St Paul Pioneer Press article. Decision to review AND ENFORCE Invalid Fair Catch Signal NOT made by O’Dey, but came from the booth at Kinnick Stadium

[iahawks10]

I say throw the freaking reviews out. Period. I prefer to go back when officials knew they had to make the correct call. And if they didn't, then we would still have things to discuss, just as we do now.

I’ll disagree and say replay definitely outweighs the bad on field officiating 95% of the time. Yes, it could be and should be even higher than 95% of the time.

They need to throw out crooked MF’ers like Ken Koester. It was clear from the beginning of this game and the six replays that he called for that there was an agenda.

 

[Franisdaman]

I just want one of the reporters in Iowa to ask the Big Ten or NCAA where in the rule book it says that an invalid fair catch is reviewable. Please just one person ask them that question.

It only says a fair catch is reviewable. And if they point to that, then you point to the different part of the rule book that explicitly says that an invalid fair catch is not a fair catch. Then again ask them where it says that an invalid fair catch is reviewable.

They are making up the reviewability of an invalid fair catch to cover their rear ends and nobody is calling them out on it. If they say that the replay allows them to review all aspects of the play, even something that isn't defined as reviewable in the rule book, then all bets are off the table on any replay for any penalty or violation.

Replace bowling with football.

Do you think the B1G & NCAA rules officials on the call essentially are saying they were looking at whether or not a fair catch was being signaled (which is reviewable) and when doing that they ruled it was an invalid fair catch? I don't know; I am just asking/guessing.

A reporter from the Register and a reporter from St Paul were supposed to help clear everything up and this has just led to more questions and shaking of heads. And when that happens? It tells you the call of touchdown, on the field, should have stood.

 

[obfuscating]

So that means that when they review a touchdown and they see an offensive lineman holding they can call the touchdown back.

Hypocrites if they don't.

 

[obfuscating]

Not a single official (of the what, 7) on the field threw a flag or blew a whistle. They say this call came from the booth at Iowa after review. If that is the case, then they should be looking for infractions on every review, period, no exceptions.

 

[Franisdaman]

here is the full podcast

hit the PLAY button

 

[SoonerBeAHawk]

I just want one of the reporters in Iowa to ask the Big Ten or NCAA where in the rule book it says that an invalid fair catch is reviewable.

This is where I'm at.

Since the refs/B1G/NCAA keep pointing to an arcane and never enforced rule then let's rely on the letter of the law fully.

As you stated, fair catch calls are reviewable. Invalid fair catches not listed as reviewable.

 

[WEH8ST8HAWK]

But if they are reviewing if he stepped out of bounds and then noticed the invalid fair catch then that opens it up to reviewing all touchdowns and look for holding or any other infraction.

There was no need to review if he stepped out, he wasn't close to stepping out at any time. There shouldn't have been any review but they are covering their ass and won't say that.

 

[pistachio1999]

agreed.

why not make it this:

* if the punt returner waves his arm above his head at least to the left & to the right he's not touchable and the ball is dead if and where it is caught

* if the punt returner does not do this, he's subject to being legally hit/tackled and the ball can be advanced by the returning team once in possession

The funny part is a player can hold his hand above his head to shield the sun!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! How the F is that not some bleeping dead ball right there too! Its not a fair catch, but its allowable.

 

[Grumpy Old Hawk]

i think they can only review and enforce what's reviewable

So basically they can do whatever they want to achieve the outcomes they want. They just dont hide it anymore.

 

[BigOHawk]

This will forever live in Hawkeye infamy along with the 05 Blackout Game, the 05 Outback Bowl, etc.

 

[NI hawk]

Our offense, in the 2nd half: 12 yards, 0 points

Hill's fumble gave Minny 3 points

In our final possession: we only had to move the ball 24 yards to be in position for a game winning FG. Hill throws a pick.

Did you notice how open LeShon Williams was if he would have just looked to his left. Short easy pass would have picked up at least ten yards. Interception happened right in front of me. No chance to make a play.

