McCarron fumble review

[DutchyFunStar]

Dodged a bullet on that one. I didn't see one camera angle that supported calling it a no catch. All I saw was the ball arrive, two feet hit the ground, an attempted spin move and the ball flying out of the endzone. Call on the field was touchback so I was shocked it was overturned.

 

[DutchyFunStar]

Its a strange rule too. Fumble out of bounds anywhere else and you retain possession. Fumble out of the endzone and its a turnover.

 

[BGHAWK]

I would have thought that there would have been a camera on the other side of the play. I thought it was a bad call. Also, they looked at it to see if he crossed the goal line, which he did not. That brings me to my next question. Why don't all games have a camera on the goal line on both sides of the field at both ends?

 

[Herky T Hawk]

I guess what they saw on the replay was that he didn't make a "football move". He caught the ball while in the air, landed a yard or two closer to the endzone first with one foot, then with the other and almost immediately got blasted which spun him and knocked the ball loose towards the endzone.

When watching it on tv in slow motion it looks like he had possession of the ball forever, but when watching it in real time he didn't really have much of any time to do anything with the ball after his feet touched the ground before it got knocked out.

It is one of those where I would have been ok if the call on the field was upheld, but I can see why they had some room to overturn it.

 

[Ree4]

Didn't they only show one angle? Replay officials have access to more replays than are shown on TV, we couldn't see if the ball was bobbled at all. If you compare it to MO's first fumble the guy caught the ball and then tried to juke. The only thing McCarron did was to land after catching it, taking a hit and spinning as the ball is loose already.

Hard to say, based on the view of the replay I was surprised that they overturned it but they likely had a different angle to work with. Similar to that Indiana TD that was overturned in 2009 that everyone was so mad about, but after looking at the replay was clearly the correct call.

 

[DutchyFunStar]

He had to have some kind of possession or else the hit would have knocked the ball backwards, right?

 

[EpenesaEpenesa]

Gift

 

[Hawk8595]

If he bobbled it, wouldn't he have to make a football move starting from the point of full possession? Not knowing if and for how long he bobbled because of the camera angle, there is no way the viewer could know if it was the right call. However, I'm good with it.

 

[BioHawk]

There had to have been another view because I just don't see how there was enough there from what was shown on TV to overturn the call on the field.

 

[Lone Clone]

I didn't see it. I was listening to the radio, and both Dolph and Ed agreed the reversal was a mistake that benefitted Iowa. Dolph used the phrase "home cooking."

Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't, but it brings up the basic problem with the way they've been interpreting catches the last 4-5 years. It's freaking ridiculous. It used to be that if a guy had possession when he was downed (or OB), it was a catch. Simple. Rational. The only thing the official had to determine was possession. Now, apparently if you don't still have the ball after you've showered and dressed, it isn't a catch. Total bullshit, and just another chance for officials to make judgment errors.

There were two TD catches in the ISU game that definitely were catches, and were correctly ruled to be catches. But in the next game, both of them might be ruled incomplete.

 

[Phenomenally Frantastic]

Zero steps, never completed the catch.

Easy call.

If the "catch"happened at midfield, and the "fumble" is recovered by Iowa. The RedHawks are happy it is ruled incomplete.

Just sayin'

 

[myteamcanbeatupyourteam]

Dodged a bullet on that one. I didn't see one camera angle that supported calling it a no catch. All I saw was the ball arrive, two feet hit the ground, an attempted spin move and the ball flying out of the endzone. Call on the field was touchback so I was shocked it was overturned.

I think the key in interpreting this rule is MAKE a football move. It appeared he fumbled in the process TRYING to make a football move. At least that's how I make sense of it. So if the whole process of catching a pass is the catch, feet down and COMPLETING a move then I guess it was incomplete.

 

[ROCKY MOUNTAIN HAWK]

I don't think you'll have to worry about ISU TD catches in your next game.

 

[General Roman Malaise]

Its a strange rule too. Fumble out of bounds anywhere else and you retain possession. Fumble out of the endzone and its a turnover.

I've always assumed the touchback rule serves as a deterrent to a player intentionally fumbling into the end zone while being tackled in a late game desperation situation.

 

[myteamcanbeatupyourteam]

I didn't see it. I was listening to the radio, and both Dolph and Ed agreed the reversal was a mistake that benefitted Iowa. Dolph used the phrase "home cooking."

Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't, but it brings up the basic problem with the way they've been interpreting catches the last 4-5 years. It's freaking ridiculous. It used to be that if a guy had possession when he was downed (or OB), it was a catch. Simple. Rational. The only thing the official had to determine was possession. Now, apparently if you don't still have the ball after you've showered and dressed, it isn't a catch. Total bullshit, and just another chance for officials to make judgment errors.

There were two TD catches in the ISU game that definitely were catches, and were correctly ruled to be catches. But in the next game, both of them might be ruled incomplete.

So you're saying the UNI loss could have been worse?

 

[Kinnick4Ever]

Count me among those shocked that the call was overturned. Saw it from the stands clear as a bell, then on replay. IMHO, McCarron clearly made the catch and fumbled when hit. What in the world were they looking at?

 

[gojojo]

I would have been furious if the roles were reversed. I was shocked they overturned it. Looked to me that he caught it, took two steps and got blown up.

 

[GarryO37]

I thought it was a blown call by the refs and it should have been Miami's ball on the 20. But I could have sworn the ref after the review said the call on the field was that the pass was incomplete. But I thought the call on the field was that the ball was fumbled out the back of the endzone giving Miami the ball on the 20. Maybe I did mishear the ref after the review.

Now if the refs got the call on the field mixed up, then everything makes more sense.

Nonetheless, IMO it was a catch and fumble. If you thought that was an incomplete pass, then you aren't being objective about the play and drinking too much koolaid.

 

[thewop]

Everything I saw said we caught a break, and Miami (OH) got screwed. I will add this:

My friend is an ACC ref, and he says sometimes the replay official doesn't have all the same views we do (if it's the same in the B1G). According to him, this is usually what leads to a lot of these plays where we all unanimously see one thing, and review concludes the opposite. Who knows...

 

[Suterman]

I watched it 10 different times. I absolutely thought it was a catch. I think we dodged a bullet.

 

[mazda1]

A bad replay call.

I'll try and remember this one next time Iowa gets jobbed by the striped shirts.

 

[hawkeyeguy69]

Its a strange rule too. Fumble out of bounds anywhere else and you retain possession. Fumble out of the endzone and its a turnover.

It is a bogus rule. At the worst it should be a touchback for the team with the ball. That's a huge setback in itself

 

[DavenportHawk8]

I didn't see it. I was listening to the radio, and both Dolph and Ed agreed the reversal was a mistake that benefitted Iowa. Dolph used the phrase "home cooking."

Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't, but it brings up the basic problem with the way they've been interpreting catches the last 4-5 years. It's freaking ridiculous. It used to be that if a guy had possession when he was downed (or OB), it was a catch. Simple. Rational. The only thing the official had to determine was possession. Now, apparently if you don't still have the ball after you've showered and dressed, it isn't a catch. Total bullshit, and just another chance for officials to make judgment errors.

There were two TD catches in the ISU game that definitely were catches, and were correctly ruled to be catches. But in the next game, both of them might be ruled incomplete.

Just look at ND/Texas or Tenn/Appy State. Two games where TD's were over turned. The Receivers caught the ball with their feet hitting the end zone, but then they dropped it on contact? I thought once the ball crossed the goal line it was dead?

I agree that they keep changing the definition of a catch and now its nearly impossible for the officials to get it right.

 

[icantfindausernamethatisntused]

I think it might actually be a correct interpretation of the rule, but it's a rule that about 95% of fans seem to disagree with. It reminds me of the Calvin Johnson and Dez Bryant catches that were overturned. Most people look at plays like this and conclude that it is a catch, however, the rule states you must make a "football move" which is difficult to define, but it is more than just having two feet on the ground.

I agree with everyone saying that should be a catch, but we also have to recognize that we cannot blame the on-field officials for correctly interpreting a bad rule.

 

[fifteenandoh]

I think people are used to watching baseball... a catch in baseball is not the same as a catch in football.
one thing that might help is to think of McCarron being in the End Zone and making that catch... would that be a Touchown?.. or Incomplete Pass?

the reason I agree with the Catch Rule in Football is because its a bigger ball than a baseball... a Receiver in Football needs to show more to complete a catch.

 

[SDHawkDoc]

Poor ball security. Alert defender making a play.
McCarron was the fortunate beneficiary of that gift after his error.

 

[Birky]

It is a bogus rule. At the worst it should be a touchback for the team with the ball. That's a huge setback in itself

Yep, that should be the rule. Glitch in the rule book. Have always thought it was a stupid rule. The defense shouldn't get the same reward for the ball rolling out of the endzone as they get for a recovery. An essential 20 yard penalty seems like more than enough.