Tuesdays With Torbee: Autopsy of a screw job

[nelly02]

All I'm going to say is it's a really stupid rule. It's like they are inviting controversy by having these really stupid rules. It should be simple... did he wave his hand above his head to signal a fair catch? Nope... fair game to return it then. Why make things more difficult than they are and invite this controversy in?

 

[WadeLookingbill]

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.

You think this is as objective as stepping out of bounds? Alright now we know you’re just being dishonest.

And what it means is the original call was touchdown. And the standard to overturn is very high as I think you know.

I’m case it’s unclear to you.

“The instant replay process operates under the fundamental assumption that the ruling on the field is correct. The replay official may reverse a ruling if and only if the video evidence (Rule 12-6-1-c) is convincing beyond all doubt that the ruling on the field was incorrect. Without such indisputable video evidence, the replay official must allow the ruling to stand. (Exception: Targeting Rule 12-3-5-a)."

 

[TJ8869]

And you'd be saying the exact opposite were the situation reversed.

I’d be happy with the win but I’d know in the back of my mind that Iowa got away with one. Minnesota knows they got bailed out by an obscure and subjective rule.

During the play you can see PJ Fleck sprinting down the sideline toward the spot where the punt landed. He was about 10 feet away when DeJean picked it up. At the end of the play, not one Minnesota coach or player made the argument that DeJean had made an invalid fair catch signal. Fleck just stood dejectedly on the sideline. If he thought the play should have been ruled dead then he would have been all over the officials.

You could tell by their body language that Minnesota was just as surprised by the ruling as Iowa was.

 

[Finance85]

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.

Nope. It happened. Why is it that some of you will deny facts?

 

[tarheelbybirth]

I’d be happy with the win but I’d know in the back of my mind that Iowa got away with one. Minnesota knows they got bailed out by an obscure and subjective rule.

During the play you can see PJ Fleck sprinting down the sideline toward the spot where the punt landed. He was about 10 feet away when DeJean picked it up. At the end of the play, not one Minnesota coach or player made the argument that DeJean had made an invalid fair catch signal. Fleck just stood dejectedly on the sideline. If he thought the play should have been ruled dead then he would have been all over the officials.

You could tell by their body language that Minnesota was just as surprised by the ruling as Iowa was.

Well, of course they were. You would be too. It makes not one whit of difference what they thought or what they saw. A game official whose job is to review every single play saw a potential missed reviewable call on a significant play and stopped the clock for a review. During that review, an infraction was seen and called. By rule, it was the correct call.

 

[gohawks50]

Well, of course they were. You would be too. It makes not one whit of difference what they thought or what they saw. A game official whose job is to review every single play saw a potential missed reviewable call on a significant play and stopped the clock for a review. During that review, an infraction was seen and called. By rule, it was the correct call.

I imagine the purpose of the rule is to stop the receiving team from simulating a fair catch signal in order to get the gunners to back off so it certainly does matter that no one from Minnesota was claiming to be tricked following the play. They knew it wasn't a fair catch signal and proceeded to play as though the ball was live and DeJean could return it.

 

[mnHawk8]

I’d be happy with the win but I’d know in the back of my mind that Iowa got away with one. Minnesota knows they got bailed out by an obscure and subjective rule.

During the play you can see PJ Fleck sprinting down the sideline toward the spot where the punt landed. He was about 10 feet away when DeJean picked it up. At the end of the play, not one Minnesota coach or player made the argument that DeJean had made an invalid fair catch signal. Fleck just stood dejectedly on the sideline. If he thought the play should have been ruled dead then he would have been all over the officials.

You could tell by their body language that Minnesota was just as surprised by the ruling as Iowa was.

You continue to hammer the point that I'm still struggling to wrap my head around. No players stopped playing and no coaches thought it was an invalid signal. If they don't call it, no one is talking about his left hand today. It had no impact on the play.

The refs called an infraction that took away a likely game winning score for something that didn't impact the play. I absolutely loathe when they call shit like that. It seems punitive when they do.

 

[artradley]

You continue to hammer the point that I'm still struggling to wrap my head around. No players stopped playing and no coaches thought it was an invalid signal. If they don't call it, no one is talking about his left hand today. It had no impact on the play.

I can't wrap my head around why so many of you think it matters that nobody on the field noticed it. The rule doesn't say "and it affects the behavior of the opposing team." It just says you can't wave your arm below your shoulder.

The waving occurred far away from where the ball landed, and well before the ball landed. So, yeah, people didn't notice it. But he still did it.

