Replies: 21
| visibility 1
|
MVP [514]
TigerPulse: 92%
Posts: 447
Joined: 12/7/01
|
Nuk Non-Touchdown Question
Oct 22, 2012, 12:46 PM
|
|
Unbiased opinion please on Nuk's "Non Touchdown catch!" Was it a catch or not? At the game I thought so, and my super Clemson buddy next to me thought not. Just curious!
|
|
|
|
110%er [7980]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 22420
Joined: 2/27/02
|
no***
Oct 22, 2012, 12:46 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1838]
TigerPulse: 59%
Posts: 6249
Joined: 12/17/06
|
He broke the goal line with the ball - TD***
Oct 22, 2012, 12:46 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [7980]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 22420
Joined: 2/27/02
|
stop watching it in super slow motion
Oct 22, 2012, 12:52 PM
|
|
he never had it.
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [6790]
TigerPulse: 95%
Posts: 6480
Joined: 10/7/07
|
Looked like he made a "football move" to me.***
Oct 22, 2012, 12:47 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [52]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
My 2 cents.......not a TD***
Oct 22, 2012, 12:47 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [38514]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 47162
Joined: 10/28/02
|
Video would not have overturned the call on the field.
Oct 22, 2012, 12:49 PM
|
|
If it had been called a touchdown it probably would have stood.
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [6200]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 8852
Joined: 5/30/01
|
It depends on how you look at it...
Oct 22, 2012, 12:50 PM
|
|
In super-slo-mo, it looks like a catch, but in real time it doesn't. I think think the refs made the right call, even after looking at it. Definitely not indisputable evidence.
|
|
|
|
|
Junkie [518]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 760
Joined: 1/27/11
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2609]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 6653
Joined: 9/1/11
|
Re: Nuk Non-Touchdown Question
Oct 22, 2012, 12:50 PM
|
|
Well if that Maryland catch in 1986 was a TD then Nuks surely had to be!!!
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3273]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 6499
Joined: 1/13/04
|
Re: Nuk Non-Touchdown Question
Oct 22, 2012, 12:51 PM
|
|
Ball was in his possession and not 1 not 2 but 3 feet down (meaning he took 2 steps with it in his possession). However, when he lost his balance and dropped the ball (after crossing the goal line) he reacted as if he had dropped the ball, thus leading the offical to signal incomplete. Much like the 2 non-overturned fumbles in the second half, the incompentant replay official botched the replay.
In my opinion, it was a TD.
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1540]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 3014
Joined: 6/21/05
|
I'm torn-the ball was controlled in his hands the moment
Oct 22, 2012, 12:53 PM
|
|
the ball broke the plane. Also, he had taken two complete steps before the ball slipped out. Then again, I can understand why many would think it's not a catch.
|
|
|
|
|
MVP [514]
TigerPulse: 92%
Posts: 447
Joined: 12/7/01
|
Re: Nuk Non-Touchdown Question
Oct 22, 2012, 12:57 PM
|
|
Thanks guys! The responses seem to be split. Guess it certainly was not obvious either way. Had to go with the call on the field.
|
|
|
|
|
Varsity [201]
TigerPulse: 80%
Posts: 306
Joined: 2/8/09
|
No TD***
Oct 22, 2012, 1:03 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Letterman [284]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 367
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Re: Nuk Non-Touchdown Question
Oct 22, 2012, 1:07 PM
|
|
I thought he had controll of the ball when he crossed the goal line. So TD for me. Now I though that Sammy had a fumble but that call was not overthrown either as the ref called him down.
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [7980]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 22420
Joined: 2/27/02
|
If he had control at all, how did he drop it?
Oct 22, 2012, 1:08 PM
|
|
for him to drop it the way he did there is no way he ever had it
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2650]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 2742
Joined: 11/30/98
|
He didn't "complete" the catch
Oct 22, 2012, 1:12 PM
|
|
I think he momentarily had control of the ball. But in order for a catch to be complete, the receiver has to "make a football move" and demonstrate control for more than a brief period of time (which is all very subjective).
I remember the call against Calvin Johnson last year (maybe the year before) where he caught the ball in the endzone, got both feet down, and flipped the ball over his shoulder while running out of the back of the endzone. They ruled it incomplete, saying he didn't demonstrate enough control of the ball.
So that was a good call IMO.
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3496]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 4029
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Careful trying to compare NCAA rules to NFL
Oct 22, 2012, 1:18 PM
|
|
they aren't the same. He had to break the plane possessing the football. The refs rules he did not have to possession when he crossed the goalline. I thought he but the angles make it difficult to really determine that. I don't really have a real problem with it being overturned. Nuk should have held on to the ball.
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [27289]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 31777
Joined: 8/19/03
|
Re: He didn't "complete" the catch
Oct 22, 2012, 1:23 PM
[ in reply to He didn't "complete" the catch ] |
|
All the bad calls went against VPI so this one was correct. They got all the breaks in the game and deserved to win. The refs took that game away from the Turkeys and Ron Cherry wasn't involved. The fact that we have now beat their #### three times in a row by 3 t.d.'s or more proves that we get all the breaks.
BTW, How does Clemson deserve to be #27 in the computer rankings? I know we suck but aren't we a little better than that?
There is some sarcasm in this post.
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3573]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 6516
Joined: 6/1/99
|
In the middle of the field that is an incompletion
Oct 22, 2012, 1:24 PM
|
|
but since he had control of the ball when he crossed the goalline, it should have been a TD.
But there was no way they were overturning that call.
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [52]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Re: Nuk Non-Touchdown Question
Oct 22, 2012, 1:28 PM
|
|
Looked like the ball was moving IMO. I say good call. We got make-up calls that went our way, so we still got the better deal with the calls IMO.
No way can you overturn that call though - either way.
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [9061]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 11308
Joined: 10/15/99
|
yes***
Oct 22, 2012, 2:05 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 21
| visibility 1
|
|
|