Big Ten just confirmed that the call was correct.
- Thread starter NorthernHawkeye
- Start date
1) Again, where's the link to their statement? I asked yesterday but you have failed to provide.
2) What would you expect from this weak league? Throwing their officials under the bus? Total CYA, in my opinion.
The call is not listed as being a reviewable call. Therefore, it should not have been called after the fact.
So if Cooper trips on the 10 yard line and doesn't score, the play become non-reviewable?
I have seen the call in other games as well, but its been to the returner making a signal that is ambiguous to what has been agreed upon…. That being said. What happened yesterday was more a a logistical fvck up… Minnesota lobbies for the out of bounds review and they can then somehow reoffciate the entire play… not good, bobs. The same reason they cant throw flags after a play for PI… so they set a rather shitty precedent yesterday.
BirdistheWord
HR Heisman
I feel like context is critical and the crew made an egregious error. (nobody gives a f&c! what the B1G office had to say on the issue, as they are just public relations). Given the punt was woefully short, 100% of CDJ's focus was on communicating to his team to keep away, clear the area. At that point, he is 100% not fielding the punt directly from the air. He has not yet ever signaled for a "fair catch," which would require him to wave over his head.
Due to the friendly bounce, he was able to field the punt and every Goofer that was near him does make a play on him and try and tackle him, so no one on the field appears to think it was a fair catch.
It really was not close as it relates to stepping out of bounds, to the point where it probably should not have even been reviewed.
Due to the friendly bounce, he was able to field the punt and every Goofer that was near him does make a play on him and try and tackle him, so no one on the field appears to think it was a fair catch.
It really was not close as it relates to stepping out of bounds, to the point where it probably should not have even been reviewed.
BirdistheWord
HR Heisman
Something needs to change, its a shitty rule and/or shitty interpretation of the rule. Far too ambiguous IMO. That's why we bitch about it, it won't change the outcome (dems said 2016 was stolen too, nice selective recall on your part) but that rule needs to be looked at so this does not happen ever again. You have to separate that play from our dogshit offense.
Last edited:
He also wasn’t giving a fair catch or the illusive “get away” signal— I thought he was directing his teammates, who have the back to the ball to go to that side.
Again, either way, it’s definitely up for interpretation. And a review is not for interpretive calls. It’s for indisputable calls.
In fairness, they review every scoring play. So that’s not really up for debate. My issue is that this is determined to be an interpretive call. Reviews are not for interpretation calls they have to be indisputable, black-and-white, calls. You can’t go and review a play and reinterpret an interpretive call. During the field of play, it was interpreted by offense, defense, officials, fans, coaches, that there was no indication of a fair catch.
It happened in the UNC game last night!!!!! Watch football games...it happens regularly where a guy waves off blockers, ball bounces to him, and he runs with it.
While I don’t like the call, for Kirk to call that his natural running motion is silly. I feel like Cooper was pointing with his right arm and basically kind of semi waving guys off away from the ball with his left arm. Can’t believe they called that. But it definitely wasn’t just a natural motion.
Tom,
Any reasonable person that reviews the above exchange between you and I can only conclude that you lack intelligence.
For the last time, it wasn't a penalty! Why is this so hard for you to understand?
Possibly the just possibly the blame for the loss doesn’t lie with the refs but with our quarterback, that is completing 35 freaking % of his passes.
just a hunch…
just a hunch…
Bwhahahahahahaha! You don't even see it! Why? Because you think on a basic level.
NO he isn't . You must be blind as a bat. The key word is clearly. The view from behind looks like it. The front view is VERY different.
Plus he has said he was NOT signalling anyone. I think I'll believe my own eyes and Coop.
It's been posted in this thread a couple of times.
Do your own work.
You won't be satisfied either way, as illustrated in your second point.
His odd movements were exactly what I noticed as well. I thought it was odd initially watching it and the play would be dead. I didn't think he could return it after doing so but no whistles came so I was just accepting of it. Not surprised when it came back. I personally think it was the correct call but I don't have any knowledge about reffing really so I'm not a good judge on the matter.
What. Did. The. Replay. Official. In. Pittsburgh. Say. It. Was?
I'll give you the first letter. It's a "P".
That exchange is cringeworthy. I'm experiencing second hand embarrassment watching TParis doubledown on his penalty claim.
I specifically said a punt return where someone scored which enables a review.
You can’t show an example either so you result to an insult. Classic
Again, you are using the rear angle. And we have all admitted his arm is moving. However, when you watch the south endzone view you can see those arm movements are NOT as obvious as you keep saying. The arm movement looks much more natural from the front view.
The point is, when looking at both views it becomes much more ambiguous. Plus Coop has stated he was NOT signalling anything or anyone. Why would he use his back arm if he was signalling teammates in front of him.
BirdistheWord
HR Heisman
Okay, and you keep telling yourself that the Russian Collusion Hoax and Hunter Biden Laptop suppression are conspiracy theories.
JFC, you're making no sense. They're allowed to use all camera views. Some camera angles show better views than others.
Iafootballfan said:
Please show where failure to call an invalid signal resulted in a touchdown.
We’ll wait.
"Failure to call an invalid signal" is a double negative. So it ends up having the same meaning as "succeeding in calling a valid signal."
I don't think that's what you meant to say though.
And secondly, you seem to be arguing that every time the refs see this happen, they wait to see if it results in a touchdown... and if so, only then will they decide to call it.
And you know what... that is indeed exactly what they did.
But that's ridiculous logic at best, and corrupt at worst. And you are arguing in favor of the ridiculous logic and/or corruption.
Not good.
