Northwestern non-TD at end of first half vs. nebby = wrong
- Thread starter NorthernHawkeye
- Start date
He never had control. Was loose the entire time. Good call.
The pleasure in seeing NE struggle and/or lose might cloud your judgement on this call, I think the call was correct, the kid needed to finish the catch as he rolled over. As another posted said, that kid has hands of stone lately, what a missed opportunity.
He had possession crossed the plane of the goal line and his knee was down at that very second the play is over. The call is correct per the stupid rule. BTW we need NW to win this game.
The call was correct based upon the rule, but the rule itself is silly.
Yep - I believe it was Jones who dropped a number of passes against Iowa as well. Not impressed.
Beth Mowins is looking sexy today
Beth Mowins is looking sexy today
That was squarely on Fitz. He ran right in front of the side judge when the play was going on right in front of him. You come off the sideline enough to block an official's view of the action - you get what you deserve.
Agree.
Northwestern's receivers are really not very good at catching the football. I've seen at least 4 easy catches that were bobbled/dropped and I have been in and out of the room (not sitting and watching the game) so there may have been more than that. After all the drops last week, I'm convinced that this must be the weakest unit on this Northwestern team. If their receivers could catch, their offense would click/sustain drives.
Last edited:
He did! The silly rule left it up to the officials to say otherwise....simply because of said silly rule.
When an RB stretches the ball across the goal line, it's a TD. Play over. He can drop it immediately after breaking the plane, and it's still a TD, not a fumble. So on what logic is this recent rule on "a catch" based? It's yet another example of making something plain and simple ludicrously complicated. As soon as a receiver has possession in the end zone the play should be over. That's how it always was until replay came in, the bane of all sports. For every "bad" call it may correct, it creates two other problems on what never was and never should be questioned.
The NW pass into the end zone, before replay, would have been a TD and nobody would have thought twice about it. The receiver had the ball firmly in his control in the end zone. End of story. What happens after he tumbles to the ground and rolls over has nothing to do with anything...at least it never did and shouldn't now.
The NW pass into the end zone, before replay, would have been a TD and nobody would have thought twice about it. The receiver had the ball firmly in his control in the end zone. End of story. What happens after he tumbles to the ground and rolls over has nothing to do with anything...at least it never did and shouldn't now.
Darn rule!! It seems as if a receiver has to hold firmly and eternally. A runner runs, gets tackled and the ball hits the ground and bounces away. No problem. Its the rule folks. Live with it. Sorry.
In this play being discussed, call correct. Ball bounced away. But NU won anyway!! All good.
In this play being discussed, call correct. Ball bounced away. But NU won anyway!! All good.
Amen to that. Then you have golden Tate last week when announcers and pererra in studio said no TD then refs come back and call it a TD. I thought Nwestern guy may get it cause caught it had possession and knocked out by defender as he rolled over but with ruling on the field made it tough to over turn. Thought play would come back and and haunt nwestern losing those 4 pts but nice to see the Offense step up last 4 min, and doing so a week late thankfully.
I don't think he had ever had a drop until this year. He's having a nightmare year this year.
BINGO! We have a winner! What does he win, Susan?
Our receivers used to rarely have drops. NU always had good, possession-type receivers. The past three years have been brutal in terms of drops.
Agreed, he definitely had control for long enough that it should have been a catch.
With the way a catch is ruled now the ground is almost an extra defender. A ground can't cause a fumble but can cause an incompletion.
Maybe it's the chuck knoblauch syndrome. He was s great fielder and then all of the sudden couldn't throw the ball 60 feet to first base. Gets in your head.
Call is correct. If the ball is thrown into the end zone, or if the receiver has to go into the air to catch the ball, the receiver must maintain possession throughout the act of the catch. That is different than anyone who already has possession of the ball crossing the goal line from the field of play.
It's the same as if a receiver catches the ball near the sideline, taps one foot inbounds, then loses the ball as he hits the ground. Must maintain possession throughout the whole act of the catch.
Yep. NU's receiving corps seems to have collectively contracted a bad case of the "yips" when it comes to catching the ball. The guy who dropped the ball in the end zone yesterday was pretty much the last one to come down with the malady, but it has hit him hard. It really is contagious.
No one is saying that the call, as interpreted by the current rule, wasn't correct. That said, it's stupid rule, and at pretty much any other time in the history of organized football, it would have been ruled a catch. Why? Because it was a catch.
The worst was when a receiver caught it, went down, set the ball on the ground as he got up to celebrate, and they called it incomplete. Can't remember what game it was.
Would Razor Ramon's catch against Michigan stand today? As I recall, he caught it, crossed the plane, then dropped it. Ruled and confirmed a TD catch.
Would Razor Ramon's catch against Michigan stand today? As I recall, he caught it, crossed the plane, then dropped it. Ruled and confirmed a TD catch.
I don't know about this play. Haven't seen it. But in general, this new concept of what constitutes a catch is preposterous. Until five years ago or thereabouts, everybody understood that if you had possession of the ball when your knee (or other relevant body part) touched the ground inbounds, it was a catch. Simple, logical, and relatively easy to make the judgment for the official. Then in an NFL game, a ref made a lunatic call and was backed up, and it became suddenly trendy to use an entirely different criterion, which spread immediately to the college ranks.
So now we have a rule that, basically, if the player doesn't still have possession after he's showered and changed into street clothes after the game, he "hasn't completed the catch." And the officials now must decide not only whether he had possession when the play ended -- i.e., when his knee touched -- but also must decide how long the play continued after his knee touched and what degree of possession he maintained for that period.
Freaking ridiculous. There were two of these calls in the TCU-ISU game. One helped ISU, one helped TCU. Both should clearly have been ruled catches.
Similar threads
