Oct 9, before the Wisconsin game:
Post in thread '5-1 and hill has looked shaky but…'
https://iowa.forums.rivals.com/threads/5-1-and-hill-has-looked-shaky-but….427554/post-11522333
I was wrong, he is far worse than that.
Tuesdays With Torbee: Autopsy of a screw job
- Thread starter torbee
- Start date
Oct 9, before the Wisconsin game:
Post in thread '5-1 and hill has looked shaky but…'
https://iowa.forums.rivals.com/threads/5-1-and-hill-has-looked-shaky-but….427554/post-11522333
I was wrong, he is far worse than that.
I dont think iowa would even need an average offense to win a lot of these gsmes comfortably, or avoid these types of losses.
Top 25% offense would get them in the conversation for the playoffs imo
Sorry, you are correct. I was reading that backwards.
One phase of Iowa's game sucked especially in the second half, but there are 3 phases to the game and the other 2 played well. DeJean scored a TD that the officials took off the board for a foul that would not have been called if he was tackled after a 10 yard gain. You can be pissed about the offense's ineptitude and still know the referees screwed up. Heck Minnesota could have still won the game because there was plenty of time left on the clock, but we'll never know. @torbee is right it was a screw job.
Finance is just flat out fibbing.
That call on the punt is just too weak. PLUS…..for those who want to go “conspiracy”, there is some pretty legit ammo regarding the official making the call and HIS officiating history vs. UIowa.
The official can “justify” his call because he said so. Ce la vie.
Except the invalid definition is tied to the valid signal definition - which means intent covers both.
And you continue to overlook the NC example and all the dozens of examples like that.
Is the NC example an invalid signal?
No need for the second definition. Rewrite the rule and I'll bet it is acted upon sooner than later, just like MLB after Don Denkinger and the KC Royal Shafters stole the '85 WS from the Cardinals. We have replays ad nauseum now following the "85 debacle. This call will result in action of some kind...
Iowa also wins if they score the mandated 25 points per game that BF has required of him this year to keep his job.
Heck they even still win if the punt run back were the 25th point and then the questionable call made that touchdown come back.
To cry about getting screwed out of a win from one officials call is no different than pointing to one single play by a player and calling them out for losing a game.
This play has at least outed a number of Iowa fans as the pathetic loser they are.
Can't wait till next year. Losers gonna be flipping out looking for excuses.
They literally scored a TD that would have won the game and it was taken off the board with a joke of a call like that. What a dumb take.
Now everyone pretend this shit happens to your team at least twice a season.
Now you know what it's like to be a Detroit Lions fan.
Now you know what it's like to be a Detroit Lions fan.
Sorry but you cannot know that for certain.
What we do know for certain is that the Iowa offense failed miserably in their last possession which would have been an opportunity for Iowa to win.
Best to quit your crying since you don't know for certain that Minnesota wouldn't have been able to score a final TD.
Last edited:
I have no idea what your first point means. The invalid signal is clearly defined as any waving that doesn't meet the definition of a valid signal. It's tied to the valid signal in that it doesn't meet the definition. Period. There's nothing about intent in there at all. Here it is again:
ARTICLE 3.
An invalid signal is any waving signal by a player of Team B:
- That does not meet the requirements of Article 2 (above);
I didn't overlook anything. By rule, the UNC example was an invalid signal. I said so. Clearly. Had he scored a TD that was called back on review, I would be pissed. It would still have been the right call. That it wasn't called doesn't change that so it's not the "gotcha" you want it to be.
It was completely stolen from Iowa. Unbelievable. I was there as always and no question it was a horrible overreach of replay. Sickening. As many have said, had he not scored it would not have been reviewed and had it not been near the sideline it would not have been.
The actual answer is because he didn’t score a game winning TD. That’s the fact.
Here’s the deal. CDJ violated the letter of the law.
But:
1. There was no intent to deceive he was clearly waving off his guys.
2. No Minnesota player thought the signal was anything other than a wave off and continued to play.
3. The on field officials didn’t call it
4. Fleck didn’t seem to recognize any issue real time.
5. This was a game winning amazing play by the most exciting Hawkeye since Tim Dwight.
6. This sort of hand motion happens almost every game and is very rarely called on field.
7. You better have a damn good reason to issue a ruling given the above facts are true especially if you are UM graduate as has been alleged.
That is why fans are pissed. This letter of the law argument ignores all of the above and is why it’s failing to convert any fans to that side.
And for them to say Sunday it wasn’t apparent from field level but a view from above showed the signal. Might as well allow holding and any other calls to be made on replay. It was ridiculous.
If I was KF I’d throw the replay review flag on the next punt return of any length and demand the letter of the law be followed. Including the waving of any hand on the receiving team. Not just the returner. This is a bad rule and needs to be proven as such so it can be removed or clarified.
So you think the NC “safe” call is an invalid fair catch signal? I didn’t see you answered. Thanks.
I disagree - it’s not called ever - except against Iowa - because that’s not a signal. The fact it isn’t is telling, whether you agree with that or not.
That’s my first point;
The first part of the rule 2 defines a signal and then a valid signal.
2. Signal = A valid signal is a signal given by a player of Team who has obviously signaled his intention.
Which requires intent (intention).
Valid signal = intent from above plus all of these: above shoulders/side to side/more than once.
Exception 3 - an invalid signal is a “signal” - which as defined in the rule requires intent - but doesn’t have all three elements of a valid signal.
CDJ had an intent to signal a fair catch. And without it, there can be no signal. Like the safe sign in NC and dozens of others examples. Or examples where returners are used repeated get away motions to tell there guys to get away from the ball, etc.
