ADVERTISEMENT

Big Ten just confirmed that the call was correct.

bunsen82 said:
If it had been called real time maybe. A invalid fair catch is not reviewable even on a scoring play.
Click to expand...
  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
 
BioHawk said:
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.
Click to expand...
We all know that is not true.
In every sport, officials are encouraged to swallow their whistles and let the players decide the outcome, especially in late game situations. We've all seen hundreds if not thousands of PIs that were not called because they were "letting them play." Same with holding.
 
wkato said:
  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
Click to expand...
But an "invalid fair catch signal" is not a fair catch signal, no?

There are a million subjective things in football that aren't reviewable because they are subjective, but somehow interpreting freaking hand movements from a player isn't one of them.

This is such bizarre shit.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DBQ Hawk, spiderland and Chuck C
This the statement from the B1G.

As you will read, they say it was a reviewable play.

I don't know what the hell to believe.

Still think it's a horse manure call, nonetheless. Has anyone ever seen this called before?

F9AWmWxWcAAlFC0
 
Not the correct call. An official stating that any movement of the arms is an invalid fair catch signal is not the intent of the rule nor is he interpreting it correctly. The entire purpose of that rule is to prevent a returner from deceiving the other team. The fact they needed a replay to even see the so called infraction makes it clear that this didn't happen. The official whose job it is to watch for a fair catch didn't call it on the field.

The review can look for whether a player advanced a ball after a fair catch signal. It does not state in the rule allowing the review that they can do the same for an invalid fair catch signal. In other words there is nothing that allows them to make a determination off of a review on whether there was an invalid fair catch signal. Only whether a player advanced ghe ball after a fair catch signal. If this seems like splitting hairs it isn't. Those pointing to this rule as justification cannot after the fact add additional meaning to fair catch as being inclusive of invalid fair catch when those are two distinct and different things by rule. If the invalid fair catch was missed by the on field officials then it is not reviewable. Which is exactly what happened

It couod be reasonably argued that an invalid fair catch was signaled if the official on the field had called it in the course of play. Using review to make this call is a gross application of a subjective call that wasn't made. If the invalid signal was called and the play was called dead we would be still be birthing about it but that would be the same kind of complain as a missed holding call or a weak pass interference call.

This was an egregious call and the officials smug press release immediately backed by the conference indicates they know the ****ed up badly. Tell me how often do we see an official ever release a statement about a call after a game? How often does that happen? It never happens
 
  • Like
Reactions: icantfindausernamethatisntused, GHawk, iahawks10 and 6 others
Franisdaman said:
This the statement from the B1G.

As you will read, they say it was a reviewable play.

I don't know what the hell to believe.

Still think it's a horse manure call, nonetheless. Has anyone ever seen this called before?

F9AWmWxWcAAlFC0
Click to expand...
If the ball is dead then why let it play out. Call it immediately and be done with it.
 
chosen.one said:
If the ball is dead then why let it play out. Call it immediately and be done with it.
Click to expand...

i guess either (1) that's how the officials are trained or (2) the officials didn't see anything wrong with what Cooper did.

It would be nice to know if the on field officials had any idea waving an arm HORIZONTALLY might cause a dead ball. That review might have come from the review office in Philadelphia.
 
wkato said:
  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
Click to expand...
So where is the invalid fair catch listed
 
  • Like
Reactions: hawkcub and spiderland
Franisdaman said:
This the statement from the B1G.

As you will read, they say it was a reviewable play.

I don't know what the hell to believe.

Still think it's a horse manure call, nonetheless. Has anyone ever seen this called before?

F9AWmWxWcAAlFC0
Click to expand...
“there are valued and invalid signals…” LOL, Tim O’Dey doesn’t even give enough of a sh!t about this to have someone proofread his statement. Typical stupid ass Nebber. Fvck him.
 
