Questionable Call

BigD said:
Looks like he is indicating where they ball is heading to his team mates and measuring where he needs to go to catch the ball. That definitely isn’t a fair catch signal.
Click to expand...
The refs agree with you that it wasn't a 'fair catch signal'....it was "an INVALID fair catch signal". He may have been doing it inadvertantly, but he was 'waving' his left hand, and his purpose, intent, or non-intent doesn't matter. As the rule is written, the ball is dead when touched after he waves his hand at any level.
Agreed, stupid rule.
 
Grady said:
The refs agree with you that it wasn't a 'fair catch signal'....it was "an INVALID fair catch signal". He may have been doing it inadvertantly, but he was 'waving' his left hand, and his purpose, intent, or non-intent doesn't matter. As the rule is written, the ball is dead when touched after he waves his hand at any level.
Agreed, stupid rule.
Click to expand...
You are correct and I was already aware of the rule. I was just commenting on what he appeared to be doing. One of the issues here also is why didn’t the officials on the field whistle the play dead as soon as he started to advance the ball. Apparently some officials are not aware of all of the rules. This definitely needs to be addressed. What if our best player or other players would have gotten hurt on the return just because the Big Ten officials blew it?
 
Grady said:
The refs agree with you that it wasn't a 'fair catch signal'....it was "an INVALID fair catch signal". He may have been doing it inadvertantly, but he was 'waving' his left hand, and his purpose, intent, or non-intent doesn't matter. As the rule is written, the ball is dead when touched after he waves his hand at any level.
Agreed, stupid rule.
Click to expand...

I get the rule, but he is not waving his hand, rather his arm moves back a forth a couple times while he is running and pointing at the same time in order to help him cancel the angular momentum that the legs create when running. Should that count as a wave? The arm goes back and forth, but it was subtle enough that not a single person in that stadium thought a thing of it in real time. Does it make sense to look at it zoomed in, from above, in slo mo in order to call it a wave? Does that constitute indisputable evidence that what happened in real time is a wave?

Maybe it does, and it is just a lousy rule, but it might take another week or so before I am completely over this.
 
The point is simply that the call was a judgement call. And, the official made a poor judgment. He should be fired for being stupid.
 
dahlhawk said:
It was reviewable only because it was a scoring play.
Click to expand...
The reviewability of a scoring play has to go. Either make all plays reviewable (whether scoring or not) or do away with it. I'm not trying to say that I want all plays reviewed, but in this instance am I understanding correctly that if Cooper was tackled at the 1 (or at the 5) that the play would not have been automatically reviewable? I'm still butthurt over the call and have moved on, but to me that seems totally ridiculous.

There's a human element to sports and although we want the game to be called correctly I don't think replay was added for the purpose of breaking down a judgement call on a frame by frame basis. Whether a player is inbounds on a catch or whether a player breaks to goal line makes sense because it can be determined. What can't be determined is a judgement call in which an official doesn't blow a play dead, but then goes back to say that something occurred that could have possibly happened so he let it play out and went to review to be sure. I'm sorry but bullshit!!! If we're going to play by those rules then every play during the course of a game should be put under the same microscope and that is not the intent of the replay.
 
kicker22 said:
The reviewability of a scoring play has to go. Either make all plays reviewable (whether scoring or not) or do away with it. I'm not trying to say that I want all plays reviewed, but in this instance am I understanding correctly that if Cooper was tackled at the 1 (or at the 5) that the play would not have been automatically reviewable? I'm still butthurt over the call and have moved on, but to me that seems totally ridiculous.

There's a human element to sports and although we want the game to be called correctly I don't think replay was added for the purpose of breaking down a judgement call on a frame by frame basis. Whether a player is inbounds on a catch or whether a player breaks to goal line makes sense because it can be determined. What can't be determined is a judgement call in which an official doesn't blow a play dead, but then goes back to say that something occurred that could have possibly happened so he let it play out and went to review to be sure. I'm sorry but bullshit!!! If we're going to play by those rules then every play during the course of a game should be put under the same microscope and that is not the intent of the replay.
Click to expand...
Yup
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Share this page

Top