Was it a cheap call? Sure. Does it suck? Absolutely. But it was not the wrong call.

 

[WadeLookingbill]

Well, of course they were. You would be too. It makes not one whit of difference what they thought or what they saw. A game official whose job is to review every single play saw a potential missed reviewable call on a significant play and stopped the clock for a review. During that review, an infraction was seen and called. By rule, it was the correct call.

“The instant replay process operates under the fundamental assumption that the ruling on the field is correct. The replay official may reverse a ruling if and only if the video evidence (Rule 12-6-1-c) is convincing beyond all doubt that the ruling on the field was incorrect. Without such indisputable video evidence, the replay official must allow the ruling to stand. (Exception: Targeting Rule 12-3-5-a)."

 

[mnHawk8]

I can't wrap my head around why so many of you think it matters that nobody on the field noticed it. The rule doesn't say "and it affects the behavior of the opposing team." It just says you can't wave your arm below your shoulder.

The waving occurred far away from where the ball landed, and well before the ball landed. So, yeah, people didn't notice it. But he still did it.

Was it a cheap call? Sure. Does it suck? Absolutely. But it was not the wrong call.

I'm not arguing it was the wrong call. You said it; it was a cheap call. It had no bearing on the play.

 

[jamesvanderwulf]

I want to win every game. In baseball a check swing bloop that drives in a winning run is rewarded, while the guy who barrels one up at 110 mph right at the the third baseman goes unrewarded. A win was taken off the board for Iowa, no question about it...

 

[gohawks50]

I can't wrap my head around why so many of you think it matters that nobody on the field noticed it. The rule doesn't say "and it affects the behavior of the opposing team." It just says you can't wave your arm below your shoulder.

The waving occurred far away from where the ball landed, and well before the ball landed. So, yeah, people didn't notice it. But he still did it.

Was it a cheap call? Sure. Does it suck? Absolutely. But it was not the wrong call.

What is the purpose of the rule if it isn't that an invalid fair catch signal impacts the behavior of the opposing team?

 

[Urohawk]

And Iowa’s play did not meet the high/strict standard to overturn. Call on the field stands.

It's not a call on the field. There is no penalty. It should have resulted in a whistle and dead ball. The criticism is that people could have been hurt by allowing the play to go on.

 

[WadeLookingbill]

It's not a call on the field. There is no penalty. It should have resulted in a whistle and dead ball. The criticism is that people could have been hurt by allowing the play to go on.

What? The call on the field is a touchdown and clean play.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

I imagine the purpose of the rule is to stop the receiving team from simulating a fair catch signal in order to get the gunners to back off so it certainly does matter that no one from Minnesota was claiming to be tricked following the play. They knew it wasn't a fair catch signal and proceeded to play as though the ball was live and DeJean could return it.

If he stepped on the line and the on-field officials missed it, play would continue. That’s not an excuse to ignore the review.

 

[gohawks50]

If he stepped on the line and the on-field officials missed it, play would continue. That’s not an excuse to ignore the review.

What is the purpose of the rule?

 

[tarheelbybirth]

What is the purpose of the rule?

It. Doesn't. Matter.

By your logic, they would have to look at every single opposing player to determine if any one of them pulled up thinking it was a fair catch signal. What the opposing players THINK never enters into a call. The rule states that ANY WAVING constitutes an invalid fair catch signal. Full stop. Your only complaint that the call was incorrect would be to say he didn't wave his hand. He did. Correct call.

 

[gohawks50]

It. Doesn't. Matter.

By your logic, they would have to look at every single opposing player to determine if any one of them pulled up thinking it was a fair catch signal. What the opposing players THINK never enters into a call. The rule states that ANY WAVING constitutes an invalid fair catch signal. Full stop. Your only complaint that the call was incorrect would be to say he didn't wave his hand. He did. Correct call.

You still didn't answer my question. What is the the purpose of the invalid fair catch rule?

 

[tarheelbybirth]

You still didn't answer my question. What is the the purpose of the invalid fair catch rule?

To protect the player making the catch. Now your question...so what?

 

[tarheelbybirth]

I'm not arguing it was the wrong call. You said it; it was a cheap call. It had no bearing on the play.

It has as much bearing on the play as if his toe touched out-of-bounds and nobody on the field caught it. Exactly the same.

 

[gohawks50]

To protect the player making the catch. Now your question...so what?

That is the purpose of the fair catch rule. What is the purpose of invalid fair catch rule?

 

[artradley]

What is the purpose of the rule if it isn't that an invalid fair catch signal impacts the behavior of the opposing team?