  • Like
Reactions: HawkeyeinOmaha
In my opinion the refs on the field made the call to verify he didn't step out and in the process the replay official in the box called down stating he made a fair catch wave and thats where it changed. In the confusion of what all happen, they failed to correctly describe what transpired during the review.
The receiver was clearly rapidly waving his left hand, not a natural running motion, while pointing with his right. I don't feel he was waving of his team members as the only one behind him was the ref. Lack of a whistle caused him to try and advance the ball.
I agree, it sucks to lose in those circumstances, and brings out emmotions. Had he fumbled and the same call was called, all would be happy for the call and feeling would back the rule.
 
wkato said:
In my opinion the refs on the field made the call to verify he didn't step out and in the process the replay official in the box called down stating he made a fair catch wave and thats where it changed. In the confusion of what all happen, they failed to correctly describe what transpired during the review.
The receiver was clearly rapidly waving his left hand, not a natural running motion, while pointing with his right. I don't feel he was waving of his team members as the only one behind him was the ref. Lack of a whistle caused him to try and advance the ball.
I agree, it sucks to lose in those circumstances, and brings out emmotions. Had he fumbled and the same call was called, all would be happy for the call and feeling would back the rule.
Click to expand...

He was pointing with his left hand. It's 100% a shit call.

 
wkato said:
  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
Click to expand...
They didn’t say it was a fair catch signal— their defense of officiating was that it was for an invalid fair catch signal.
 
wkato said:
In my opinion the refs on the field made the call to verify he didn't step out and in the process the replay official in the box called down stating he made a fair catch wave and thats where it changed. In the confusion of what all happen, they failed to correctly describe what transpired during the review.
The receiver was clearly rapidly waving his left hand, not a natural running motion, while pointing with his right. I don't feel he was waving of his team members as the only one behind him was the ref. Lack of a whistle caused him to try and advance the ball.
I agree, it sucks to lose in those circumstances, and brings out emmotions. Had he fumbled and the same call was called, all would be happy for the call and feeling would back the rule.
Click to expand...
He was balancing with his left arm while pointing with his right arm. While running that makes it look like he was waving his arm, but he wasn't. It's also supposed to be indisputable for them to reverse the call on the field, which this was not.
 
  • Like
Reactions: icantfindausernamethatisntused and GHawk
Iafootballfan said:
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.
Click to expand...
So, if Cooper has returned it to the 20 yard line, took a knee, and Iowa simply kicked a game winning field goal…you would have had no problem with a “non-call” in that situation?
 
HawkeyeinOmaha said:
He was balancing with his left arm while pointing with his right arm. While running that makes it look like he was waving his arm, but he wasn't. It's also supposed to be indisputable for them to reverse the call on the field, which this was not.
Click to expand...

Some of you people can't even be honest with yourselves.
 
  • Like
Reactions: IHATEIOWA
Steamboat529529 said:
Yea. Well it literally happens every freaking football game. They review scoring plays, no matter what.
Click to expand...

Every play in college is reviewed by the replay official no matter what. Scoring plays (touchdown/no touchdown) is something that can be reviewed by the referee.
 
BubsFinn said:
We all know that is not true.
In every sport, officials are encouraged to swallow their whistles and let the players decide the outcome, especially in late game situations. We've all seen hundreds if not thousands of PIs that were not called because they were "letting them play." Same with holding.
Click to expand...
Well, this was definitely NOT letting the players determine the outcome.
 
The invalid fair catch portion was put in there as not to give the return team an unfair advantage. You really have to squint real hard to make the judgement what Cooper did was that or at least have an agenda. Then the fact it wasn't even reviewable by the same rule so many are pointing that it was a legit call. When was the last time an official made a statement about a call.
 
  • Like
Reactions: icantfindausernamethatisntused and hawkedoff
IHATEIOWA said:
He was clearly waving his left arm telling his teammates to get away. By rule the play is dead.
Click to expand...
You are way too invested in this argument to actually believe they got the call right. You definitely sound like you are a Minnesota fan who wants to be able to convince himself that Minnesota won that game legitimately and didn't have the officials dream up some complete bullshit to hand the game to them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: icantfindausernamethatisntused, hawkedoff and hawkcub
NorthernHawkeye said:
Yeah, with his right arm.

How about his left arm? That's the issue.

Why do some of you keep ignoring the video that contains the best view?

That's like reviewing a fumble with only one camera angle and ignoring the second angle.

View embedded media
Click to expand...

