"The Call", Revisited
- Thread starter Hawk_4shur
- Start date
Don't really care about the loss. They played like crap and deserved to lose.
But, I'm not going to get over the call.
I don’t think these are mutually exclusive. Iowa SHOULD have won the game if not for a terrible call; but they did not DESERVE to win it at the same.
Teams win games every year that they didn’t deserve to win.
So, take away Nebraska's championship for the 5th down game they had that season?
Everyone was under the impression they were checking for out of bounds. Please explain how I embarrassed myself, I’m curious.
I asked what warranted the extra long look. There is no way they were looking for anything beyond o.b. There was zero reason beyond that. And that took half a second to see CDJ stayed inbounds. So no "longer" look was warranted.
Think you misunderstood me then. I understood looking at the out of bounds; them deciding to re-officiate the entire play is what will piss me off about this for years.
Yep, me as well. How ANY reviewer watched it and saw, "Hey, an invalid fair catch!" is beyond me.
It would not surprise me to find out replay officials get reprimanded, or terminated, on the QT.
A. I know an FBS college football official and asked him about that play. He had listened to the recording of the replay booth audio. The booth was asking in real time if he gave the wave off signal. With either a valid fair catch signal or a wave off, the ball is dead when it is fielded and can't be advanced. (I never knew that about a wave off.) Nothing was called on the field except the play was under review and then the illegal fair catch ruling.The DeJean punt return overrule. Look, I'm sorry to bring this up yet again, but it bugs me.
Does it bother me that the Hawks lost a game? Nope. Does it bother me that the game might have been stolen and DeJean robbed of an epic "for all-time" play? Yep.
So, here is my question. After everything I've seen and read, it haven't gotten a straight answer yet.
A. Did the officials announce the review? Usually it's "The ruling on the field is ......". I don't think they did - is that just because it was a scoring play? If he was tackled at the one-yard line, would they have had to "announce" the review?
B. Are the officials permitted to simply re-officiate the play? Or, do they have to have a reason to look at something in order to overrule it? Did the officials suspect he might have made an illegal fair catch signal? Or, just see it on the replay?
C. At the end of the day, did the officials do the correct thing in all respects? Was the overrule "indisputable"? Is it clear to all that it was an illegal fair catch signal?
Reminds me of the Iowa BB "phantom call" against Purdue when Lute lost his sh*t. Or similarly, when Ronnie "Goat" Harmon fumbled four times in the first half in the Rose Bowl.
These things bother me for a while.
B. The wave off signal is reviewable. Based on the replay booth audio, that is why it was reviewed. It was not to see if he stepped out as that would be immaterial if he waved the play dead.
C. The officials made a mistake by not blowing the play dead when the ball was fielded. The replay booth audio, Dolphin's broadcast and a national broadcast all said he was waving it off as it was happening in real time. I also thought he was giving the get away signal when I was watching, but I didn't know he couldn't advance it once you do that.
As controversial as it was, the officials got it right except that it should have been blown dead. I know that doesn't make you feel any better as for a moment it was one of the most amazing plays to win a game in Hawkeye history. (I was there for the FG against #1 Michigan, the Chuck Long bootleg against MSU and the long FG against SDSU in the Holiday Bowl. This was more amazing than any of those.)
Excellent analysis.
I've been watching football a long time, and I've never seen a "wave off" blown dead. If it's a rule, ok, but do they call it and any frequency?
I guess if they were actually looking for it in the review I feel a little better. Thinking they were looking for one thing and stumbled across another bothered me.
Per other posts in this thread, a fair catch signal is a reviewable element of a play.
An invalid fair catch signal isn't mentioned as a reviewable element.
So, if you're going to change a play an alter a game on an obscure technicality that in no way affected the play or actions of the players....then you better damn well be sure that you're technically correct, by the book.
It's not in the book.
Then someone lied to Kirk - he was told they were looking at out of bounds. I can accept, based on the rule as written, that if called on the field it was correct. Still a badly written rule that needs to be changed soon.
But especially based on their Monday explanation where they said from one angle you couldn’t tell, and from another you could, I simply don’t understand how you can change the call on the field.
I was only reporting what I was told by an official. I don't claim that I have knowledge of the rules. He told me it was reviewable.
The explanations I’ve seen basically boil down to this wasn’t expressly listed as something that can’t be reviewed, therefore it can be.
Valid fair catch signal I get; don’t understand why we then need another rule describing an invalid fair catch. But for some reason attempting a return after a fair catch signal is made is a penalty, but doing so after an invalid fair catch isn’t.
This just feels like they got the letter of the rule correct but not the spirit of the rule; calling it on the field I get but not via review; and their explanations afterward felt like them trying to rationalize something they know they goofed on.
I get it. I also agree that Cooper was waving his arm(s)/making a poison call ... and that that's addressed in the rules as an 'invalid fair catch/dead ball'.
So, I understand the 'they got it right' conclusion. We're arguing technicalities & I think there's still an obscure 'out' that is wasn't a reviewable element of the play. Had the whistle blown immediately upon CD fielding the punt, there would have been no issue.
But this is all beside the point, really...I think most of us agree that review exists to correct wrongs or injustices. Overturning this play 'wronged a right'. It goes against the spirit of why replay exists, which is why most of us are still bent about it.
And I also just generally am annoyed by officiating offices that basically never admit a mistake in all but the 'had no other choice' scenario. They look for cover anywhere they might find it.
Look no further than the women's final game last year. In the course of admitting it 'fell below the standard'...In the worst officiated game I've ever seen, they say we only achieved an 88% correct call rate, when 91% has been the average. LOL. BS.
Look no further than the women's final game last year. In the course of admitting it 'fell below the standard'...In the worst officiated game I've ever seen, they say we only achieved an 88% correct call rate, when 91% has been the average. LOL. BS.
Where does it list the wave off signal as being reviewable? Hint....it doesn't.
Just so I understand...there is audio available on this play and the review official is asking in real time if Cooper made a wave off signal? Wtf????? The amazing part is you and your imbecile official friend think that makes this better when it makes it so much worse.
No. It wasn't the right call on the field. No it wasn't the right call for the asshole in the booth to make. No it wasn't right for the conference to make to stupid ass comments about overhead making it obvious. None of it was right at all
Release the audio.. release the audio on every overturned call. Release the audio on the targeting call that dipshit got wrong as well.
What is even more amazing is your friend somehow had access to audio that isn't available to anyone else and told you about it so you could run here and talk it up. How unprofessional is your friend?
Similar threads
