ADVERTISEMENT

Tuesdays With Torbee: Autopsy of a screw job

torbee

HR King
Gold Member

Tuesdays with Torbee​

by Tory Brecht

DeJean Celebration
The DeJean celebration that wasn't. (Photo: Dennis Scheidt)


There really isn’t much room for a Cooper DeJean statue in the small space between Evasheski Drive and the walls of Kinnick Stadium’s north end zone, but if he keeps making plays like the game-winning punt return he executed last Saturday, Nile Kinnick might need to move over and make room for some company.

On yet another truly awful day for embattled offensive coordinator Brian Ferentz – where the quarterback gave the ball away and again sprayed passes far and wide and the two leading rushers combined for a paltry 11 yards on 28 carries – a cornerback once again was the lone touchdown-scoring spark.

Finding some way to interject life into a completely broken and dysfunctional offense is of paramount importance over the looming bye week. At least Iowa fans get two weeks to bask in the heroic exploits of a small-town Iowa hero who took a downtrodden team on his back and refused to lose. No one in attendance will ever forget DeJean’s zigzagging, sideline-defying, tackle-breaking dash for glory with less than two minutes left in the game and Iowa trailing by two points.

Once again the Iowa defense did yeoman’s work, holding the gophers to 127 passing yards, 113 rushing yards on a 2.5 yards per game clip and zero touchdowns. Tory Taylor further cemented his frontrunner status for the Ray Guy punting award, nailing nine punts for a 49.3-yard average, four of them pinning Minnesota inside the 20-yard-line.

This doesn’t absolve the Iowa offense from its worse showing to date, which frankly did not seem possible after its slog in Madison. The notion that Deacon Hill – who is now the 160th rated college football quarterback by passer rating out of 160 – gives Iowa the “best chance to win” is ludicrous on its face. I am rarely one to overtly criticize players giving it their all, but unless he is literally falling on his face and fumbling every snap in practice, there is zero chance Joe Labas can’t come in and do at least as well as Hill.

The more disturbing trend was an offensive line and rushing offense that managed to put 200 yards up on Wisconsin when the Badgers knew they had to run completely disappearing and failing to affect the game against Minnesota. Frankly, Iowa probably abandoned the run too early even in the face of limited success. What was Brian Ferentz thinking putting the ball into the air 28 times with a quarterback who can’t pass or navigate a pocket properly? Hey, wide receivers did receive 90-percent of the targets, so I guess that’s something.

Dismay at the continued deterioration of the Hawkeye offense notwithstanding, Iowa sits 7-1 and fully in command of the Big 10 West race, but it certainly feels tenuous. Playing on a razor edge and absolutely relying on either defense or special teams to score feels unsustainable. Sure, it worked again this past Saturday against a decidedly mediocre Gopher squad, but challenges lie ahead.

Wait, I’ve been handed a slip of paper.

What!?

OK, so it seems there’s been some type of error and apparently completely incompetent and asinine Big 10 officiating has marred the correct results of Saturday’s battle for Floyd of Rosedale.

To be honest, I don’t understand what they are telling me. Apparently, DeJean’s totally typical and acceptable pointing to where blockers should deploy was erroneously interpreted as an invalid signal? I mean, 70,000 observers including every single Minnesota player and coach knew DeJean intended to return the punt and reacted accordingly. I saw P.J. Fleck hang his head in utter dejection myself from my seats behind the Gopher bench.

Surely, this is some kind of joke. There is no way this officiating crew could be this obtuse and pathetic and willing to rob a player and his fans of a transcendent moment of glory on a horrific and incorrect interpretation of a subjective rule. That would violate every tenet of sports.

Are we truly supposed to accept that an undeserved loss is Iowa’s punishment for the sins of its abominable offense?

I don’t know about you, but I will never accept this as a legitimate outcome.

Iowa defeated Minnesota for the ninth consecutive time, kept Fleck winless against the Hawkeyes and no pignapped trophy held hostage in Dinkytown is going to convince me otherwise.

Those fans who say Iowa “deserved” to lose because it objectively sucks on offense certainly don’t speak for me or tens of thousands of others who were robbed of a rare and stupendous individual effort that snatched victory from the jaws of defeat. We and DeJean deserve better than to have someone bad at their job ruin a beautiful moment.

Iowa won. Minnesota lost. Big 10 officiating remains a joke.
 
Last edited:
Wake up, torbee. You've been living in a groundhog day dream since Saturday. Iowa did actually lose. No amount of replays showing the punt return will change that.

Sorry, but FSU had a punt return called back for the same 'infraction' in the last couple of years. I can sympathize, and empathize.

Iowa still had a chance to win if they could have gained 20 - 25 yards and made a FG in the last 2 minutes.

Iowa can still go 10-2 and win the west. Iowa owns the tie-breaker of Wisconsin.
 
Wake up, torbee. You've been living in a groundhog day dream since Saturday. Iowa did actually lose. No amount of replays showing the punt return will change that.

Sorry, but FSU had a punt return called back for the same 'infraction' in the last couple of years. I can sympathize, and empathize.

