Big Ten just confirmed that the call was correct.

[iahawks10]

The entire kicking team would have been trained of the "approved signals" during a kick. Any unapproved signal by anyone on the kicking team is considered a fair catch violation. Especially the left hand motion to get away from the ball.

Straight from the rule book Article 3 Section V:

V. Team A’s scrimmage kick is rolling beyond the neutral zone when B17 alerts his teammates to stay away from the ball by a “get away” signal. RULING: Invalid signal. The ball is dead by rule when either team recovers.

His left hand motions were effectively the "Get Away" signal.

I had never heard of this rule, but there is it.

As for if this was reviewable, I believe the rules are all scoring plays are reviewed, and plays near the out of bounds are reviewable. So I think the refs can review the whole play.

For about the 100th time. ALL plays in college football are reviewed by the replay official. Certain plays are considered “reviewable”. Questionable plays that fit into the reviewable category are buzzed downed to the on field officials using a pager system. Then play is stopped and the replay official will review the play letting the referee know his decision. It had absolutely nothing to do with Iowa scoring other than the fact the replay official did not want Iowa scoring there.

As a side note, in college football since every play has to be reviewed, you may not hurry up to the LOS and try a quick snap. Minnesota tried it yesterday and play was stopped for review. Iowa had two chances to try and they took their time each time and play was stopped.

 

[NorthernHawkeye]

And some of you are blind. You keep showing one view but deny another shows something different.
You are one stupid person. The view from behind is distorted. The one from the south CLEARLY refutes the one you are so in love with.
I would say you are the one that is less than honest. But, you keep living in your little world where you refuse to even look at another perspective.

Spoken like a true homer.

All angles are reviewed.

 

[GHawk]

Spoken like a true homer.

All angles are reviewed.

Why don't you? You continue to ignore the one that refutes you.

Go ahead and keep up with your all angles statement while refusing to admit that one shows something different than what you want.

You continue to refuse to take an honest view of the play and instead call those of us who argue it wasn't clear, homers. We are looking at it from all angles while you aren't honest enough to do the same.

 

[NorthernHawkeye]

Why don't you? You continue to ignore the one that refutes you.

Go ahead and keep up with your all angles statement while refusing to admit that one shows something different than what you want.

You continue to refuse to take an honest view of the play and instead call those of us who argue it wasn't clear, homers. We are looking at it from all angles while you aren't honest enough to do the same.

There is literaly nothing "distorted" about this video, as you have claimed.

You're not an honest person.

 

[GHawk]

There is literaly nothing "distorted" about this video, as you have claimed.

You're not an honest person.

View embedded media

LOL. You just keep posting the same view and ignoring the other.

Honesty isn't your strong suit is it.

And with that I am done with you. There is no reason to argue with someone who refuses to even acknowledge there is a view that he doesn't like. But, you keep telling yourself how wearing blinders is the honest way to look at things. No reason to even admit there is a view that goes against your holier than thou attitude.

BYE!

 

[NorthernHawkeye]

LOL. You just keep posting the same view and ignoring the other.

Honesty isn't your strong suit is it.

And with that I am done with you. There is no reason to argue with someone who refuses to even acknowledge there is a view that he doesn't like. But, you keep telling yourself how wearing blinders is the honest way to look at things. No reason to even admit there is a view that goes against your holier than thou attitude.

BYE!

Thank God.

 

[bansheexyz]

There's too much debate on whether or not he's doing an invalid signal, and not enough on why that rule should be applied so heavy handedly on a bouncing ball. You cannot fair catch a bounced ball, you are a runner that can be tackled, and everyone on the defense understands that. It is idiotic to apply this rule on this play because the defense would've played it no differently had Cooper made a signal or not.

The only time it makes sense to apply this rule is when a returner does something that looks like an abbreviated fair catch signal and then CATCHES the ball and runs with it. In that case he is tricking the defense into thinking he has fair catch protection before running with the ball, and that's what the rule must prevent.

 

[Tom Paris]

What a bunch of whining cry babies. Correct call was clearly made based on the rule. Gophers beat the Hawkeyes and Floyd is home. Suck it.

Ignore.

 

[Randall Stanhope]

There's too much debate on whether or not he's doing an invalid signal, and not enough on why that rule should be applied so heavy handedly on a bouncing ball. You cannot fair catch a bounced ball, you are a runner that can be tackled, and everyone on the defense understands that. It is idiotic to apply this rule on this play because the defense would've played it no differently had Cooper made a signal or not.

