, it would have been a tie game. In the CapOne Bowl, LSU had no chance to tie or win the game in that event.
Regardless, if a penalty HAD been called at MSU, play was dead, and it would have been a 15 yard penalty on the PAT. Which means Stanzi would have taken a knee at the 18 instead of the 3. Irrelevant.
tm3308
Well-Known Member
Re: I think you are wrong, Hawkfromnorwalk.
That's still a 15-yard penalty. But the TD on that play still counted.
If you get flagged AFTER you score, it's no different that it's always been: 15-yard penalty on the PAT.
If you get flagged BEFORE you score, it's a live-ball foul, and the penalty is taken from the spot of the foul.
That's still a 15-yard penalty. But the TD on that play still counted.
If you get flagged AFTER you score, it's no different that it's always been: 15-yard penalty on the PAT.
If you get flagged BEFORE you score, it's a live-ball foul, and the penalty is taken from the spot of the foul.
ColumbusHawk
Well-Known Member
You slob, after a TD, a team doesn't have to attempt the conversion. You don't even know the rules. In the Outback Bowl Iowa did not attempt a conversion against LSU.
Notice that a year earlier Iowa was penalized against Penn State for the celebration after Murray's kick. The reason no penalty was called against MSU was because the game had ended. It was no different than everybody storming the field after Houghtlin's kick.
As an ignorant Northwestern troll, you probably don't even know why Iowa had to attempt the conversion.
Northwestern, the only Big Ten team to not have won a bowl game since WW II. Your are such an obnoxious fool. I wish, just once, you would post something halfway intelligent.
hawkfan340
Well-Known Member
This thread makes me want to go all Coker thread: BASIC FOOTBALL KNOWLEDGE
tm3308
Well-Known Member
But in this case it wouldn't work. OK4P is the antagonist in this thread, but he's the one who's wrong. Nobody would stick up for him like we did for WhitUp in the Coker Thread.
storminspank
Justin VanLaere
This rule is stupid and it's going to be very controversial.
storminspank
Justin VanLaere
Settle down.
