The oficials call on the Purdue last "no touchdown"

shonblatt said:
The front of the pylon is the plane of the end zone.

If the the ball is fumbled forward into the pylon (even from an angle), it's not possible that the ball was in the end zone before hitting the pylon.

If you can draw up a scenario where the ball was fumbled backward from the end zone into the front of the pylon, you will win the Nobel Prize for physics.
Click to expand...

You are absolutely correct from a physics standpoint. However, the rule is that if the ball hits the pylon, any side of the pylon, it's considered to be in the endzone or have gone through the endzone out of bounds - physics be darned. Perhaps an official on the board can cite the exact rule.
 
ssckelley said:
The plane and the pylon are one and the same. The ball was already out of his hand before it hit the pylon. The only question was if he was still in bounds or down before fumbling the ball, which replays clearly show his knees were not down and he was in bounds.
Click to expand...

I realize this, but the plane extends above the pylon and the ball was coming down, he fumbled, then hit the pylon. My original question was, was there enough evidence that the ball didn't break the plane ABOVE the pylon BEFORE he fumbled to overturn the call? I didn't think there was going to be, but I'm glad they thought there was.
 
99topdawg said:
I realize this, but the plane extends above the pylon and the ball was coming down, he fumbled, then hit the pylon. My original question was, was there enough evidence that the ball didn't break the plane ABOVE the pylon BEFORE he fumbled to overturn the call? I didn't think there was going to be, but I'm glad they thought there was.
Click to expand...

The ball was coming out before he got to the pylon, which is why it was a touch back. There is no way he had control of the ball anywhere near the plane of the goal. The only chance he had at a touchdown was hitting the pylon with control of the football.
 
This guy is making it harder than it needs to be. He fumbled it into the end zone. touchback. it was clear on the reply.
 
MisterWinky said:
This guy is making it harder than it needs to be. He fumbled it into the end zone. touchback. it was clear on the reply.
Click to expand...

Wow! I gave my initial concerns at the time of the play and I'm all of a sudden making it difficult? Was it clear enough to overturn that it didn't cross the plane before touching the pylon? There wasn't an angle shooting right down the goal line and the ball was coming down as he fumbled. That was my concern. Comprende?
 
ssckelley said:
The ball was coming out before he got to the pylon, which is why it was a touch back. There is no way he had control of the ball anywhere near the plane of the goal. The only chance he had at a touchdown was hitting the pylon with control of the football.
Click to expand...

Right, I was just afraid that the official was going to chicken out and just say that there wasn't conclusive evidence.
 
Forget about the pylon, it is just there to make the calls easier for the officials. Bottom Line... the runner fumbled the ball before breaking the plane of the endzone... the ball bounced into the endzone and out of bounds... touch back! It was made an easy call because of the pylon... which made in conclusive.... but even without a dang pylon... touchback!
 
papathawki said:
With most everyone, I think, as I watched the Official Review of the last Purdue touchdown I was satisfied that it was a touchdown. The phone rang and it was my son who is a college official. He said "it's a touchback, our ball on the 20". I said, what the Hell are you talking about? He said the ball was fumbled into the end-zone, touchback. I said "huh?" He said, just wait & you'll see. I've learned that complaining about officials by amateures like me is best left to the professionals.
Click to expand...

It was a great and gutsy call by the replay official. I thought it was a touchback the moment I saw the replay and texted my sister the same. Fun to be right once in a while. Think blind squirrel/ acorn kinda thing.
 
All I remember thinking, "could we actually get a break here at the end of a game"...where Steele Jantz doesn't throw a frozen rope with two guys chasing him on 3rd or 4th down, or Minnesota doesn't get just enough for the first down or...

seriously, it had been 7-8 of these types of games that we found a way to lose. I actually could breathe at that juncture.
 
The issue is the ball was fumbled into the end zone and out of bounds. In this case the ball goes to the other team. I remember a game where a Hawkeye punched the ball out of the runners hands at the 2 yard line and the ball went into the endzone and out the back. The ball belonged to the Hawks.
This was a lot better then worrying about a onside kick and Purdue going for the win.
 
99topdawg said:
Was it clear enough to overturn that it didn't cross the plane before touching the pylon? There wasn't an angle shooting right down the goal line and the ball was coming down as he fumbled. That was my concern. Comprende?
Click to expand...

Crossing the plane before touching the pylon is physically impossible, unless the ball was moving a) backwards, or b) straight down the face of the plane (perpendicular to the sideline).

Obviously neither was even close to true here.

I've seen an example or two of b) above, on side-to-side plays, ruled touchdowns.
 
shonblatt said:
The front of the pylon is the plane of the end zone.

If the the ball is fumbled forward into the pylon (even from an angle), it's not possible that the ball was in the end zone before hitting the pylon.

If you can draw up a scenario where the ball was fumbled backward from the end zone into the front of the pylon, you will win the Nobel Prize for physics.
Click to expand...

This is actually an awesome, awesome explanation. Nicely done! haha :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Share this page

Top