11-19-2012, 07:25 PM
I would love to see this happen. A DB just Balashnokoving the WR to the back of the end zone.
Mike Pereira says Oregon got robbed
11-19-2012, 08:20 PM
(11-19-2012, 07:11 PM)MT link Wrote:According to the NCAA rules, it does appear that if an offensive player catches the ball on the 1 yard line, the defender can catch the player in the air and carry him on his shoulder (without ever stopping forward progress) through the endzone and out the back of the endzone before allowing the player to touch the ground, then the pass is incomplete. If the offensive player's forward progress stops, then the player is considered down and the pass is completed.
The same thing is true on the sideline. If you catch the offensive player in the air and carry him 10 yards without stopping forward progresss to the side line and out of bounds, it is an incomplete pass.
Yep. But if the receiver catches the ball, touches his foot down at the 1, and then is carried from there out the back of the end zone by a defender, it's a touchdown the moment he crosses the goal line.
(11-19-2012, 07:11 PM)MT link Wrote:According to the NCAA rules, it does appear that if an offensive player catches the ball on the 1 yard line, the defender can catch the player in the air and carry him on his shoulder (without ever stopping forward progress) through the endzone and out the back of the endzone before allowing the player to touch the ground, then the pass is incomplete. If the offensive player's forward progress stops, then the player is considered down and the pass is completed.
The same thing is true on the sideline. If you catch the offensive player in the air and carry him 10 yards without stopping forward progresss to the side line and out of bounds, it is an incomplete pass.
Yep. But if the receiver catches the ball, touches his foot down at the 1, and then is carried from there out the back of the end zone by a defender, it's a touchdown the moment he crosses the goal line.
11-19-2012, 08:26 PM
Reminds me of the end of the 1993 Colorado game at Stanford.Â
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OmuTr6iMBd0
Fabulous comeback victory.
Rules have changed since then, possibly in some part because of this catch. Don't know the precise wording, but I believe the essence now is to require a receiver who falls to maintain possession as he goes to the ground.Â
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OmuTr6iMBd0
Fabulous comeback victory.
Rules have changed since then, possibly in some part because of this catch. Don't know the precise wording, but I believe the essence now is to require a receiver who falls to maintain possession as he goes to the ground.Â
Reminds me of the end of the 1993 Colorado game at Stanford.Â
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OmuTr6iMBd0
Fabulous comeback victory.
Rules have changed since then, possibly in some part because of this catch. Don't know the precise wording, but I believe the essence now is to require a receiver who falls to maintain possession as he goes to the ground.Â
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OmuTr6iMBd0
Fabulous comeback victory.
Rules have changed since then, possibly in some part because of this catch. Don't know the precise wording, but I believe the essence now is to require a receiver who falls to maintain possession as he goes to the ground.Â
11-19-2012, 10:43 PM
(11-19-2012, 08:26 PM)TreeWeird link Wrote:Reminds me of the end of the 1993 Colorado game at Stanford.ÂThat is an interesting play. Kline was not going to fall, he had the ball in his hands with at least one foot on the ground and then he was hit and the ball was knocked loose. Is the rule today that the receiver who has the ball in the end zone must maintain possession through a hit that happens after a catch? And how long must he have possession? The hit on Kline was almost instantaneous...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OmuTr6iMBd0
Fabulous comeback victory.
Rules have changed since then, possibly in some part because of this catch. Don't know the precise wording, but I believe the essence now is to require a receiver who falls to maintain possession as he goes to the ground.
(11-19-2012, 08:26 PM)TreeWeird link Wrote:Reminds me of the end of the 1993 Colorado game at Stanford.ÂThat is an interesting play. Kline was not going to fall, he had the ball in his hands with at least one foot on the ground and then he was hit and the ball was knocked loose. Is the rule today that the receiver who has the ball in the end zone must maintain possession through a hit that happens after a catch? And how long must he have possession? The hit on Kline was almost instantaneous...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OmuTr6iMBd0
Fabulous comeback victory.
Rules have changed since then, possibly in some part because of this catch. Don't know the precise wording, but I believe the essence now is to require a receiver who falls to maintain possession as he goes to the ground.
11-19-2012, 11:04 PM
A strict reading of the NCAA rulebook would seem to indicate that play would be a TD, though I sincerely doubt it would be called like that nowadays. Perhaps the NFL rulebook is more extensive and we just assume that is what applies, but I don't see anything in this rulebook about the so called "football move" that needs to be made prior to a catch being caught. There is also no clear delineation of a few of the gray areas we've seen over the past few months- what if a receiver catches the ball and his toe hits inbounds, but then his heel hits (ruled not a catch in the A&M -Bama game)? And why should that be different than a toe-drag?
