Misinterpretations made by bad high level camera angles. Pointing =/= waving. The best field level camera angle confirms he was pointing and running.
Aaron Rodgers scorches Big Ten officials for overturning Cooper DeJean's punt return touchdown
- Thread starter cigaretteman
- Start date
Misinterpretations made by bad high level camera angles. Pointing =/= waving. The best field level camera angle confirms he was pointing and running.
The field official responsible for that determination disagrees with you. I agree with him.
Along with every Minn player on the field, the entire Minn sideline, and the entire field crew. They all disagree with you. Just the facts.
No. They were different motions as confirmed by video evidence readily available to you.
The first, he drops his arm DOWN to start running, he bends his elbow into his body. Clearly, indisputably, not waving.
That is not the same as subsequent motions. This verifiable fact.
Why canāt you admit it?
The second and third motions are swirling, circular motions. Not waving. They are similar in nature, but cannot be construed as waving. This is completely asinine.
Last edited:
Those would all be opinions not facts. And no proof, especially the official, that he does not believe he made the wrong call on the field.
And how is the high camera angle "bad"? Because it demonstrates definitively that he was waving his arm? Repeatedly?
What I can absolutely guarantee is that if it was the Gophers who had scored in that situation and the TD had been called back in exactly the same way, you'd be absolutely certain that the Minnesota returner was waving his arm and that the call was correct (it was) and you'd be celebrating the win. That's exactly what the Minny fan base is doing.
The first motion he makes after double pointing, is dropping his left arm down to his side, elbow bent, to begin running, he then extends his left arm to point again to the area where the ball is falling.
He is allowed to point.
He is allowed to run and point.
Seen from a high, non-relevant angle, this only seems like a waving motion, when on the field, he is clearly using his arm to POINT to the area he wants his teammates to run away from.
If i stand on a spot, extend my right arm and wave, from a top down view, my arm would not seem to be moving at all, from a front view, my forearm is motioning left to right.
Perspective matters.
This is why it was nonsensical that any official even mentioned the overhead angle. Zero players and zero officials could even see this view on the field. It changes the perspective entirely causing a false judgment of the motion.
Last edited:
Only one person saw āthe vertical viewā and he had no perspective of what was transpiring on the field of play.
Of course he was pointing. With his right hand. It's allowed. He was waving his LEFT hand. Multiple times. He says he was trying to keep his balance. Multiple Hawkeyes said he was waving off his teammates. Don't talk about intellectual honesty. Denying what everyone saw and admitted to just makes you look silly.
You typed all of that to admit that he DID wave his arm when he was pointing with his left hand. Good. Now, understand, it doesn't make a damn bit of difference WHY he was waving his arm. It doesn't matter in what plane he was waving his arm. By rule, waving his arm in ANY way that doesn't meet the specifications of a valid fair catch constitutes an invalid fair catch signal and the ball is dead at the spot. Feel free to not like the rule. Feel free to be pissed that it was the review official who called it. Feel free to believe it was a ticky-tack call that is rarely made. But - by rule - the call was correct. Period.
You still havenāt watched the field view angle, have you? That makes sense.
So running to the area with your arms swaying back and forth as you run is an invalid fair catch signal? Yes or no?
You just stated it doesnt matter what plane or for what purpose, only that that the motion exists. Right?
We should see about what, 300 calls this next weekend? multiple calls against both teams in every game?
I seriously doubt it but that is your stated standard.
After all these days, are you under the impression the ruling was that he called for a fair catch?
Ahhh...so now his arm was just "swaying" rather than him actively pointing.
FTR, it's not ME stating anything...it's what the rule specifically says. Feel free to direct all your ire at the rule but, as it currently exists, it was called correctly. Period.
I've watched the field view angle. Multiple times. It's IRRELEVANT. The call was made by the review official operating within his area of responsibility and who has a different view. That's why the review official exists. You can't put an official floating above the field like Peter Pan.
Yes your arm is allowed to move as you run across the field, they arenāt damned robots.
Over under on tarheelās interpretation of invalid fair catch signals for next week? 300?
What do they have to freeze like a statue or it gets called? Shit any motion is a wave, any motion at all from any sky down angle counts, right?
Ok...you need to settle on a narrative. Was he actively pointing as you said earlier or was his arm movement just an artifact of him running as you now seem to be claiming? His arm was extended and moving back and forth. By rule, that's - say it with me - an invalid fair catch signal.
Obviously no convincing you, but he circled his left arm round and round.
I donāt think they shouldāve overturned it but see why they did.
When I think of a āwaveā, I think of moving my hand perpendicular to the field of view of the person(s) attention Iām trying to catch. Nobody on the face of the planet āwavesā by extending their index finger and moving their arm parallel to the ground.
Perspective is significant here and we see that in the field level replay.