 

[hawkedoff]

I am afraid KF didn't get the whole story from the on field officials because, from the story in the orig post, once in review, they can review the whole play

They can review the whole play for things that are determined to be reviewable. Invalid fair catch is not included as something that is revieweable. The officials are trying to claim it folds under the part where they can review whether a player advanced a fair catch. The problem is that isn't what the rule states.

They are making an appeal to authority and the rule of law while in the same breath downplaying what the actual rule states. It is a smug and arrogant interpretation and claim that indicates they believe they are the rule of law rather than the actual rules set forth.

The idea by the way that the eye in the sky official made this entire determination on his own makes this entire fiasco even worse.

 

[Franisdaman]

This is where I'm at.

Since the refs/B1G/NCAA keep pointing to an arcane and never enforced rule then let's rely on the letter of the law fully.

As you stated, fair catch calls are reviewable. Invalid fair catches not listed as reviewable.

Do you think the B1G & NCAA rules officials on the call with the 2 reporters essentially are saying they were looking at whether or not a fair catch was being signaled (which is reviewable) and when doing that they ruled it was an invalid fair catch? I don't know; I am just asking/guessing.

 

[Hans81]

no on field official called anything except a touchdown for Iowa.

the replay official in the booth apparently thought it was indisputable and made the final call

what a fooking mess

Who was the replay official in the booth?

 

[iahawks10]

Who was the replay official in the booth?

Ken Koester. Reportedly a Minnesota graduate (and lifelong Goofer fan).

 

[Franisdaman]

So basically they can do whatever they want to achieve the outcomes they want. They just dont hide it anymore.

I wouldn't say "they" can do whatever they want. One person, the replay official at the stadium, has all the power and has the final say.

 

[Franisdaman]

The funny part is a player can hold his hand above his head to shield the sun!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! How the F is that not some bleeping dead ball right there too! Its not a fair catch, but its allowable.

there's so much gray area....

 

[Herky T Hawk]

Do you think the B1G & NCAA rules officials on the call essentially are saying they were looking at whether or not a fair catch was being signaled (which is reviewable) and when doing that they ruled it was an invalid fair catch? I don't know; I am just asking/guessing.

A reporter from the Register and a reporter from St Paul were supposed to help clear everything up and this has just led to more questions and shaking of heads. And when that happens? It tells you the call of touchdown, on the field, should have stood.

I don’t know what they were looking for when they went to the review and I’m not going to say for certain what they were first looking at. We all assumed out of bounds on the sideline like Kirk said, which Cooper wasn’t. But the ref now says they reviewing for an invalid fair catch. Like I said, the rules don’t allow for a review of an invalid fair catch, only a fair catch. If they were doing a review to see if a fair catch signal was made, fine, but it is obvious that he didn’t make one by the letter of the rule and so the review shouldn’t have lasted very long and the touchdown stands.

It all boils down to, they can‘t review an invalid fair catch signal per the rules. It is a judgement call on the field by the refs, just like holding. It isn’t something clear like a knee down or stepping out of bounds that isn’t a judgement call. The refs on the field didn’t think it was an invalid fair catch, so the game should play on.

 

[herkhatescy]

So basically they can do whatever they want to achieve the outcomes they want. They just dont hide it anymore.

Exactly.

 

[Franisdaman]

They can review the whole play for things that are determined to be reviewable. Invalid fair catch is not included as something that is revieweable. The officials are trying to claim it folds under the part where they can review whether a player advanced a fair catch. The problem is that isn't what the rule states.

They are making an appeal to authority and the rule of law while in the same breath downplaying what the actual rule states. It is a smug and arrogant interpretation and claim that indicates they believe they are the rule of law rather than the actual rules set forth.

The idea by the way that the eye in the sky official made this entire determination on his own makes this entire fiasco even worse.

i am guessing here but it seems like they are saying they were reviewing if a fair catch was ever signaled and then ruled than an invalid one was made

the point of having a Minneapolis/St Paul and a Des Moines beat reporter interviewing the B1G and NCAA rules officials was to clear this all up. Instead, there are stil more questions. It's frickin' ridiciulous.