What about the Ertz catch, where he possessed the ball, came down in the endzone, but then the ball shifted in his hands after he was out of bounds, though never touched the ground? (I suspect it would be not a catch in the NFL).
http://www.ncaapublications.com/productd...s/FR12.pdf
What about the Ertz catch, where he possessed the ball, came down in the endzone, but then the ball shifted in his hands after he was out of bounds, though never touched the ground? (I suspect it would be not a catch in the NFL).
http://www.ncaapublications.com/productd...s/FR12.pdf
A strict reading of the NCAA rulebook would seem to indicate that play would be a TD, though I sincerely doubt it would be called like that nowadays. Perhaps the NFL rulebook is more extensive and we just assume that is what applies, but I don't see anything in this rulebook about the so called "football move" that needs to be made prior to a catch being caught. There is also no clear delineation of a few of the gray areas we've seen over the past few months- what if a receiver catches the ball and his toe hits inbounds, but then his heel hits (ruled not a catch in the A&M -Bama game)? And why should that be different than a toe-drag?
What about the Ertz catch, where he possessed the ball, came down in the endzone, but then the ball shifted in his hands after he was out of bounds, though never touched the ground? (I suspect it would be not a catch in the NFL).
http://www.ncaapublications.com/productd...s/FR12.pdf
What about the Ertz catch, where he possessed the ball, came down in the endzone, but then the ball shifted in his hands after he was out of bounds, though never touched the ground? (I suspect it would be not a catch in the NFL).
http://www.ncaapublications.com/productd...s/FR12.pdf
11-19-2012, 11:54 PM
For those with a seed of doubt about whether it was a TD, look at picture #7 and sooth your worries
http://photos.oregonlive.com/photo-essay...orego.html
I completely agree. On replay, I thought it was a TD, but I did have some doubts about it. I thought the replay officials should have let the call stand. Ditto if it had been initially called a TD.
That said, the replay officials might have better replays than we do (do they really have 500 fps cameras?), and maybe they could see something like picture #7 above that was fairly clear.
Anyway, it was first down. We probably would have scored anyway.
What a great game!
http://photos.oregonlive.com/photo-essay...orego.html
(11-19-2012, 05:04 PM)NYCCardinalFan link Wrote:Pereira wasn't taking a view as to whether Ertz scored a TD. His point was merely that there was no inconclusive proof that he scored one sufficient to overturn the call on the field. If the situation were reversed and the officials called it a TD, he would likewise argue that the call should not be overturned.
I respect Pereira and it is nice to hear his take on questionable calls.
I completely agree. On replay, I thought it was a TD, but I did have some doubts about it. I thought the replay officials should have let the call stand. Ditto if it had been initially called a TD.
That said, the replay officials might have better replays than we do (do they really have 500 fps cameras?), and maybe they could see something like picture #7 above that was fairly clear.
Anyway, it was first down. We probably would have scored anyway.
What a great game!
For those with a seed of doubt about whether it was a TD, look at picture #7 and sooth your worries
http://photos.oregonlive.com/photo-essay...orego.html
I completely agree. On replay, I thought it was a TD, but I did have some doubts about it. I thought the replay officials should have let the call stand. Ditto if it had been initially called a TD.
That said, the replay officials might have better replays than we do (do they really have 500 fps cameras?), and maybe they could see something like picture #7 above that was fairly clear.
Anyway, it was first down. We probably would have scored anyway.
What a great game!
http://photos.oregonlive.com/photo-essay...orego.html
(11-19-2012, 05:04 PM)NYCCardinalFan link Wrote:Pereira wasn't taking a view as to whether Ertz scored a TD. His point was merely that there was no inconclusive proof that he scored one sufficient to overturn the call on the field. If the situation were reversed and the officials called it a TD, he would likewise argue that the call should not be overturned.
I respect Pereira and it is nice to hear his take on questionable calls.
I completely agree. On replay, I thought it was a TD, but I did have some doubts about it. I thought the replay officials should have let the call stand. Ditto if it had been initially called a TD.
That said, the replay officials might have better replays than we do (do they really have 500 fps cameras?), and maybe they could see something like picture #7 above that was fairly clear.
Anyway, it was first down. We probably would have scored anyway.
What a great game!
11-20-2012, 06:30 AM
I was at that game and had a good view of Kline's catch.
He had possession, but it sure wasn't for very long, and I was pleasantly surprised when the officials ruled it was a catch.
He had possession, but it sure wasn't for very long, and I was pleasantly surprised when the officials ruled it was a catch.
I was at that game and had a good view of Kline's catch.
He had possession, but it sure wasn't for very long, and I was pleasantly surprised when the officials ruled it was a catch.
He had possession, but it sure wasn't for very long, and I was pleasantly surprised when the officials ruled it was a catch.
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »