|
Replies: 25
| visibility 102
|
Orange Immortal [64964]
TigerPulse: 100%
60
Posts: 49111
Joined: 2000
|
Re: Ross catch/no catch. . .
Dec 30, 2019, 2:47 PM
|
|
A few weeks ago when Tee Higgins made the amazing tip-toe sideline catch, did he make a "football move"?
|
|
|
|
 |
Clemson Icon [24063]
TigerPulse: 100%
54
Posts: 20306
Joined: 2011
|
Didn't he complete the catch thru
Dec 30, 2019, 2:51 PM
|
|
going down ?????? If he had lost the ball,it would have been a no catch.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Phenom [14990]
TigerPulse: 82%
49
Posts: 23439
Joined: 1998
|
Re: Ross catch/no catch. . .
Dec 30, 2019, 2:54 PM
|
|
IT DOES NOT MATTER WHAT I THINK OR YOU THINK OR ANYONE ELSE THINKS. THE PLAY WAS REVIEWED IN THE BOOTH AND RULED A NO CATCH AND ALSO THE REF WITH THE TV CREW SAID IT WAS NO CATCH. SO GUESS WHAT, IT WAS NO CATCH. WHY BEAT IT IN THE DIRT.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heisman Winner [78232]
TigerPulse: 100%
62
Posts: 120100
Joined: 1998
|
Re: Ross catch/no catch. . .
Dec 30, 2019, 2:58 PM
|
|
it was interesting the tv ref at the time also said it was not a catch.
|
|
|
|
|
|
TigerNet Elite [76814]
TigerPulse: 100%
61
Posts: 43748
Joined: 2004
|
Re: Ross catch/no catch. . .
Dec 30, 2019, 2:59 PM
|
|
that guy got all the calls correct.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heisman Winner [78232]
TigerPulse: 100%
62
Posts: 120100
Joined: 1998
|
Re: Ross catch/no catch. . .
Dec 30, 2019, 3:16 PM
|
|
yep and almost immediately. it didnt take him dinking around for 5 minutes
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Immortal [64964]
TigerPulse: 100%
60
Posts: 49111
Joined: 2000
|
Re: Ross catch/no catch. . .
Dec 30, 2019, 3:14 PM
[ in reply to Re: Ross catch/no catch. . . ] |
|
Good Lord dude, who licked the all of the red off of your candy? You don't even know what I am talking about.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Associate AD [1051]
TigerPulse: 91%
25
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clemson Icon [24425]
TigerPulse: 100%
54
Posts: 14450
Joined: 2013
|
Caps lock warranted on that one.
Dec 30, 2019, 4:29 PM
[ in reply to Re: Ross catch/no catch. . . ] |
|
Can’t always says that with ya, but I like it here. Well said.
~JKB
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5249]
TigerPulse: 100%
38
|
People seem to confuse a few things
Dec 30, 2019, 2:55 PM
|
|
(not necessarily saying you, ST)
Being down
Being in-bounds
Possession of the ball
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Immortal [64964]
TigerPulse: 100%
60
Posts: 49111
Joined: 2000
|
Thanks - that answers my question. ***
Dec 30, 2019, 3:18 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Team Captain [459]
TigerPulse: 56%
18
|
Re: Ross catch/no catch. . .
Dec 30, 2019, 3:18 PM
|
|
That was probably the first Clemson game I’ve ever watched where I felt Clemson got the obvious good calls and the other team got screwed on a couple. The more I watch the targeting, the more I think it was unavoidable and if TL hadn’t been hurt, the call likely wouldn’t have been made.
The Dobbins TD catch was very 50/50, but I understand the call (and glad that went our way)
The fumble in my opinion was absolutely the wrong call. Was called a catch on the field and then revered during review witch the more you watch it, the more it looks like a catch. He had full possession for 3-4 steps. To be fair, we’d be losing our minds if this call had been made against us or if the exact play was in the end zone and they took points off the board for us. That’s a fact.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Team Captain [459]
TigerPulse: 56%
18
|
Re: Ross catch/no catch. . .