 

[Franisdaman]

Who was the replay official in the booth?

don't know

 

[Scott559]

Who was the replay official in the booth?

 

[Franisdaman]

I don’t know what they were looking for when they went to the review and I’m not going to say for certain what they were first looking at. We all assumed out of bounds on the sideline like Kirk said, which Cooper wasn’t. But the ref now says they reviewing for an invalid fair catch. Like I said, the rules don’t allow for a review of an invalid fair catch, only a fair catch. If they were doing a review to see if a fair catch signal was made, fine, but it is obvious that he didn’t make one by the letter of the rule and so the review shouldn’t have lasted very long and the touchdown stands.

It all boils down to, they can‘t review an invalid fair catch signal per the rules. It is a judgement call on the field by the refs, just like holding. It isn’t something clear like a knee down or stepping out of bounds that isn’t a judgement call. The refs on the field didn’t think it was an invalid fair catch, so the game should play on.

I think the bastards are saying that they can review whether a fair catch was attempted (per the rules) and determined that the fair catch signals were invalid.

 

[Hans81]

Ken Koester. Reportedly a Minnesota graduate (and lifelong Goofer fan).

If so, why was/is he allowed to work a MN game?

 

[herkhatescy]

It's 3 days later and people are still making stuff up. THIS IS NOT TRUE, holding is not a reviewable penalty.

Neither is an invalid fair catch call if you're looking whether he stepped out of bounds or not.

 

[herkhatescy]

LOL

they photoshopped O'Dey in

Yeah I know that but did they really show this at the game?

 

[Franisdaman]

Yeah I know that but did they really show this at the game?

no

someone then took a screen shot from the video and took out the Gopher player and replaced him with O'Dey

 

[herkhatescy]

no

someone then took a screen shot from the video and took out the Gopher player and replaced him with O'Dey

I see. Thanks.

 

[SoonerBeAHawk]

I think the bastards are saying that they can review whether a fair catch was attempted (per the rules) and determined that the fair catch signals were invalid.

This is my final position, fwiw:

In a very strict interpretation of the rules - which is never/rarely administered as such - he  did make an invalid fair catch.

By perhaps an even stricter interpretation, the play is not reviewable. Was a fair catch signaled, yes or no? No. The fact they tacked on it was invalid should have no bearing. That's not reviewable.

 

[BGHAWK]

I heard the press box official was a Minnesota grad. If so, then we know the rest of the story.

 

[WWDMHawkeye]

So this discussion raises another point: Why aren’t refs assigned to games in a manner that would minimize conflicts of interest?

Many Iowa fans don’t think it was any coincidence that Michigan fan Witvoet screwed the Hawks over multiple times en route to helping Michigan win in Kinnick. If the review “official” for Saturday’s game really was a Minnesota grad, his allegiance probably influenced his bullshit call. And we all know O’Dey is a Nebraska grad, resident, and fan.

I realize that there are only so many refs and conflicts of interest probably can’t be avoided 100%, but it seems that, at the very least, every effort should be made to prevent refs from working games involving their alma mater, their favorite program, or a protected rival of their alma mater or favorite program.

These people are human beings with biases just like us fans — and are fans, themselves. No matter how hard they might try (or not try) to remain objective, they simply can’t always keep their allegiances from affecting the calls they make. Maybe I’m just unaware of policies already in place; if they exist, they sure as hell don’t work very well.

 

[Franisdaman]

This is my final position, fwiw:

In a very strict interpretation of the rules - which is never/rarely administered as such - he  did make an invalid fair catch.

By perhaps an even stricter interpretation, the play is not reviewable. Was a fair catch signaled, yes or no? No. The fact they tacked on it was invalid should have no bearing. That's not reviewable.

It's all messed up. I was just guessing on why the B1G officials guy was saying it was reviewable.

He's supposed to be the rules expert. He should have explained why it was reviewable better. The 2 beat reporters should have asked better questions so that they could have expained the whole situation better to their readers. Since both sides failed, people are still confused and asking questions.

 

[Franisdaman]

So this discussion raises another point: Why aren’t refs assigned to games in a manner that would minimize conflicts of interest?

Many Iowa fans don’t think it was any coincidence that Michigan fan Witvoet screwed the Hawks over multiple times en route to helping Michigan win in Kinnick. If the review “official” for Saturday’s game really was a Minnesota grad, his allegiance probably influenced his bullshit call. And we all know O’Dey is a Nebraska grad, resident, and fan.

I realize that there are only so many refs and conflicts of interest probably can’t be avoided 100%, but it seems that, at the very least, every effort should be made to prevent refs from working games involving their alma mater, their favorite program, or a protected rival of their alma mater or favorite program.

These people are human beings with biases just like us fans — and are fans, themselves. No matter how hard they might try (or not try) to remain objective, they simply can’t always keep their allegiances from affecting the calls they make. Maybe I’m just unaware of policies already in place; if they exist, they sure as hell don’t work very well.

This issue should have been asked by either the Minnesota beat reporter or the Iowa beat reporter.

 

[Quintana]

Shaw said the intent of the invalid fair catch signal rule is “we don’t want people covering the kick to have to go through a whole thing of is that a valid signal or is it invalid? Do I tackle this guy or do I not? The rule was put in to protect the receiver. Give a valid signal and then you have protection. If you give an invalid signal, you lose protection, but you still forfeit your right to return it.”

this is exactly why the call shouldn't have been made. its a subjective call to begin with (what constitutes an arm wave or a pointing motion or just moving your arms while running?) and the intent of the rule is to protect the coverage team from being deceived... so shouldn't that be taken into account when determining if the call should be made?

the ball ended up way (30 yards?) to the left and short of cdj and when he made the motion almost immediately when the ball was punted. no one was was even looking at him as the ball was so far away from his position. the coverage was tracking the ball in the air not looking at cdj as evidenced by the 7 rodents surrounding the ball when cdj arrived and fielded the ball. cdj then proceeded to embarrass the coverage, none of whom it appeared were deceived in the least by the motion they probably didn't even see, in front of their head coach.

the motion had zero impact on the outcome of the play and with a call that is inherently subjective in nature, that should be considered as well. imo

 

[Franisdaman]

this is exactly why the call shouldn't have been made. its a subjective call to begin with (what constitutes an arm wave or a pointing motion or just moving your arms while running?) and the intent of the rule is to protect the coverage team from being deceived... so shouldn't that be taken into account when determining if the call should be made?

the ball ended up way (30 yards?) to the left and short of cdj and when he made the motion almost immediately when the ball was punted. no one was was even looking at him as the ball was so far away from his position. the coverage was tracking the ball in the air not looking at cdj as evidenced by the 7 rodents surrounding the ball when cdj arrived and fielded the ball. cdj then proceeded to embarrass the coverage, none of whom it appeared were deceived in the least by the motion they probably didn't even see, in front of their head coach.

the motion had zero impact on the outcome of the play and with a call that is inherently subjective in nature, that should be considered as well. imo

None of the on-field officals saw anything wrong with what Cooper did. How one person high up in the booth can then decide to review it, change the call and say there's indisputable evidence I have no idea.

This whole issue needs to be cleaned up by the NCAA Rules Committe.

 

[hawkedoff]

Who is the person in the booth. We most certainly have been all over odey. Who is the coward in the booth that made the call

 

[Franisdaman]

this fair catch issue happened in 2015. the first video below shows the play. the 2nd video is what Paul Chryst had to say postgame.

 

[Franisdaman]

watch both videos.

what's clear is that the back and forth on whether it was or was not the right call will never end.

 

[Franisdaman]

 

[HawkLogic]

Even simpler, if the receiver does not make a valid fair catch signal the play remains live.

The point is to prevent the defense from having to guess whether a fair catch is valid or not. It also is a penalty to hit a punt return that has called fair catch. It should be absolutely clear. If Cooper had known how it would be called invalid, the Cooper is super smart on the field and wouldn't have made any motion with the off hand.


The enforcement has been spotty for long, long time and that is why it seems unfair---one review with a jock itch about fair catch signaling decided to step in and decide a game on his own. A different reveiw official probably wouldn't have called it.