The only time it makes sense to apply this rule is when a returner does something that looks like an abbreviated fair catch signal and then CATCHES the ball and runs with it. In that case he is tricking the defense into thinking he has fair catch protection before running with the ball, and that's what the rule must prevent.

Yep.

Can you make a fair catch signal, not catch it in the air, pick it up after it bounces, then advance it?

 

[iahawks10]

Yep.

Can you make a fair catch signal, not catch it in the air, pick it up after it bounces, then advance it?

You can not

 

[BlowinGuysHawkeye]

The fact that it’s usually not correctly called when it should be is no defense when it’s correctly called. I bet word is being passed along to every P5 ref crew to pay more attention to these deceptive hand/arm movements by punt returners.

The crew did their job yesterday and they will be shown as the example of how to correctly call that type of play.

 

[Randall Stanhope]

There is literaly nothing "distorted" about this video, as you have claimed.

You're not an honest person.

View embedded media

Dude, GHawk was imploring you to look at and talk about views other than the only one you've been willing to talk about... and you respond by posting the only view you've been willing to talk about.

Therefore, GHawk has a point.

 

[bansheexyz]

Yep.

Can you make a fair catch signal, not catch it in the air, pick it up after it bounces, then advance it?

No, the rule says that any signal kills the chance to advance even if it bounces, which is why this "invalid" stuff strangely extends into bouncing balls. That's what's dumb. I can't think of any strategic difference it would have on the game to allow returners to advance a bounced ball after a fair catch signal. That would be more risky than advantageous to try doing that intentionally, and the defense will play you no different because all they see is a chance for a muffed fair catch.

 

[Randall Stanhope]

The fact that it’s usually not correctly called when it should be is no defense when it’s correctly called. I bet word is being passed along to every P5 ref crew to pay more attention to these deceptive hand/arm movements by punt returners.

The crew did their job yesterday and they will be shown as the example of how to correctly call that type of play.

Well then Refs are inserting themselves into the game more than they should, to the detriment of the game.

They are over-complicating something that's simple.

Hand over head and waved = fair catch.

Hand never goes over head = not fair catch.

Simples.

 

[NorthernHawkeye]

Dude, GHawk was imploring you to look at and talk about views other than the only one you've been willing to talk about... and you respond by posting the only view you've been willing to talk about.

Therefore, GHawk has a point.

The closest view, that literally shows him waving his left arm, Ghawk claims is "distorted". That's not being honest. Instead he wants to go with a view that is farther away. That's not how it works.

 

[ItsAllBallBearingsNowadays]

Penn State fan here. First of all I have an intense dislike for Kirk. However, there is no way the punt receivers action could have been interpreted as a fair catch signal. Also the empirical evidence ( No one on the Minny coverage team slowed down). Fans have every right to be frosted.

Bingo. And it’s a judgment call that need irrefutable evidence. The greatest evidence is no one on the punt hesitated even a second. Nor did any officials blow it dead. Nor did Minnesota’s bench even argue. With all those elements in play, I don’t know how one could reasonably conclude the evidence as irrefutable. It’s asinine.

 

[herkhatescy]

Any waving motion by the punt returner is a dead ball - it does not have to be above the head.

Bullshit. Arm has to be waving above the head.

 

[mtime2]

Bullshit. Arm has to be waving above the head.

This!!!
According to KF, in his presser. The hand over the head is what was agreed to by all parties concerned. It may not be the rule to letter of the law, but again that was what was agreed to in the pregame discussions.
Now, maybe he is a liar. If so then it was the right call.

 

[IHATEIOWA]

Bullshit. Arm has to be waving above the head.

This is factually wrong. It needs to be over the head for it to be a valid signal. Any waving below the head is deemed an invalid signal and the play is dead which is what they called.

 

[herkhatescy]

Either you're blind or you're a liar.

You're a ****ing idiot if you think his left hand was above his head waving for a fair catch.

 

[herkhatescy]

This!!!
According to KF, in his presser. The hand over the head is what was agreed to by all parties concerned. It may not be the rule to letter of the law, but again that was what was agreed to in the pregame discussions.
Now, maybe he is a liar. If so then it was the right call.

I'm sure it's discussed before all games.

 

[IHATEIOWA]

This!!!
According to KF, in his presser. The hand over the head is what was agreed to by all parties concerned. It may not be the rule to letter of the law, but again that was what was agreed to in the pregame discussions.
Now, maybe he is a liar. If so then it was the right call.