Dec 30, 2019, 3:26 PM
|
|
Also let me say, when I say the targeting was unavoidable, I just mean it was a football play. Any player or team would take that opportunity if given the chance. I don’t think he was trying to kill him like some here. By rule it was targeting and they made the right call for sure.
|
|
|
|
|
|
1st Rounder [674]
TigerPulse: 100%
21
|
Re: Ross catch/no catch. . .
Dec 30, 2019, 3:36 PM
|
|
Ha. Was about to say the targeting call is the one I don’t understand them losing their mind over. I don’t like the rule as it’s written, but buckeyes keep trying to pretend there is all these exemptions to the rule that simply aren’t there. The rule doesn’t have any nuance. You drop your head and attack with the crown of your helmet, it’s targeting. Doesn’t matter whether Trevor drops his head or how fast the play was.
But they are going all Deep State and acting like this is a new rule. These players have played their whole career with this rule in place. They know to see what you hit. If he picks his head, he still blasts Trevor and it’s a no call.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rival Killer [2951]
TigerPulse: 100%
33
|
Re: Ross catch/no catch. . .
Dec 30, 2019, 3:51 PM
[ in reply to Re: Ross catch/no catch. . . ] |
|
My first thought on the Ross pass was that it was incomplete. He did not complete or secure the catch. The targeting was obvious and intent or unavoidable don't negate that. Dobbins did not complete the catch as the ball hit the ground and was never secured. I could see the Ross call going the other way but I think they made the correct call.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [6166]
TigerPulse: 100%
40
|
“Unavoidable” has nothing to do with it. Leading with head
Dec 30, 2019, 4:00 PM
[ in reply to Re: Ross catch/no catch. . . ] |
|
Leading with your head like that is always avoidable ... and always a foul.
The only call that was the slightest bit debatable was the catch/fumble which could have gone either way.
But, (as others have pointed out) had it been ruled a catch that was then fumbled out of bounds, the OSU fans would be swearing it was incomplete.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2433]
TigerPulse: 76%
32
|
I disagree on two of three
Dec 30, 2019, 3:38 PM
[ in reply to Re: Ross catch/no catch. . . ] |
|
The targeting — the OSU player attacked with the crown of the helmet and that is the definition of targeting . Yeah TL lowered his body but the foul was on the crown of the helmet And You can see that clearly.
The 50-50 reception: he has to complete the catch all the way to ground and he clearly did not. Unlike a RB , the ground cannot cause a fumble , a receiver needs to come down cleanly and all the way down to the ground.
On the fumble retuned to a touch down- I don’t know why the booth reversed the call because what you said is true and I would like to hear from these guys on that call.
Also , note that OSU was holding all day and there was a swing of the arm on TL that should have been called and potentially a 15 yard run and addition ejection is a possibility .
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [43130]
TigerPulse: 100%
57
Posts: 43555
Joined: 1998
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rival Killer [2867]
TigerPulse: 100%
33
|
You are disregarding something important
Dec 30, 2019, 3:53 PM
[ in reply to Re: Ross catch/no catch. . . ] |
|
The player was coming back for the ball with a defender immediately driving him back. Those 3-4 steps are not the same as a player moving forward or laterally or voluntarily. The defender controlled his movement as well as his attempt to control the ball. Had Ross managed to gain body control and try and stop, turn, run straight away, go down, or any other football move before losing the ball, the catch would have been completed. He never did. Had he kept control of the ball, forward progress would have put it back where he first caught it. Why? Because the defender was controlling his backward movement.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dynasty Maker [3159]
TigerPulse: 100%
34
|
How is the Dobbins TD play a ‘50/50’ play?...
Dec 30, 2019, 5:31 PM
[ in reply to Re: Ross catch/no catch. . . ] |
|
That is incomplete every time.
And the other call is fine.
No need to fall for the media narrative and whatever the Ohio St AD and their whining coach says.
The calls were correct.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Recruit [76]
TigerPulse: 25%
8
|
Re: Ross catch/no catch. . .
