It's called protecting your ass.
Big Ten just confirmed that the call was correct.
- Thread starter NorthernHawkeye
- Start date
What's the exact verbiage on what's reviewable about it again?
Is it really to adjudicate what hand motion does and does not constitute an invalid fair catch?
That seems like such an odd thing to be reviewable to me, considering all the other subjective crap that isn't reviewable.
Look at it this way: Would anyone on the other side have been up in arms if that had not been called? They would not have.
Reason is no one thought he was actually trying to signal fair catch and so we got absolutely zero in the way of unfair advantage from it.
This will be a horseshit loss until the end of time.
Is it really to adjudicate what hand motion does and does not constitute an invalid fair catch?
That seems like such an odd thing to be reviewable to me, considering all the other subjective crap that isn't reviewable.
Look at it this way: Would anyone on the other side have been up in arms if that had not been called? They would not have.
Reason is no one thought he was actually trying to signal fair catch and so we got absolutely zero in the way of unfair advantage from it.
This will be a horseshit loss until the end of time.
Yes- that’s exactly what I’m saying. If failure to make the call resulted in an egregious error (touchdown) it can be be reviewed and corrected. That’s literally the rule and you can confirm it yourself by Google search like I did. Just because you don’t like it doesn’t make it false.
I00%%% everybody knows what was a wrong made up bullshit call to screw Iowa except for a few "fake" Iowa fans here looking like idiots saying correct call..
Don't respond anymore all you are doing is confirming it was a screw job by the officials.....
Kick returners waive their arms all the time to keep teammates away from the ball. Many of these are returned. I have NEVER seen an illegal fair catch call made in those situations. EVER.
I suppose if you apply a strict interpretation, it could possibly have been correct....but it is hard to justify making that call when it is literally never made anytime or anywhere else.
An obscure rule that is never enforced......except one time at the end of a game that determines not only the outcome of the game, but also involves the point spread.
Do they? Because I can’t find any examples of this while everyone keeps claiming it.
Here is one example of the same call in Wisconsin/Northwestern game. If link is entire game, go to 1:09:30 of the video link.
Last edited:
Complete utter bullshit.
Unfortunately, that’s how sports work. It’s just like certain calls are reviewed (or can asked to be reviewed) in sports when the time is under a certain threshold.
The defense did, the special teams did….. the offense needs executed or execute better
Just tonight in the UNC Virginia game, but you knew that
Rules are rules. You either enforce them or you don't. Enforcing things randomly when you feel like is no way to establish legitimacy in the game.
And I have read the rule and no where does it say "this call should only be used when it matters". I agree that's what the rulebook says, however that is not how the rule has been applied in practice. Officials have been calling it wrong for over 40 years then and that is not acceptable. Suddenly deciding to start enforcing it that way in a game determining decision during a game is NOT the time to address it either.
As shitty as it sounds that’s the rule. The rule should absolutely be changed so that this doesn’t happen again.
Uh no- There was no punt return for a TD in the UNC Virginia game.
I don’t think it's a very big stretch to think refs could be betting just like players.
Exactly, and thats the point. IF he hadn't run it back for a score nothing happens there at all, so in essence the ONLY reason they did anything is BECAUSE he scored. Thats BS. Either its a penalty or its not, (and has been pointed out, that NEVER gets called.). The fact that he scored should not be grounds to call it back, when they would NEVER have called that at all, IF #37 from Minnesota, (the first player to hit CDJ) would have knocked him out of bounds. So basically the refs made a conscious decision to change the outcome of the game, which is NOT their job.
Correct- so it’s not the same situation, at all. The difference was a touchdown allowed the review and call back - a 10 yard (non scoring) return has no replay ability.
100% agree with you, rule is awful and needs to be changed. I honestly wouldn’t be surprised if last night could be the catalyst for it to happen.
EXCEPT, that is NOT why they reviewed the play. They told Kirk they only reviewed the play to see if he stepped out of bounds, which he did not. SO then they just kept looking to see what else they could dig up.
What determines that as an invalid signal, no one interpreted it as a fair catch, none of the players let up.
That’s the dumbest ****ing argument—“If you return the ball too well we will review and reverse, but if your return isn’t all that good then no penalty”
And here is where you may be wrong. As I posted earlier, there is a view that seems to show he wasn't waving his arm. No one on the field thought he did. The REf didn't call it and that was NOT the reason for the original review. The replay official made an assumption that he was waving his arm.
Coop and Kirk have both said he was NOT waving his arm and that it was caused by his running. It was most definitely NOT an obvious call. When a replay official starts making assumptions (which is what he did) we are treading on dangerous waters!
Yea. Well it literally happens every freaking football game. They review scoring plays, no matter what.
When a player waves his hand telling his teammates to get away that is deemed an invalid fair catch and the play is automatically dead. This rule is black and white and was correctly enforced.
It’s completely interpretation on waving the arms. Anyone who runs to the ball waving their arms at their side as they run instead of straight at their sides like a penguin would fit into that definition. But that would be dumb so that never gets called because he’s clearly not trying to imitate a fair catch… but neither is a player who points to his teammates and tells them to move away.
All I can 100% guarantee is if they didn’t overturn the call the Big Ten and officials would have stated it was the correct call.
Virtually guaranteed.
There is nothing stopping them.
They have zero accountability.
Big Ten officiating is old boys club who do whatever the F they want. Whenever they want.
If you don’t think they have preferred outcomes for varying motivations, I got a bridge to sell you.
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.
He was clearly waving his left arm telling his teammates to get away. By rule the play is dead.
Suggest Hawkisoaker donates the $100 to the Children's Hospital. What say you MBPete?
Where is he waving his arms telling them to “get away”? Seems like an assumption and not something that would be considered indisputable— like how replays have to be… Nothing interpretive or assumed.
Clearly? He said he wasn’t. I assumed he was pointing and directing them on which way to go since their backs are to the ball. Again, a review has to be indisputable, not assumed or interpretive.
No it was NOT clear. The view from the front does not clearly show him waving his left arm. It moved some, but was not clearly waving!!!!!!!
What is this “get away” signal you speak of? Is there a rule that defines what a get away signal looks like? To me, it looks like he was directing his team who all have their backs to the ball to that side. So that would not be a get away signal. Unless, of course, there’s actually something in the rulebook, saying how to do the ”get away” signal.
Maybe that getaway signal is strictly interpretation by the officials? But then again, a review isn’t for interpretation it’s for indisputable evidence.
