That was a terrible call against Sparty
- Thread starter soybean
- Start date
No, he didn't. That WR was not pushed out of bounce. But maybe if you keep saying it, it will become true.
Ask Charles Barkley if you can push someone without using your arms? If the reciever would of ran out of bounds without contact the official would of thrown a flag along with his hat. It was the correct call. The Sparty defender should kept defending the play instead of falling down. Bad play all around by Sparty.
Last edited:
I blame Tom Brady for the ball being out of bounce. I blame the Nebraska receiver for running out of bounds.
Seriously, nobody outside of Lincoln agrees with the call. Announcers said it was a bad call, BTN clearly explained why the review and made it very clear they weren't saying they agreed with the call, articles talking about it today said it was a bad call. It was a complete swing and miss by the refs. Of course UNL fans are going to view it differently. Big surprise. But it was a gift to the Huskers. MSU should have never let it get that far. But the call was blown.
Umm... Wait, so now you're saying it was the correct call because the official who made the call would have thrown his hat if it weren't correct?
I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that Riley may have declined that one and taken the TD.
I remember in Hawaii, 1984, the Iowa receiver was forced out of bounds, came back in and caught a touchdown pass from Chuck Long.
The officials on and off the field got it right. There wasn't any funny business trying to get a call that goes against the rules.
It was a pretty poorly called game. The review officials DID make the right call because you cannot overrule the "judgement call" made by the refs on the field because there was contact. But, that doesn't change the fact that the original call on the field was the wrong one. The WR wasn't pushed out of bounds by the defender. He was edged out ... but not forcibly pushed (with an arm or the rest of his body).
In the end, I don't care because Michigan State should have never put themselves in that position. They had the game if they caught the interception before. They had the game if they would have eaten more clock.
Kudos to the Huskers for winning ... I wanted them to win, not only because I hate Dantonio ... but because it also helps the Hawkeye Rose Bowl chances.
The review booth could not have overturned anything even if they wanted to.
Big Ten's coordinator of officials, said in a statement after the game, "They can't review whether it was a force out/contact on the play. They can only review if there was clear evidence of no contact and he (Reilly) re-established himself in the field of play. If he goes out of bounds on his own with no contact, it's an illegal touch. Therefore the call stood."
The defender is looking back to the QB the whole time, he has a right to position himself on the field just as much as the offensive guy. There is no forcible contact here, he ran out in his own accord.
Again, only in Lincoln is there a feeling that the correct call was made. You can keep watching it in the hopes that the MSU defender did in fact force him out, but he didn't. There was contact (which by the video posted looks like it was initiated by the Nebraska player). I personally don't care. I'm not a fan of either team. In fact, I earned a degree from UNL. MSU should never have let themselves get into that position to begin with. But the call was a complete gift to Nebby. I'm not suggesting there was any funny business going on. But the call was a terrible one.
It's amazing that in this day and age which affords technology that allows us to watch replays...that there would be a rule that says you can't review a replay to get it right. Dumbest thing ever.The review booth could not have overturned anything even if they wanted to.
Big Ten's coordinator of officials, said in a statement after the game, "They can't review whether it was a force out/contact on the play. They can only review if there was clear evidence of no contact and he (Reilly) re-established himself in the field of play. If he goes out of bounds on his own with no contact, it's an illegal touch. Therefore the call stood."
The defender is looking back to the QB the whole time, he has a right to position himself on the field just as much as the offensive guy. There is no forcible contact here, he ran out in his own accord.
The review booth could not have overturned anything even if they wanted to.
Big Ten's coordinator of officials, said in a statement after the game, "They can't review whether it was a force out/contact on the play. They can only review if there was clear evidence of no contact and he (Reilly) re-established himself in the field of play. If he goes out of bounds on his own with no contact, it's an illegal touch. Therefore the call stood."
The defender is looking back to the QB the whole time, he has a right to position himself on the field just as much as the offensive guy. There is no forcible contact here, he ran out in his own accord.
Pretty obvious the WR lost track of his position on the field and ran out on his own accord. He was not out due to defender contact.
The WR is being maneuvered closer and closer to the sideline by the DB, and while it is clear that the DB did not overtly push the WR OOB, he is closing in on him, forcing the WR nearer and nearer the sideline to avoid a collision that would disrupt his pass pattern.