Iowa still had a chance to win if they could have gained 20 - 25 yards and made a FG in the last 2 minutes.
Nope.

DeJean did not do an invalid signal - he pointed to where the ball was going to land and directed his return team on where to block.

He then picked up the ball and scored a touchdown.

Only a deaf, dumb and blind person can see it any differently.
 
Wake up, torbee. You've been living in a groundhog day dream since Saturday. Iowa did actually lose. No amount of replays showing the punt return will change that.

Sorry, but FSU had a punt return called back for the same 'infraction' in the last couple of years. I can sympathize, and empathize.

Iowa still had a chance to win if they could have gained 20 - 25 yards and made a FG in the last 2 minutes.

Iowa can still go 10-2 and win the west. Iowa owns the tie-breaker of Wisconsin.
FSU had a touchdown called on the field overturned on replay review via an invalid fair catch? Please link that, it would be the first precedent I've seen with those same facts.
 
Nope.

DeJean did not do an invalid signal - he pointed to where the ball was going to land and directed his return team on where to block.

He then picked up the ball and scored a touchdown.

Only a deaf, dumb and blind person can see it any differently.
What I saw was him waving his left arm and pointing with his right. As I understand it, the waving arm was the one called but I could be wrong.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 and Out on D
Nope.

DeJean did not do an invalid signal - he pointed to where the ball was going to land and directed his return team on where to block.

He then picked up the ball and scored a touchdown.

Only a deaf, dumb and blind person can see it any differently.
Whether he did or he didn't really doesn't matter. The zebras said he did. I'm not sure if they are deaf, dumb, or blind. No touchdown.
 
FSU had a touchdown called on the field overturned on replay review via an invalid fair catch? Please link that, it would be the first precedent I've seen with those same facts.
 
Well that doesn't help! (except I appreciate that he agrees the call was wrong). What was the call on field for the FSU game? Was the original call a touchdown and then overturned only after replay review?
 
  • Like
Reactions: JupiterHawk
Whether he did or he didn't really doesn't matter. The zebras said he did. I'm not sure if they are deaf, dumb, or blind. No touchdown.
Actually, they didn't.

The same once-suspended ref who also incorrectly ruled Jack Campbell out of bounds on a Pick 6 last year sat on his fat ass in the Pittsburgh review center and "interpreted" the call.

It is a travishamockery and that degenerate loser should be unemployed.
 
Last edited:
Looks like the correct call.

Reggie Smith is incorrect. DeJean wasn’t making anything that could in any way be interpreted as a fair catch signal, valid or invalid. He was pointing at the ball with one hand and directing his teammates away with the other (Iowa had a turnover earlier this year when a blocker inadvertantly touched the ball). His arm never went above horizontal.

Everyone on the field understood what he was doing. Everyone on the sidelines understood what he was doing. Everyone in the stands understood what he was doing.

I get the need for having such a rule to prevent players from trying to deceive the coverage team. That’s not what DeJean was doing.

Torbee is right - the reversal was a travishamockery.
 
Actually, they didn't.

The same once-suspended ref who also incorrectly ruled Cooper DeJean out of bounds on a Pick 6 last year sat on his fat ass in the Pittsburgh review center and "interpreted" the call.

It is a travishamockery and that degenerate loser should be unemployed.

Jack Campbell was the one who was ruled out of bounds last year.

 
Then call it on the field.
They go to review for all kinds of calls. The play was reviewable and once a play is being looked at, they can call anything that's allowed to be reviewed including advancing a ball after a signal.

Valid Signal
ARTICLE 2. A valid signal is a signal given by a player of Team B who has obviously signaled their intention by extending one hand only clearly above their head and waving that hand from side to side of their body more than once.

Invalid Signal
ARTICLE 3. An invalid signal is any waving signal by a player of Team B:
a. That does not meet the requirements of Article 2 (above);
 
  • Like
Reactions: Finance85
They go to review for all kinds of calls. The play was reviewable and once a play is being looked at, they can call anything that's allowed to be reviewed including advancing a ball after a signal.

Valid Signal
ARTICLE 2. A valid signal is a signal given by a player of Team B who has obviously signaled their intention by extending one hand only clearly above their head and waving that hand from side to side of their body more than once.

Invalid Signal
ARTICLE 3. An invalid signal is any waving signal by a player of Team B:
a. That does not meet the requirements of Article 2 (above);
And he wasn't waving. He was pointing.
 
Reggie Smith is incorrect. DeJean wasn’t making anything that could in any way be interpreted as a fair catch signal, valid or invalid. He was pointing at the ball with one hand and directing his teammates away with the other (Iowa had a turnover earlier this year when a blocker inadvertantly touched the ball). His arm never went above horizontal.
The rule book clearly says "any waving signal" constitutes an invalid signal...
And he wasn't waving. He was pointing.
...and he is clearly waving his left hand.
 
Reggie Smith is incorrect. DeJean wasn’t making anything that could in any way be interpreted as a fair catch signal, valid or invalid. He was pointing at the ball with one hand and directing his teammates away with the other (Iowa had a turnover earlier this year when a blocker inadvertantly touched the ball). His arm never went above horizontal.

