Touchdown or interception?

runningblind said:
I think it's a silly notion to acknowledge that even though you know what the correct call is after replay, because they called it wrong on the field in real time, they should leave it as the wrong call just because.  Do you hear how dumb that sounds?

Get the call correct, period. I don't care what was called on the field, that is a dumb rule.
Click to expand...


That's because there's a difference between what something "looks like" or "probably happened" and what is clear and indisputable.

 
runningblind said:
I think it's a silly notion to acknowledge that even though you know what the correct call is after replay, because they called it wrong on the field in real time, they should leave it as the wrong call just because.  Do you hear how dumb that sounds?

Get the call correct, period. I don't care what was called on the field, that is a dumb rule.
Click to expand...




I'm operating under the context of how the rules are written. On the contrary, there's nothing dumb about acknowledging the differences between what I think actually happened and what should've happened because the refs are subject to the rules and made a mistake. 

 
Lorewarn said:
I'm operating under the context of how the rules are written. On the contrary, there's nothing dumb about acknowledging the differences between what I think actually happened and what should've happened because the refs are subject to the rules and made a mistake. 
Click to expand...
I am saying the rule is dumb.  We should try to get it right, no matter what the call on the field was. If there is more evidence one thing happened, but it still isn't  "indisputable" (like much ever is), that should be the call. 

I wasn't saying you specifically were dumb, but instead the whole notion that just because it was called one way first it should stand, when we are pretty sure the correct call is something else.  If we are 70% sure, that should be good enough rather than leaving it wrong because aren't 100% sure.

 
I looked up NCAA pass catch rules after the VT TD was called back. 

This rule tells me the Nebraska play should have been called incomplete.

  1. When in question, the catch, recovery or interception is not completed.
 
Moiraine said:
I looked up NCAA pass catch rules after the VT TD was called back. 

This rule tells me the Nebraska play should have been called incomplete.

  1. When in question, the catch, recovery or interception is not completed.
Click to expand...
Wow, nice work.  This interpretation feels right.  

I felt like it was a bang-bang play.  With first replay I saw, the WR did not appear to have full possession of the ball.  But the ball ended in the defenders singular arm.   

The defender also pushed the receivers face mask upward during the catch and before they landed.  Are they looking at that as well?  Probably not.

I am surprised the review had the balls to call it an interception instead of an incomplete, or "the reviewing on the field stands"....  meaning, "not enough to over rule, and we don't want to get involved in this any further"

Either way, a nice effort by the Husker receiver,... But  a great effort by the Illinois defender. 

I was okay with the interception call based on the effort.

 
admo said:
Wow, nice work.  This interpretation feels right.  

I felt like it was a bang-bang play.  With first replay I saw, the WR did not appear to have full possession of the ball.  But the ball ended in the defenders singular arm.   

The defender also pushed the receivers face mask upward during the catch and before they landed.  Are they looking at that as well?  Probably not.

I am surprised the review had the balls to call it an interception instead of an incomplete, or "the reviewing on the field stands"....  meaning, "not enough to over rule, and we don't want to get involved in this any further"

Either way, a nice effort by the Husker receiver,... But  a great effort by the Illinois defender. 

I was okay with the interception call based on the effort.
Click to expand...




The only penalties they can review are targeting I believe. 

I felt it wasn’t clear the Illinois guy caught it, or the WR caught it, or whether it hit the ground. So the options are the call stands or it’s incomplete due to it being “in question.”

 
Moiraine said:
The only penalties they can review are targeting I believe. 

I felt it wasn’t clear the Illinois guy caught it, or the WR caught it, or whether it hit the ground. So the options are the call stands or it’s incomplete due to it being “in question.”
Click to expand...
Did I say penalties, my bad!  Probably a type-oh grrrr

Yeah that's how I felt.  Stands, Confirmed, or incomplete.  Helluva play though.

 
Moiraine said:
The only penalties they can review are targeting I believe. 

I felt it wasn’t clear the Illinois guy caught it, or the WR caught it, or whether it hit the ground. So the options are the call stands or it’s incomplete due to it being “in question.”
Click to expand...
In the VT game the ball ended up on the ground at the end of the play after moving a ton. In our game, the Illinois defender caught the ball clearly at the end of the play, but the question was whether or not the ball hit the ground before that or was just moving on bodies.  They are similar, but different endings. If they decided the ball did not hit the ground in the middle of our play, Illinois did catch it unlike VT/Miami.

 
Back
Top