That is the purpose - but as with every other rule, it is enforced whether or not it impacted the play.

Roughing the passer, targeting, roughing the kicker, etc. are all in place to prevent injury. And they are a penalty whether or not a player is injured. Holding is a penalty even if the person being held still makes the play.

 

[gohawks50]

That is the purpose - but as with every other rule, it is enforced whether or not it impacted the play.

Roughing the passer, targeting, roughing the kicker, etc. are all in place to prevent injury. And they are a penalty whether or not a player is injured. Holding is a penalty even if the person being held still makes the play.

True, but if a play is reviewed for another reason they don't then call a holding penalty that wasn't called on the field.

Quote from Bill Carallo: “If you look a ground video of it, you might say this doesn’t look like much of a wave,” Carollo said. “But if you look at the high (camera view) over the top, he’s actually waving."

Tell me why it's important how the signal looks from above, isn't the game played on the ground.

Also do you think if Cooper was hit and fumbled the ball with Minnesota recovering that after a review Iowa would have retained possession because of the "invalid fair catch"?

 

[mnHawk8]

It has as much bearing on the play as if his toe touched out-of-bounds and nobody on the field caught it. Exactly the same.

I'll agree to disagree and move on. I have no desire to spend pages arguing with you (or anyone really), and therefore shouldn't have posted at all. Like nearly every other thread on this site, no one's mind is being changed. I enjoy lurking much more than posting.

 

[WadeLookingbill]

It has as much bearing on the play as if his toe touched out-of-bounds and nobody on the field caught it. Exactly the same.

And that would be indisputable and correctly overturned.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

That is the purpose of the fair catch rule. What is the purpose of invalid fair catch rule?

Exactly. The. Same.

It relieves the officiating crew from having to determine if the waving hand meets the criteria. You wave your hand, the ball is dead. The outcome is the same whether it's valid or invalid. It also prevents confusing the opposing team with false signals but that's secondary.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

And that would be indisputable and correctly overturned.

Now you've got it! He waved his hand. Indisputably. The call on the field was correctly overturned by rule.

 

[gohawks50]

Exactly. The. Same.

It relieves the officiating crew from having to determine if the waving hand meets the criteria. You wave your hand, the ball is dead. The outcome is the same whether it's valid or invalid. It also prevents confusing the opposing team with false signals but that's secondary.

Except that the call wasn't made from the field level view according to Bill Carallo: “If you look a ground video of it, you might say this doesn’t look like much of a wave,” Carollo said. “But if you look at the high (camera view) over the top, he’s actually waving."

The rule needs to be clarified and enforced more consistently. I'd put money on the fact that if Cooper was hit and fumbled the ball with Minnesota recovering that after a review Iowa would NOT have retained possession because of the "invalid fair catch".

Anyway, we're never going to agree on the call so we'll have to agree to disagree.

 

[WadeLookingbill]

Now you've got it! He waved his hand. Indisputably. The call on the field was correctly overturned by rule.

lol. I think it's fair to say that at least half the folks looking at this (likely way more) have a different opinion (was he pointing? was he running? was he motioning? was he waving?). Which means by definition, there is some level of dispute. Which means the original call of touchdown has to stand.

 

[joelbc1]

Now you've got it! He waved his hand. Indisputably. The call on the field was correctly overturned by rule.

Tar Heel....again, it is a bullshit and 100% completely unnecessary rule (invalid fair catch)...there is a clear and clean definition of what constitutes a VALID “fair catch”...you don’t need anything more.
This, plus the referees tainted past with “rules interpretations” in general and controversial calls involving Iowa/Minnesota football games specifically, justifies any and all questions raise to this point.
Mt suggestions are twofold...college football needs to get rid of the “invalid fair catch” rule...and the B10 needs to suspend or get rid of this official (O’Dey) And suspend the rest of this crew for an appropriate period of time.

 

[ANYCHawk]

I can't wrap my head around why so many of you think it matters that nobody on the field noticed it. The rule doesn't say "and it affects the behavior of the opposing team." It just says you can't wave your arm below your shoulder.

The waving occurred far away from where the ball landed, and well before the ball landed. So, yeah, people didn't notice it. But he still did it.

Was it a cheap call? Sure. Does it suck? Absolutely. But it was not the wrong call.

It matters for a couple of reasons.

If nobody on the field noticed it, how clear can it be? If its not clear how do you change a call based on slow mo replays and not-natural angles?

Also if nobody called it on the field, it means they missed or botched the call. If they botched the call on the field it shows they could botch it at any point in the review process, including in replay. Replay shouldn't be taken as gospel given the fact we know they F*** up at some point in the timeline.