I think that the officials are interpreting the 'forcing' here not as an actual pushing or shoving of the WR OOB, but more as a "Where else can the WR go BUT OOB?" with the DB angling him toward the sidelines. In other words, the WR goes OOB to avoid a collision with the DB--a situation of perhaps more passively being forced OOB than actively forced OOB, but forced in some way all the same (it's also not clear that there was no contact made in the replays).
An analogy: if a car in the right line cuts you off, and you are 'forced' to swerve into the far left lane, do you HAVE to hear the crunch of metal to say you were 'forced' to swerve out of the lane you were in? I think it's the difference between passively being forced as opposed to actively being forced--it all hinges on what 'forced' means.
Which is at least in the ballpark of interpretation. It's not as if the WR ran 40 yards OOB and then surprise! he suddenly reappears in the end zone ready to catch the TD pass. I can understand why MSU fans are upset, but it's not that egregious a no-call or a missed-call.
I think that the officials are interpreting the 'forcing' here not as an actual pushing or shoving of the WR OOB, but more as a "Where else can the WR go BUT OOB?" with the DB angling him toward the sidelines. In other words, the WR goes OOB to avoid a collision with the DB--a situation of perhaps more passively being forced OOB than actively forced OOB, but forced in some way all the same (it's also not clear that there was no contact made in the replays).
An analogy: if a car in the right line cuts you off, and you are 'forced' to swerve into the far left lane, do you HAVE to hear the crunch of metal to say you were 'forced' to swerve out of the lane you were in? I think it's the difference between passively being forced as opposed to actively being forced--it all hinges on what 'forced' means.
Which is at least in the ballpark of interpretation. It's not as if the WR ran 40 yards OOB and then surprise! he suddenly reappears in the end zone ready to catch the TD pass. I can understand why MSU fans are upset, but it's not that egregious a no-call or a missed-call.
Please this is football, not driver's ed. There are no lanes. The CB was running in the same direction as the WR and didn't contact him in a way that forced him out.
Stanley Jackson talked about this on BTN. He said DBs are taught to squeeze the WR towards the sideline just for this very reason. Either they go out of bounds, or their route is disrupted. I am not an official, but I don't think there is anything illegal about that. The bottom line is, the WR was not "forced" out of bounds. There was some contact, but it looked like it was initiated by the WR. The refs made a bad call.
I disagree. That's not on the defender. Move that same route and play 10 yards towards the center of the field. Would anything have been called there for impeding the receiver's route? It's not the defender's job to make sure the receiver doesn't run out of bounds. The receiver was beat on the route, that's why he had to run out of bounds.
It's not a matter of impeding a route and incurring some penalty for that, it's the idea that the sideline is a fixed marker on the field, and if a DB is starting to pinch the WR against the sideline, and if the WR at some point goes OOB to avoid hard contact with the DB, does that count as being 'forced OOB' for the purpose of interpretation of that rule?
I think a lot depends on whether there was any contact between the two players, and that's not clear from the video--it is possible the DB's hip contacted the WR's hip at some point, and that might have played into the official's perception of the play as well.
But my main point is that, even though it was a big break for Nebraska, and possibly a bad call for MSU, it may have been within a reasonable margin of interpretation for the official to have seen it as the WR being forced OOB by the DB, especially (and again, it's not clear-cut on the replay) if ANY contact was made at any time between the two of them.
I think a lot depends on whether there was any contact between the two players, and that's not clear from the video--it is possible the DB's hip contacted the WR's hip at some point, and that might have played into the official's perception of the play as well.
But my main point is that, even though it was a big break for Nebraska, and possibly a bad call for MSU, it may have been within a reasonable margin of interpretation for the official to have seen it as the WR being forced OOB by the DB, especially (and again, it's not clear-cut on the replay) if ANY contact was made at any time between the two of them.
The official was right there and he threw the hat but no flag in the video. No hesitation on his part. The defender rode him out of bounds...CONTACT. I've been explaining why our corner play is bad because we can't do what he did. Ride the hip of a reciever while looking back and hand check and push. It's not face guarding because your playing the ball. Reilly made a football play after being rode out and made a catch. Which is why the defender kept on the same path while falling on his butt. When you look at the rule and apply it to the play it was the correct call. It was a good text book play all around. In the NFL you CAN'T make the catch EVEN if your totally push out of bounds by the DB. The standard in college is different and i think that's the problem with the interpretation of the rule.The review booth could not have overturned anything even if they wanted to.