Hand over the head for a valid signal. He waved it below the head causing the correct call to be called.

 

[mtime2]

Hand over the head for a valid signal. He waved it below the head causing the correct call to be called.

KF is a liar then. Case closed.

 

[IHATEIOWA]

You're a ****ing idiot if you think his left hand was above his head waving for a fair catch.

You simply are not understanding. His hand was not above the head which is exactly why it’s an invalid signal.

 

[Steamboat529529]

You simply are not understanding. His hand was not above the head which is exactly why it’s an invalid signal.

I don’t understand how people can’t grasp this fact. It’s called back touchdowns before like Wisconsin in 2015.

 

[bunsen82]

Big Ten just said otherwise.

Big Ten isn’t following the rule book then. I simply ask you to show me an invalid fair catch is a revieable

1. [Exception: Rule 6-4-1-f]

Fair catch signals are also explicitly reviewable per Rule 12, article 4g (page 115 here):
Kicks
ARTICLE 4. Reviewable plays involving kicks include:
a. Touching of a kick.
b. Player beyond the neutral zone when kicking the ball.
c. Kicking team player advancing a ball after a potential muffed kick/fumble by the receiving team.
d. Scrimmage kick crossing the neutral zone.
e. Blocking by players of the kicking team before they are eligible to touch the ball on an on-side kick.
f. A player touching or recovering a kick or loose ball who is or has been out of bounds during the kick.
g. Receiving team advancing after a fair catch signal

it wasnt a fair catch signal.

 

[herkhatescy]

What a bunch of whining cry babies. Correct call was clearly made based on the rule. Gophers beat the Hawkeyes and Floyd is home. Suck it.

Get the **** out of here.

 

[mtime2]

I wonder if an umpire ever varies from the strike zone according to its description in the rule book. A pitch may or may not be a strike. But, if both teams know the zone . Then it’s either a strike or a ball. No room to bitch.
If the hand signal was the way CDJ was told, then that is bullshit call. AGAIN unless Kirk Ferentz is a liar.

 

[mtime2]

You simply are not understanding. His hand was not above the head which is exactly why it’s an invalid signal.

You are simply not understanding what was agreed to in the pregame meeting between both coaching staffs, and the officials.
If this is was conveyed to CDJ ( I’m sure it was). Then the officials went back on what they agreed to.

 

[IHATEIOWA]

You are simply not understanding what was agreed to in the pregame meeting between both coaching staffs, and the officials.
If this is was conveyed to CDJ ( I’m sure it was). Then the officials went back on what they agreed to.

Wow you really don’t understand. They talked pregame and said a valid fair catch signal is waving the hand above the head. Dejean waved his left arm below his head which by rule is an invalid signal and play is dead. I don’t argue his intention was to call for a fair catch. He clearly wasn’t. He was either directing his teammates or telling them to get away from the ball or whatever. But when you do that you are not allowed to advance it.

 

[Iafootballfan]

This thread confirms there are way too many low IQ posters on this board.

 

[hawkedoff]

Well they sure made it a hell of a review on bullshit but didn't have any time to take a look at our qb getting his helmet ripped off and speared in the throat.

 

[NorthernHawkeye]

You're a ****ing idiot if you think his left hand was above his head waving for a fair catch.

I never said it was above his head.

 

[NorthernHawkeye]

This thread confirms there are way too many low IQ posters on this board.

This. It's pretty telling.

That or this is what happens when people are emotionally charged. They can't think straight.

 

[NorthernHawkeye]

You are simply not understanding what was agreed to in the pregame meeting between both coaching staffs, and the officials.
If this is was conveyed to CDJ ( I’m sure it was). Then the officials went back on what they agreed to.

Kirk also claimed that Coop was "naturally running" which we all know wasn't the case.

 

[herkhatescy]

This. It's pretty telling.

That or this is what happens when people are emotionally charged. They can't think straight.

And he's talking about you.

 

[NorthernHawkeye]

And he's talking about you.

Incorrect

 

[AreWeCross]

Ignore.

I don't think either of us ignore many posters. I did the same thing this morning though.

 

[Steamboat529529]

Kirk also claimed that Coop was "naturally running" which we all know wasn't the case.

Yea. That was the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard Kirk say.

 

[redwine65]

seemed like he was waving fair catch