To just sit there and be like its right at the end ignores so much of the context of the story and takes what refs said in the end as gospel without going 'wait what'

 

[WadeLookingbill]

It matters for a couple of reasons.

If nobody on the field noticed it, how clear can it be? If its not clear how do you change a call based on slow mo replays and not-natural angles?

Also if nobody called it on the field, it means they missed or botched the call. If they botched the call on the field it shows they could botch it at any point in the review process, including in replay. Replay shouldn't be taken as gospel given the fact we know they F*** up at some point in the timeline.

To just sit there and be like its right at the end ignores so much of the context of the story and takes what refs said in the end as gospel without going 'wait what'

Bingo. The reason it wasn't called on the field is because from the field level (ya know, where the game is played) the motion of the arm is very unclear (as shown by the field level video and acknowledged by the Big Ten), and you'd be hard-pressed to call that in real time (or even after the play ran prior to review). This is also one of the reasons why the replay standard of review gives deference to the original call. A single aerial shot that could maybe possibly support the indisputable standard just isn't good enough to overturn the call on the field. And now I'm never speaking of this again.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

True, but if a play is reviewed for another reason they don't then call a holding penalty that wasn't called on the field.

Quote from Bill Carallo: “If you look a ground video of it, you might say this doesn’t look like much of a wave,” Carollo said. “But if you look at the high (camera view) over the top, he’s actually waving."

Tell me why it's important how the signal looks from above, isn't the game played on the ground.

Also do you think if Cooper was hit and fumbled the ball with Minnesota recovering that after a review Iowa would have retained possession because of the "invalid fair catch"?

That's the entire purpose for having a review official. Imagine an overhead view that confirms a first down. Nobody bitches that they couldn't see it at ground level.

As for your question, the ball would have been given to Iowa. The ball is dead as soon as it's caught.

 

[JRHawk2003]

Jesus people are still debating this.

 

[jamesvanderwulf]

Jesus people are still debating this.

What of it? I go and pizz on Don Denkinger’s grave every October 15…

 

[tarheelbybirth]

Tar Heel....again, it is a bullshit and 100% completely unnecessary rule (invalid fair catch)...there is a clear and clean definition of what constitutes a VALID “fair catch”...you don’t need anything more.
This, plus the referees tainted past with “rules interpretations” in general and controversial calls involving Iowa/Minnesota football games specifically, justifies any and all questions raise to this point.
Mt suggestions are twofold...college football needs to get rid of the “invalid fair catch” rule...and the B10 needs to suspend or get rid of this official (O’Dey) And suspend the rest of this crew for an appropriate period of time.

That's nonsense - no offence. What stops a returner from putting his hand over his head and waving it once and then taking off when the opposing team pulls up? What if your returner only has time to wave his hand once and gets obliterated by an opposing player who claims your returner didn't wave it the required "more than once"? The invalid rule exists for a very good reason.

As for your "tainted" officials...that's irrelevant. He waved his hand. Period. That constitutes an invalid fair catch signal. Period. There's no arguing with that.

 

[EasyHawk]

It was absolutely a screw job. No question. The refs should be reprimanded. It was sickening.

 

[artradley]

It matters for a couple of reasons.

If nobody on the field noticed it, how clear can it be? If its not clear how do you change a call based on slow mo replays and not-natural angles?

Also if nobody called it on the field, it means they missed or botched the call. If they botched the call on the field it shows they could botch it at any point in the review process, including in replay. Replay shouldn't be taken as gospel given the fact we know they F*** up at some point in the timeline.

To just sit there and be like its right at the end ignores so much of the context of the story and takes what refs said in the end as gospel without going 'wait what'

This simply makes no sense. The very purpose of instant replay is to allow multiple camera angles at slow motion to catch things that may have been missed on the field.

He absolutely did EXACTLY what is defined in the rules as an invalid catch. There can be no question. That the officials missed it on the field is in no way a reason to state it cannot be overturned.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

This simply makes no sense. The very purpose of instant replay is to allow multiple camera angles at slow motion to catch things that may have been missed on the field.

He absolutely did EXACTLY what is defined in the rules as an invalid catch. There can be no question. That the officials missed it on the field is in no way a reason to state it cannot be overturned.

People making excuses to try and feel better about a loss. I get it. We all do it. Rarely with this kind of zeal, though.

 

[artradley]

And that would be indisputable and correctly overturned.

Well, he indisputably waved his arm below his shoulder.