You can make the verbiage fit the call, if you want. But the rule applies to the entire return team, so theoretically, any player who pumps their arms while running is making an illegal signal, which is ridiculous.
The skycam view should have been disregarded and the illegal signal is overstepping the intent of the rule, in my opinion. Had his hand motions had any affect on the live play, Iād give the call a pass. But in this case, they didnāt, so terrible call.
Perspective is significant here and we see that in the field level replay.
You can make the verbiage fit the call, if you want. But the rule applies to the entire return team, so theoretically, any player who pumps their arms while running is making an illegal signal, which is ridiculous.
The skycam view should have been disregarded and the illegal signal is overstepping the intent of the rule, in my opinion. Had his hand motions had any affect on the live play, Iād give the call a pass. But in this case, they didnāt, so terrible call.
Maybe, but it doesnāt go up and down in a waving pattern. Pretty much all of the āwaveā motion was parallel to the ground. Watch the field level replay.
And probably 99% of return team players arms move at least a foot up and down as they run down the field. In a peak to trough pattern (definition of wave). Over and over.
Terrible application of a vaguely written rule.
Last edited:
Lol!
The ruling was that he made an invalid fair catch signal, which is defined as waving an arm without raising it over your head.
Because he was running and his arm is connected to his torso and his torso is connected to his legs.
Go outside and try to sprint while pointing your arms straight out and tell us what happens.
I suspect the officials would say it doesnāt matter why his arm made the motion, only that his arm made the motion.
You just perfectly described "invalid signal" which results in a dead ball when touched by the receiving team.
Any return team player who pumps his arms by oscillating them from a peak to a trough is by scientific definition making a āwaveā motion.
If weāre going to pick the nits, pretty much every punt fielded in the history of college football was fielded with an invalid signal.
You havenāt followed my argument in its entirety. I said you can make the verbiage of the rule fit the call, if you want.
The more I watch it, the more convinced I am that he was moving that arm (left) TO STEADY HIMSELF AS HE MOVED TO HIS LEFT TO FIELD THE BALLā¦..I think the poorest vantage point of what happened was probably from the Press Box, where it looked like maybe he was pumping there left hand/arm up and downā¦the āfield viewā shows he is moving the left arm in an elliptical motion and really likes like he is āSTEADYINGā HIMSELFā¦.
I just dont see anything questionable but I can see how from above, and to be super cautious one might see it the wa it was called. NBut, it was a shit call and should not have been made by an off field official.
You are referring to this:
Invalid Signal
ARTICLE 3.
An invalid signal is any waving signal by a player of Team B:
My point, my argument is that the official said DeJean made a fair catch signal, which negated the touchdown. You are arguing his invalid signal masquerading as a valid signal justified the official's call.
No beeping way. Fair catch rule requirement is very clear. No wavy shit. I produced the requirement.
Defining rules is not interpretation.
The call was "invalid fair catch signal" which kills the play. I don't know where you're getting that the call was that he made a valid fair catch signal. He didn't.
By the letter of the law, DeJean probably did make an invalid fair catch signal. The problem is, we've all seen punt returners do the same thing and it not get called. It happened the same day in the North Carolina game. In that case, the return guy was waving both arms in the "get away" motion, collected the ball, and gained an additional 7 yards. No one questioned if it should have been called back because 99 times out of 100, it isn't.
I think if the call had been made on the field or if ANYONE associated with Minnesota thought he made an invalid signal, people wouldn't be quite so upset about it. But the fact that they used replay to find it is a problem. The fact that they told Kirk they were reviewing to see if he stepped out of bounds and then dug up the violation, is a problem.
I also think that because our offense is so terrible, fans knew that without the punt return, we had absolutely no chance of winning the game. With a minute and change to go 25 yards, we all knew we couldn't do it. The replay ruling gave us something to yell about since all the yelling we've done about the embarrassing offense has done no good.
I think if the call had been made on the field or if ANYONE associated with Minnesota thought he made an invalid signal, people wouldn't be quite so upset about it. But the fact that they used replay to find it is a problem. The fact that they told Kirk they were reviewing to see if he stepped out of bounds and then dug up the violation, is a problem.
I also think that because our offense is so terrible, fans knew that without the punt return, we had absolutely no chance of winning the game. With a minute and change to go 25 yards, we all knew we couldn't do it. The replay ruling gave us something to yell about since all the yelling we've done about the embarrassing offense has done no good.
Because the teams and the refs are not in the press box they're on the field and from that perspective the " perceived wave " does not exist, Minnesota was not deceived, never let up and was not called on the field. Iowa won the game, period as @torbee, Aaron Rodgers and everyone but a handful of tolls acknowledge...
Irrelevant. No one on the field can see in slow motion but itās used to decide plays all the time. As for not affecting the play, are you suggesting that a hold behind the play be ignored?