Everyone on the field understood what he was doing. Everyone on the sidelines understood what he was doing. Everyone in the stands understood what he was doing.

I get the need for having such a rule to prevent players from trying to deceive the coverage team. That’s not what DeJean was doing.

Torbee is right - the reversal was a travishamockery.
I agree the reversal was horrible and punt returners do this all the time. That said, I don’t think they are saying he made a traditional fair catch signal. To me they are saying waiving people away from a ball (basically calling “Peter” for those that know the reference), makes it a dead ball. I certainly didn’t know that rule and clearly the refs on the field may not have known it either; but the idiots up stairs must have. Again, it was a devastating , terrible call that never gets made; but apparently is a legit call based off the letter of the rule book.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tarheelbybirth
Easy solution is to have the rule that says it’s a fair catch if the person fielding a punt waves his hand over the head.

Anyother hand/arm movement doesn’t means squat.

Be pissed at the ref
Be pissed at the offense for not having the game in hand before that. Hopefully the offense doesn’t put any more games in the refs hands.
 
They go to review for all kinds of calls. The play was reviewable and once a play is being looked at, they can call anything that's allowed to be reviewed including advancing a ball after a signal.

Valid Signal
ARTICLE 2. A valid signal is a signal given by a player of Team B who has obviously signaled their intention by extending one hand only clearly above their head and waving that hand from side to side of their body more than once.

Invalid Signal
ARTICLE 3. An invalid signal is any waving signal by a player of Team B:
a. That does not meet the requirements of Article 2 (above);
Only 7 listed items can be changed upon review; invalid fair catch signal is not one that is specifically listed as reviewable.
 
What is this North Carolina player doing?



And why is that not an invalid signal?
Does it make it better if I say it is? And had he scored and it had been called back, I would be pissed. But he is clearly waving his hands and that is an invalid signal. UNC had one called back several years ago after a player raised his hand to shield his eyes because he was looking up into the sun. He didn't wave his hand at all. They called it a fair catch signal and a TD was called back.
 
Does it make it better if I say it is? And had he scored and it had been called back, I would be pissed. But he is clearly waving his hands and that is an invalid signal. UNC had one called back several years ago after a player raised his hand to shield his eyes because he was looking up into the sun. He didn't wave his hand at all. They called it a fair catch signal and a TD was called back.
So it's an unclear, selectively called "rule" that a non-on-the-field replay official, using an overhead camera shot, decided to f--k Iowa with.

Thanks for helping make my point that it was a complete and utter screwjob.
 
Only 7 listed items can be changed upon review; invalid fair catch signal is not one that is specifically listed as reviewable.
An invalid fair catch signal is a fair catch signal, it's literally in the section on Fair Catch. Advancing the ball after a fair catch signal - valid or invalid - is reviewable.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Urohawk
What is this North Carolina player doing?



And why is that not an invalid signal?
Your point is completely valid and this guy was clearing waiving and apparently should have been called an illegal catch/touch. It is a shit call, that never gets called; but, I have to wonder if refs will start paying more attention to them. Wouldn't surprise me if this one f'd up call gets the rule changed. The call cost the team a win and cost me about $500, so don't confuse my posts with agreeing with it by any means. I am just looking at it impartially and from the definition of the rules, even if never called, as I do think he was making a "waiving motion" with his left hand.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tarheelbybirth
So it's an unclear, selectively called "rule" that a non-on-the-field replay official, using an overhead camera shot, decided to f--k Iowa with.

Thanks for helping make my point that it was a complete and utter screwjob.
Again - non-on-the-field replay officials make calls quite often using camera angles not available to on-field officials. And the call was correct.
 
Well that doesn't help! (except I appreciate that he agrees the call was wrong). What was the call on field for the FSU game? Was the original call a touchdown and then overturned only after replay review?
The same call. That it was a simulated fair catch, and the ball returned to the spot of the catch. The article explains that if you scroll down far enough to get past the poor writing.
 
An invalid fair catch signal is a fair catch signal, it's literally in the section on Fair Catch. Advancing the ball after a fair catch signal - valid or invalid - is reviewable.
It's a separate article under that section, but it is not a fair catch signal. By your argument, when reviewing for targeting, as an example, they could say we didn't see targeting, but we noticed that clipping occurred on the other side of the field, and call that, since it is under the same rule and section. However, the fact is that they would not be able to call the clipping since it is an entirely different article that is not covered under reviewable infractions. That is the same with reviewing a fair catch. Even though they are covered under the same section, they are completely different articles and article 3 (invalid fair catch) is not listed under those reviewable articles. Simply put, they do not get the ability to review every article under the sections listed, or they would be reviewing and changing calls on nearly every play.
 
The same call. That it was a simulated fair catch, and the ball returned to the spot of the catch. The article explains that if you scroll down far enough to get past the poor writing.
I've read that article a few times and have yet to find where it says that the call on the field was touchdown and reversed via replay booth.

Anyways, they blew the replay review (note, not the initial call) because they didn't have enough to overturn the call on the field.
 
  • Like
Reactions: praguehawk
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT