|
Replies: 8
| visibility 1
|
Head Coach [753]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 491
Joined: 10/27/16
|
Catch-Fumble-Incomplete in ND Game
Dec 30, 2019, 8:26 AM
|
|
Weren't we on the other side of a "fumbled reception" ruled an incomplete pass in the Notre Dame game last year?
I seem to recall the same ruling that even though the receiver had taken two or three steps, he still hadn't controlled the ball through a "football move" in order to secure it as a catch. Granted, that play wasn't as momentous as the one on Saturday, but it sure seemed like they used the same ruling.
|
|
|
|
 |
Scout Team [164]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 73
Joined: 7/24/09
|
Re: Catch-Fumble-Incomplete in ND Game
Dec 30, 2019, 8:28 AM
|
|
Are you referring to the play where the Clemson defender took the ball away from the ND receiver while going to the ground? Other than that, I don't recall another instance.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Head Coach [753]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 491
Joined: 10/27/16
|
Re: Catch-Fumble-Incomplete in ND Game
Dec 30, 2019, 8:33 AM
|
|
This was a crossing route over the middle. I think third quarter, but not sure.
I'm not talking about the strip near the sideline where they ruled it wasn't a take away because forward progress had stopped if that's the one you're referring to.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Scout Team [164]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 73
Joined: 7/24/09
|
Re: Catch-Fumble-Incomplete in ND Game
Dec 30, 2019, 8:59 AM
|
|
Just went back and watched it. It is at the 5:56 mark in the 2nd quarter. Yes, that is basically the same scenario as the J Ross incomplete pass. The receiver never completed the process of a "catch".
|
|
|
|
|
|
Head Coach [753]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 491
Joined: 10/27/16
|
Re: Catch-Fumble-Incomplete in ND Game
Dec 30, 2019, 9:15 AM
|
|
Thanks. I thought it was kind of a squirrelly call then, but at least it's consistently squirrelly which is about all you can ask for.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [23095]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 19801
Joined: 1/15/11
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [6582]
TigerPulse: 95%
Posts: 8157
Joined: 1/2/00
|
lol replay expert guy said same thing verbatim as he did
Dec 30, 2019, 10:27 AM
|
|
for OSU game
|
|
|
|
|
|
Associate AD [828]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 1066
Joined: 9/6/15
|
Start at 1:08 - almost identical to Ross’ - “you can slow it
Dec 30, 2019, 10:39 AM
[ in reply to Re: Catch-Fumble-Incomplete in ND Game ] |
|
down all you want but no move common to the game. . . “
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [7448]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 15387
Joined: 2/2/01
|
Bottomline is the reply officials wasted little time in
Dec 30, 2019, 1:01 PM
|
|
reversing- it was obvious to them based on the rule and how they are trained to apply it that it wasn't that hard of a call for them. Same with the ESPN expert- he didn't need to see other angles etc., he was definitive on his opinion that it should be reversed. 1)Most fans don't understand or know the rule 2) The rule has made things overly complicated in my opinion. Its like the tuck rule, etc. you try to solve a few bad instances by a rule change and you open the door to more. It was the correct call to reverse it, but I wish they would just go back to the old rules. Things like 1 foot down with possession(no bobble), ground can cause incompletion, etc- it was simpler to understand and enforce IMO. Also, I don't really like the fact on a continuation type play(refs are taught to let it go and not blow whistle) that that becomes what replay has to then have indisputable evidence to overturn. I would prefer they let it go but then huddle on what they believe call is prior to going to replay. I think had they done that then this one may have gone to replay as incomplete to start with. Replay would have then confirmed it vs. overturning.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 8
| visibility 1
|
|
|
50
