|
Replies: 14
| visibility 3,361
|
Standout [323]
TigerPulse: 89%
Posts: 582
Joined: 8/30/08
|
|
|
|
 |
Athletic Dir [895]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 455
Joined: 1/5/11
|
Re: Fake punt illegal lineman rule
Dec 4, 2016, 11:18 PM
|
|
I think they reviewed it to see where the ball was when touched instead of viewing a lineman downfield.
Refs make it all up as they go along anyway. Think they actually remember everything in that rule book.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Commissioner [933]
TigerPulse: 97%
Posts: 1545
Joined: 6/4/12
|
Re: Fake punt illegal lineman rule
Dec 4, 2016, 11:25 PM
|
|
Yea the lineman downfield is not reviewable...
Even still they didn't have indisputable evidence to overturn as there was not an appropriate camera angle to determine where the player was exactly. Shoulda been cu ball.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [17773]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 16662
Joined: 9/1/12
|
Re: Fake punt illegal lineman rule
Dec 4, 2016, 11:32 PM
|
|
I'm fine with it. After all, Hokies got hosed on a couple of calls. One that comes top of mind is the PI they were called for where the ball was 100% uncatchable - either first or second PI of game. Regardless, it was third down and we ended up scoring a TD so it somewhat balanced out. And yes, I have the game on DVR and there is no question that it was uncatchable
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [57054]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 39676
Joined: 11/26/03
|
uncatchable because it was too far out of bounds or because
Dec 4, 2016, 11:46 PM
|
|
he was held so much he was no where near where he was supposed to be?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Athletic Dir [895]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 455
Joined: 1/5/11
|
Re: uncatchable because it was too far out of bounds or because
Dec 5, 2016, 6:41 AM
|
|
uncatchable because it was 10 ft above Leggett's head even after he jumped.
If he was being held it would've been a defensive holding call instead of a PI call.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [40925]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 42941
Joined: 11/30/98
|
what if he was 5 more yards down field when he jumped?***
Dec 5, 2016, 7:36 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2862]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 2698
Joined: 10/29/03
|
Re: Fake punt illegal lineman rule
Dec 5, 2016, 7:29 AM
[ in reply to Re: Fake punt illegal lineman rule ] |
|
The camera angle was not an issue.... You could see where his feet were touching the ground and, unless his arm was 8 ft long, he touched it behind the line. I don't know why the commentators couldn't see the obvious.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2574]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 2059
Joined: 7/17/13
|
Ill have to go find it again, I feel like it was closer that***
Dec 5, 2016, 8:10 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Standout [323]
TigerPulse: 89%
Posts: 582
Joined: 8/30/08
|
Re: Fake punt illegal lineman rule
Dec 4, 2016, 11:33 PM
[ in reply to Re: Fake punt illegal lineman rule ] |
|
The rule says the pass can't cross the neutral zone. The ball is a catch when possessed by a player that has the ball firmly in his grasp by holding or controlling it while contacting the ground inbounds. The pass was touched right at the neutral zone but it was not a catch until he crossed the neutral zone.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [15913]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 7797
Joined: 11/15/09
|
Refs did a good job Sat night. It was right to review for the right reason
Dec 5, 2016, 7:23 AM
[ in reply to Re: Fake punt illegal lineman rule ] |
|
and they made they right call. PIs were called correctly, targeting on Dorian was correct, plays were reviewed and made right.
The play was about where the ball was touched, which is reviewable (like you stated), and the call was right. Good for them to make the call and then to review it to make sure they had it. No flag means no review.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [10489]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 7757
Joined: 12/5/15
|
Re: Fake punt illegal lineman rule
Dec 4, 2016, 11:33 PM
|
|
Completely see what you are saying. Here's how I saw and heard it on TV.
Illegal lineman downfield was the call on the field. That is not reviewable per the rule you just posted. However, according to the commentators, if the pass was received (and received means the instant it was touched, not when it was secured) behind the line of scrimmage, then the lineman is not downfield illegally
According to the commentators, the positioning of the ball IS reviewable. Replay showed the receiver touched the ball something like 1/2 a yard behind the line of scrimmage. They got lucky, it was barely legal and the camera had the perfect angle to show it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [10631]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 9261
Joined: 12/29/06
|
I could not find the rule that confirmed a "catch" in that
Dec 4, 2016, 11:57 PM
|
|
situation was determined where the ball was touched rather than when the ball was secured. It certainly is different when a player is going out of bounds where he has to have secured it before crossing the boundary.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [53]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Re: Fake punt illegal lineman rule
Dec 5, 2016, 12:11 AM
[ in reply to Re: Fake punt illegal lineman rule ] |
|
"...and the camera had the perfect angle to show it. " If that's the case, then your eyes are way better than mine have ever been. I watched it numerous times, and I never saw an angle that could actually confirm - so the play call should stand IMO.
Or - are you saying that the refs had more camera angles than the TV has? I cannot argue that if there are additional cameras all around the field and right down that yard line, then you could be right about that angle thingy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [10631]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 9261
Joined: 12/29/06
|
I'm not disagreeing with you, but could you show me the rule
Dec 5, 2016, 8:47 AM
[ in reply to Re: Fake punt illegal lineman rule ] |
|
where it states that if the ball is touched (and not possessed) behind the neutral zone that a lineman can be downfield. I could not find it n the rules or rulings.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 14
| visibility 3,361
|
|
|
50