Are you blind as shit? The view I posted clearly shows his left hand pointing.

You really might be the most obtuse person on this board.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Chuck C
NorthernHawkeye said:
Yeah, with his right arm.

How about his left arm? That's the issue.

Why do some of you keep ignoring the video that contains the best view?

That's like reviewing a fumble with only one camera angle and ignoring the second angle.

View embedded media
Click to expand...
Was it called on the field or not? Simple yes or no

Does reviewable plays include fair catch vs invalid fair catch determination or not? Simple yes or no

Wasn't a fair catch and determining whether it was or not isn't a reviewable call. Wasn't called on the field.
 
IHATEIOWA said:
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.
Click to expand...
If it was so obvious then why didn’t the refs just blow their whistles when he grabbed the ball? Play over, correct?
 
  • Like
Reactions: iahawks10
NorthernHawkeye said:
Yeah, with his right arm.

How about his left arm? That's the issue.

Why do some of you keep ignoring the video that contains the best view?

That's like reviewing a fumble with only one camera angle and ignoring the second angle.

View embedded media
Click to expand...
Even with your squinting as hard as you can to think this is the right call. It is also not reviewable by the same rule that people are citing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: iahawks10
bansheexyz said:
Yeah how dare Cooper or any other returners use human communication of hand gestures in a loud environment to direct traffic in the chaos of a punt return. There is no attempt at deception here, hence why no one was deceived and everyone immediately tried to tackle him. The refs are a disgrace, the rulebook is shortsighted, and the Big Ten are just a bunch of money worshippers who could give two ****s about stealing a legendary moment from Cooper.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Franisdaman said:
This the statement from the B1G.

As you will read, they say it was a reviewable play.

I don't know what the hell to believe.

Still think it's a horse manure call, nonetheless. Has anyone ever seen this called before?

F9AWmWxWcAAlFC0
Click to expand...
From the field point of view it was definitely not a wave.
 
Did You really expect the B1G to not cover Their head bookie behind the curtain in Pittsburg? argue the rule all You want but when one play changes the cover and possibly the total and rids the B1G and CFP of the Iowa problem in one absolutely Horsecrap call that is never made , ever made, see it for what it is, I mean it isn't like the National Media had stories published of the Iowa nightmare scenerio for the CFP . oh wait Yes they did. Minnesota and the points got absolutely hammered late by some huge bets , So did the Under and it wasn't Mom n Pops .
 
  • Like
Reactions: Randall Stanhope and hawkcub
Hawktagonapus said:
Big ten is full of shit
Click to expand...
mlb1399 said:
Every football coach I’ve had at every level has said when you leave it in the refs hands, you don’t deserve to win.

We lost this game because of 3 TO’s, because we could only muster 11 yards rushing against a team giving up 138.5/game, because we can barely complete a forward pass, block, catch a football, coach an offense, develop offensive players and have an offense that no serious playmaker wants to play in. That call is far down the list of why we lost this game
Click to expand...
Don’t forget the secondary that can’t cover vs decent teams, a saftey that couldn’t play at Drake and a soft Dline.
 
NorthernHawkeye said:
Some of you people can't even be honest with yourselves.
Click to expand...
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

curtisj157

SEC staying at 8 conf game. The stupid, idiotic Big Ten staying at 9 plus a p5 out of conference. Big advantage SEC.

Replies
22
Views
1K
Iowa Football
win1forthe
W
Drinkin Buddy

Big Ten, SEC form advisory group as conferences' bond tightens

Replies
26
Views
2K
Iowa Football
fezzador
fezzador
Eliot Clough

Tony Perkins enters the transfer portal

Replies
63
Views
4K
Iowa Premium Forum
131313
1
Chuck C

Question about teams going to the Big Ten and stats

Replies
1
Views
184
Iowa Basketball
Hawk_4shur
Hawk_4shur
Franisdaman

14 Team College Football Playoff Revenue Distribution (in 2026): Power 2 will get over $300M More Annually from ESPN than the Other 2 (Big 12 & ACC)

Replies
87
Views
4K
Iowa Football
BirdistheWord
BirdistheWord
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT
Top Bottom
Back