HuckFinn
Well-Known Member
Interesting post.
Questionable Call
- Thread starter Hawkman1961
- Start date
STILLBUSTER
Well-Known Member
Completely understand your state of mind ... Hawks and Hope are an eternal ebb and flow.
It's a completely Bull$h!t call that was outside the intent of the situation and a despicable violation of the spirit of the game. If this is how it's gonna be done, just extrapolate it to review every play and scrutinize for all possible literal and subjective (as this one is ABSOLUTELY subjective) infractions. Then, go back and change the game accordingly, and determine the winner from there? Why ... because the game is "SUPPOSED" to be determined on the field, in real time, not by digitally enhanced, after the fact review!!
Now, back to your post ... Iowa is still in the driver seat for the Pre-Big 20-ish West division title.
-- Wisconsin and Minny still have to get clubbed by Ohio State. Knocks Minny out and gives Iowa the tiebreaker over Wisconsin.
-- Debby the Red should lose at Wisconsin and, hopefully, to Maryland at home. Another loss before the host Hawks would be good insurance.
All Iowa needs to do is avoid more bed-wetting from the offense. It's a task but doable. Start with SIMPLY rushing the f-ing ball outside the tackles with all hands crash-blocking down, including that tank of a QB sticking his big-ass in there. Cripes!! Do that instead of 7 f-ing straight passes against Minny and it would've been a mid-range, game-winning field goal.
Yeah. To keep it in the football realm I think it's just more like retroactively reviewing a play for being out of bounds and then calling holding on it instead. Holding is totally subjective. And hence why it's not reviewable. Well for Fs sake so is what they tried to say what Cooper was doing. Cooper wasn't waving for a fair catch at all by any objective/subjective measure or not. So to retroactively call that is beyond insane and not logical.
I know I have to drop this, it is so stupid. But here is a biomechanics perspective:
Your legs moving forwards and backwards when you run creates a twisting effect on the rest of your body. You counter this by moving your arms in the opposite forward-back pattern. If you can only move one arm (because the other one is pointing), in order to counter the angular momentum created by the leg movement, you have to move that arm further from the body while it moves back and forth, increasing the moment of inertia of that arm in order to create more angular momentum. That is so obviously what is happening as you watch from this angle.
Your legs moving forwards and backwards when you run creates a twisting effect on the rest of your body. You counter this by moving your arms in the opposite forward-back pattern. If you can only move one arm (because the other one is pointing), in order to counter the angular momentum created by the leg movement, you have to move that arm further from the body while it moves back and forth, increasing the moment of inertia of that arm in order to create more angular momentum. That is so obviously what is happening as you watch from this angle.
SwirlinLingerie
Well-Known Member
Yep, me too. Part of it was the realization that as soon as the ball came back to midfield, Iowa only needed to go 20 yards in a minute and a half with a timeout. And with a great field goal kicker, the wind at their backs, and at home. And yet there was absolutely zero chance they could go 20 yards. Zero.
Then throw in the fact we had witnessed an amazing play, the kind of athletic feat paired with incredible instincts that rarely grace the Hawkeyes' roster. Yet we all knew there was also zero chance we'd see him in the effort to advance the ball 20 yards over those 90 seconds. Part of that sobering realization when the kick came back was that there'd been no resourcefulness or creativity in the past weeks of practice to incorporate a wildcat package with DeJean, or to handoff to him and see if he could make a guy miss, or to even throw him into motion as a decoy.
So yeah, all that makes it hard to dig into the nuances of valid vs. invalid fair catch fine print.
NCHawker
Well-Known Member
smile, have a cup of wilkins coffee
www.youtube.com
Wilkins Coffee - Wilkins and Wontkins (1957-1961, USA)
Two of Jim Henson's earliest Muppets in most of the gloriously sadistic commercials that persuade you to drink Wilkins Coffee or die. Wilkins and Wontkins wo...
www.youtube.com
thedukeofearl
Well-Known Member
Strangest Fair Catch you will ever see
The simple definition in the rule book states the arm has to be waved above the head for a fair catch signal. Makes sense.
What doesn't make sense is in another rule section defining in detail what constitutes an "invalid fair catch signal".
That's what caused this very subjective mess.
If you just have the simple definition of what IS a fair catch signal, there is no need to define what ISN'T -- anything that isn't a fair catch signal is NOT a fair catch signal, and therefore everything is 'live' unless the hand is waved above the head.
Can someone explain to me why that simple definition couldn't stand alone and be easily and fairly enforced?
What doesn't make sense is in another rule section defining in detail what constitutes an "invalid fair catch signal".
That's what caused this very subjective mess.
If you just have the simple definition of what IS a fair catch signal, there is no need to define what ISN'T -- anything that isn't a fair catch signal is NOT a fair catch signal, and therefore everything is 'live' unless the hand is waved above the head.
Can someone explain to me why that simple definition couldn't stand alone and be easily and fairly enforced?
okeefe4prez
Well-Known Member
I think it is intentionally vague to create a judgment call. Guy makes a fake fair catch sign, coverage pulls up, you can whistle it dead because the fake signal creates an unfair advantage for the return team. It's basically a "no dude, that's bullshit" way to stop a play. No one on that field thought DeJean signaled a fair catch and there is NO GOD DAMNED WAY THAT PLAY SHOULD HAVE BEEN CALLED DEAD. Man I'm still pissed.
And those are not reviewable as we all know... The only way they I'd have been ok with what happened being called is if they woulda called it at the time on the field and blew it dead then. It'd have still been wrong but that kind of thing happens. Refs blow plays dead they shouldn't on accident and is what it is. But since they didn't here I can't for the life of me understand how retroactively a subjective judgement call can be overturned in review.
kicker22
Well-Known Member
I've heard that as well, but I've also heard that it's not reviewable. So in the event both occurrences are true then we still absolutely got screwed.
kicker22
Well-Known Member
Not losing focus. Your right statistically we had zero right to win that game, but neither did Minnesota. Whether we had any business being in that game because of our offense or not, Minnesota flat out stole it with the help of the stripes.
dahlhawk
Well-Known Member
and those were just the successful ones that went for scores.
dahlhawk
Well-Known Member
It was reviewable only because it was a scoring play.
justwinbaby
Well-Known Member
If you decide that this was a fair catch then shouldn’t there be a penalty on the Minnesota player for immediately hitting Cooper? A fifteen yard penalty gives us the ball at the 39 with the wind at our back.
Actually, on a couple of those the return guys were pointing -- sometimes with both hands -- which is exactly what the rule book says you CAN do and still return the punt...those guys were well-coached. Some of the others there is no motion that indicates any fair catch signal at all, and the others are pretty unclear.
This would have been my question to the BTen and NCAA officials at their day-after presser. Problem is, nobody 'hit' him -- barely touched him. But the question should be, OK, if the ball was automatically dead, if Cooper WOULD have gotten tackled, would they have called a 15 yd unsportsmanlike on the defender? If they are honest, no way they would have done that.
HuckFinn
Well-Known Member
Science counts