Dec 30, 2019, 3:48 PM
|
|
A few weeks ago when Tee Higgins made the amazing tip-toe sideline catch, did he make a "football move"?
Let’s say it was a catch. His forward progress was stopped by the defensive back so the play would have been blown dead anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Immortal [64964]
TigerPulse: 100%
60
Posts: 49111
Joined: 2000
|
I've heard that brought up - makes sense. Tough call
Dec 30, 2019, 4:00 PM
|
|
for the refs, but I think they got it right after all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [3822]
TigerPulse: 100%
35
|
Re: I've heard that brought up - makes sense. Tough call
Dec 30, 2019, 4:08 PM
|
|
The test is if the same catch loss of the ball had occurred in the endzone would it have been called a TD? NO! We have had catches taken away in those cases. Jabe to control the ball to the ground or make a football move not kust feet on the ground. Just because you havent seen it called doesnt mean it's not right. Like the hand being down!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Valley Legend [12594]
TigerPulse: 100%
47
Posts: 10328
Joined: 2006
|
Re: Ross catch/no catch. . .
Dec 30, 2019, 4:20 PM
|
|
ST - the reason the ref made a point of saying they reviewed it slow motion and full speed was not evident to everyone at the time. The reason is that in slow motion it looks like he had time to make a football move. In real time it was obvious that he did not have time to make a football move. We keep hearing about how many steps he took, but the NCAA rules say nothing about the number of steps required.
Bottom lie ..... no catch!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Asst Coach [725]
TigerPulse: 99%
22
|
Re: Ross catch/no catch. . .
Dec 30, 2019, 5:00 PM
|
|
There were a lot of calls that were missed, or just not called, on both side of the ball. Thanks targeting call was correct and there is no way around that. Period. The guy dipped his head and led with the crown of his helmet and it was helmet to helmet contact. That's text book targeting.
The no-catch and no fumble call on Ross was strange and it could have went the other way. The way I looked at it though, was that it was a catch by Ross. Yet Ross was being pushed backwards and his forward momentum had been stopped before the ball was stripped. When it was slowed down, you can see this.
Im not going to sit here and lie though, if it had been ruled a catch and a fumble, I would have been irrate. His forward progress was nullified and the rule states that once a players forward progress is stopped, the ball is dead at that point. Which was before the ball was stripped
OSU fans can cry a river to the moon and back about that call, but the fact remains that it was broken down and reviewed by the replay booth. As much as it pains the OSU fans, the call was made the right way.
Now onto a non-call that nobody is talking about. I mean, nobody. I've watched the game about 6 or 7 times now. Maybe more, but who's counting? On the first possession for Clemson, Chase Young jumps offsides and Trevor throws up a long pass to Tee because of it being a free play. This is the play which Tee had his helmet knocked off and was hit in the head, forcing Tee out of the game for the rest of the half.
If you break down that play, frame by frame in slow motion, you will see that Tee had both arms extended, above his head, but yet not close to his head. He had the ball with both hands and his arms extended up and out from his head. The safety who came over to help Okuda swiped the ball out of Tee's hands as he was jumping over the top of an fully extended Tee Higgins.
Now Okuda on the other hand, he went straight for Tee's head with both hands and that is when Tee had his helmet knocked off. Okuda punched Tee's helmet with both hands. Okuda wasn't playing the ball. He was going straight for Tee's head. Illegal hands to the face? Personal foul? Nothing??
Point is this, OSU fans can sit around and make up whatever story which suits their agenda. Yet so can we, or me, or I? Nevertheless, it's all a moot point. Clemson is getting ready for a national title defense and OSU fans are making no sense. They are like Mark Rogers TV and sitting at home making up excuses by the dozens. I actually feel sorry for them...no heck I don't...haha
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [10134]
TigerPulse: 100%
45
|
Re: Ross catch/no catch. . .
Dec 30, 2019, 5:02 PM
|
|
Last night in the San Francisco and Seahawks, the refs ruled an incomplete pass On the exactly same looking play.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 25
| visibility 102
|
|
|
50