He was running. People’s arms move when they run. No one runs with their arms straight down by their sides unless they’re a psychopath. Nothing he did constituted anything close to a fair catch signal, valid or invalid. The fact that not one Minnesota player or coach protested to an official before the review tells you everything you need to know.
You're tying yourself in knots here. There is no "Exception 3" in the rule book. There is the definition of a valid fair catch signal - Article 2 - and the definition of an invalid fair catch signal - Article 3. Their only connection is that an invalid signal is ANY WAVING SIGNAL by the returner that doesn't meet the definition in Article 2.
If Article 2 requires a signal of intent, Article 3 obviously doesn't since an invalid catch signal "does not meet the requirements of Article 2". It doesn't require the hand be above the head. It doesn't require that it be waved from side to side more than once, It doesn't require any intent. The only requirement to rule it invalid is if the returner makes ANY waving signal prior to catching the ball. Period. That's the rule. And he clearly waved his left hand.
UNC's Ryan Switzer had a 70 yard return called back because he touched his hand to his chest before catching the ball. He didn't wave it at all. It was still called an invalid signal. Been there, seen that.
it's not even really important what we saw. What matters is what the players and refs on the field saw. The angle that they were on, the field, is obvious it was not a fair catch or a fake fair catch. That's why it wasn't whistled and why the kicking team played it out.
The end zone shot is the best replay.
I disagree. They are tied together.
2 defines *signal* and requires intent.
And 3 defines invalid signal and requires the existence of 2 to interpret.
2 is the rule and 3 the exception.
If 3 could be read without reference to 2, you may have a point. But 3 does not stand on its own. It necessarily requires reference to 2. Because you have to read 2 and 3 together, it means intent from 2 is also included in 3.
Which is why the way you interpret the rule is almost never called and there are dozens of examples with my interpretation.
They do have a horrid offense……BUT Belem…..their special teams play and defense is Top 10 stuff every damned week. And the Minnesota game was NO exception.
I’m in the camp that says you guys got completely hosed. That ref shouldn’t be working anything higher than junior high games ever again.
If you want to call Article 3 an "exception", fine. It doesn't change what it clearly says. Any waving of the hand that isn't a valid fair catch signal is an invalid fair catch signal. Period. End of discussion. That it isn't often called - and I have no ides whether that's true or not - doesn't change what the rule states.
You can argue that it shouldn’t have been called for any reason you might like. You can argue that it should have been called by the on-field refs, though I have no idea how that makes things better.
You can’t argue that it didn’t happen. He clearly waves his left hand - for whatever reason - and that is clearly an invalid fair catch signal under the rules. This time it got called. Had the same scenario played out with Minnesota losing the game in the exact same way, you'd be here arguing that it was the correct call. And you'd be right.
Well, that's just objectively false.
"Apparently, DeJean’s totally typical and acceptable pointing to where blockers should deploy was erroneously interpreted as an invalid signal"
One hand pointed, the other hand waved back and forth below his shoulders, which is the exact definition of an invalid fair catch.
You are just inventing things that are not there.
Let's say a guy is waiting for the punt near the sideline, and one of his teammates starts heckling him. He waves his hand back and forth to "shush" the guy. That would be an invalid fair catch, though he had no intention of deceiving the other team.
The rule for an invalid fair catch is clearly defined. If it included "in an attempt to deceive" then intent would be part of the conversation. But it is not. Any waving of your arm below your shoulder is an invalid fair catch.
They can even call an invalid fair catch signal if you raise your hand above your head but only wave it once. By rule, a valid fair catch must be waved more than once. Either way, the ball is dead at the spot. The call was infuriating but, by rule, it was the correct call.
Watching it live, my immediate thought was he was calling for a fair catch while he was scrambling to get to a ball caught in the wind. Then was surprised he ran it out and the refs didn’t call it on the field. But I also doubt the replay would’ve bothered with it had he been tackled after 10-15 yards.
Yup.
Only the replay official or a coach with a challenge can call for a review. The on-field crew can't. The replay official can stop the game when these conditions are met:
- There’s “reasonable evidence to believe an error was made in the initial on-field ruling”
- The play is reviewable
- The outcome of a review would “have a direct, competitive impact” on the game”
If it's not blatant enough to call on the field, it's not blatant enough to review. It's the reason why holding is not reviewable and the NFL scrapped pass interference reviews after only one year. It's a screw job and a really shitty deal for the Iowa football team and DeJean.
And you'd be saying the exact opposite were the situation reversed. The replay official is part of the officiating crew and is assigned to review every single play of the game. That official can call for a stoppage of play if the three conditions above are met. It's that simple.
As for pass interference, the Saints would have liked a review of this play.
Then why did the NFL add pass interference and then scrap the system a year later? Here is the answer:
We didn't know what the total outcome would be, but we were always fearful of putting a totally subjective play into instant replay.
And Iowa’s play did not meet the high/strict standard to overturn. Call on the field stands.
And for the year that it was reviewed, it was reviewed. For better or worse, an invalid fair catch signal kills the play and it doesn't matter which official calls it. It's still the rule.
No idea what this means. He waved his left hand. That's indisputable. By rule, that's an invalid fair catch signal. You can argue that it shouldn't have been called - Minnesota would disagree - but you can't argue that the call itself was incorrect. Not calling it would be as incorrect as calling a player out of bounds who never stepped out of bounds.
The second half offense and especially the 3rd Qtr offense was the real reason for the loss. Not the replay refs.