Big Ten's coordinator of officials, said in a statement after the game, "They can't review whether it was a force out/contact on the play. They can only review if there was clear evidence of no contact and he (Reilly) re-established himself in the field of play. If he goes out of bounds on his own with no contact, it's an illegal touch. Therefore the call stood."
The defender is looking back to the QB the whole time, he has a right to position himself on the field just as much as the offensive guy. There is no forcible contact here, he ran out in his own accord.
Last edited:
I wonder if the replay showed that he went out of bounds before there was any contact (which might not be the case, and given that receivers are covered these days is probably not too likely even if it is just a hand brushing against him that normally isn't called for anything. But if there weren't any contact before he went out of bounds and it was AFTER he was out of bounds, would the replay booth then be able to overturn it, given that the play should have been blown dead before any kind of foul was to be called? The explanation was that if ANY contact happened then it wasn't reviewable. But if there were NO contact before he went out of bounds, wouldn't that have made it something the booth could have overturned? There wasn't a real good angle except for the high level shot that was hard to see whether either player was in contact with each other at that point, but had it been clear there was no contact before, I'm wondering what the rules would allow.
There was contact leading him out of bounds. If not the ref would of thrown the flag and it would of been a penalty or it could of been reviewable.
Are you saying that if he went out of bounds without contact, that the ref would *have* thrown a flag in that instance? FOR WHAT? It would have been an out of bounds call and that would have been the end of it. Even if there was a penalty for MSU player for a late hit out of bounds, that penalty wouldn't have allowed him to come back in and receive the catch to have it count. That wasn't the penalty that was called. I think there's clearly contact shown, but it isn't shown that there was contact prior to him going out of bounds. To me that that was what should have been looked for. If he went out of bounds before contact, then whether or not there was a mistaken call that he was driven out of bounds or not, then the replay would have shown that the play was already over before the call was made, or that the call was made incorrectly on the "absolutely no contact" rule BEFORE the player went out of bounds. If the rules allow a penalty to be called that can't be reviewed after the player went out of bounds, then that's a big flaw in these rules and that should be fixed.
NO it does not count as being forced OOB. It's very simple.... if the WR goes OOB to avoid contact with a DB then the WR has left the field of play on his own accord. PERIOD.
http://espn.go.com/college-football...ed-nebraska-game-winning-td-vs-michigan-state
Still a very debatable "judgment" call. Just like the pass interference in the end zone the officials "judged" not to call.
Still a very debatable "judgment" call. Just like the pass interference in the end zone the officials "judged" not to call.
Then the DB wouldn't of lost his balance and fell down when Reilly made his football move on the ball.
Well no sh$t, that's kind of the whole point of this thread. He SHOULD have thrown the flag. If there was enough contact to force him out of bounds shouldn't a PI penalty have been called there? Otherwise what are we talking about?
This exact scenario just happened in the Denver/Indy game. The DB forced the receiver out in the same manner, the receiver went out of bounds and came back in and caught the pass. The refs got it right and threw the flag and called him for illegal contact.
Most of the replays shown showed the contact, but that the player was ALREADY out of bounds at the start of the replay, therefore NOT conclusive in providing any evidence of being forced out or not. The only view I could see that perhaps showed the player prior to him going out of bounds was the very high level view, that seemed to show them both just running together down the field and the Husker player not being pushed out at all. But it was hard to see from that replay without perhaps zooming in on it in higher detail digitally, which I presume perhaps replay officials might have access to on their equipment which we don't at home watching it on tv. Now, possibly they could have not had "conclusive evidence" to overturn the call without any good replay views to show definitively that there was no contact prior to him going out of bounds. But I would think that should have been the official explanation, and not that he was "forced out", as I didn't see that in the replays I saw that were shown.
The NFL has a different rule.
In college your allowed to play the ball as a defensive back and get away with some contact.
But...
Your also allowed to come back in if there's contact and your the offensive player. In the NFL you CAN'T catch a ball first after going out of bounds. Even if deliberately pushed out.
It was a judgment call. But the refs snap judgement was following the rules. That's a lot better then making a call that's not within the rules. Like many are making even 24 hours later.
Agreed it's a judgment call and the ref was following the rules. However the receiver went out before any contact so the ref botched it.
What I said is EXACTLY the rule.....
Go back and read who I was responding to. I was making the point that being forced out REQUIRES contact which someone else was espousing that it didn't. So I'm not arguing if there was or wasn't contact, merely stating that there must be contact for it to be a force out.
