Tuesdays With Torbee: Autopsy of a screw job

[Finance85]

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

The fair catch rule used to be simple - just raise your hand above your head. It was changed because players were raising their hands above their head to shield their eyes, or to actually catch the ball. It was decided that waving more than once was a clear signal. To make sure their was no confusion, an illegal signal was defined so the kicking team wouldn't be penalized for not hitting a returner who was signaling improperly. Illegal fair catch signals apparently happen but aren't always called. Sometimes they are called, and sometimes they are called when they shouldn't be called.

Iowa still could have won the game by gaining 20-25 yards and kicking a field goal with just under 2 minutes left. While that's not necessarily an easy task, it's also not a next to impossible task either.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

Well, he indisputably waved his arm below his shoulder.

It doesn't even have to be below his shoulder...ANY waving that doesn't meet all the requirements for a valid signal is ruled invalid. Over your head, wave it once...invalid signal - the ball is dead on the catch.

 

[joelbc1]

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.

The. (Fair Catch) RULE and resultant (15 yd.) penalty should be deterrent enough, shouldn’t it?
You keep referring to the fact that #3 was waving his left hand, signaling a Fair Catch……there is a “field level view” taken from the end zone that shows #3 fielding the punt…and from THIS view (the view seen by players, coaches and field officials) that shows #3 pointing to the ball with his right hand but any “waving of the left hand” is really non-distinguishable to the eye. I am sorry, IF there was any type of decernable “fair catch” signal made, SOMEONE (a player, a referee or a visiting coach) would have made a signal or an objection almost immediately……The “fair catch” signal you are defending was a completely subjective observation made by someone 100 yds away from an observation post that deprived the observer of relevant information needed to make a sensible and correct decision.
It’s done and not to be undone. It isn't even the worse call I have seen in Kinnick in the past 10 years (Wadley’s “high stepping” penalty vs. N Texas St beats that all too hell), but none theless, it was a horseshit call…….and a call that can never be justified.

 

[Igor Stravinsky10]

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.

There was no call on the field. How many times do I have to tell you this? You seem like an absolute moron. Yes, the call was infuriating, it may be the correct call, but it IS NOT THE REVIEW BOOTH'S CALL. The Review Booth is there to review calls on the field. Again, THERE WAS NO CALL ON THE FIELD! The Review Booth was tasked with checking if DeJean stayed in bounds. He did. The Review Booth has no authority to call a play back like that.

 

[Igor Stravinsky10]

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.

Hey Stupid, try to follow this.....THERE WAS NO CALL ON THE FIELD. The Review Booth is not authorized to call plays. They are there for review purposes. They were reviewing to see if DeJean stayed in bounds, which he did. Refer to my earlier messages. If the Review Booth was entitled to call anything, then there would be Holding on EVERY PLAY.

 

[artradley]

There was no call on the field. How many times do I have to tell you this? You seem like an absolute moron. Yes, the call was infuriating, it may be the correct call, but it IS NOT THE REVIEW BOOTH'S CALL. The Review Booth is there to review calls on the field. Again, THERE WAS NO CALL ON THE FIELD! The Review Booth was tasked with checking if DeJean stayed in bounds. He did. The Review Booth has no authority to call a play back like that.

Everybody is well aware there was no call on the field? Why do you think you need to keep screaming something to which everyone is already in agreement?

Your objections are completely different one from what has been argued. Rather than claiming no invalid signal was given, your points appear to be:

* Replay can only review something that was called on the field. This is, of course, objectively false. Replays often include making a call that was missed. From stepping out of bounds to targeting.

* The Replay official may only review what they have been asked to review. This might, in fact, be the case if the coach challenged a call. Is that what happened here? I'm not certain, but I think not. I believe in this case the Replay official chose to review. In that case, I do not believe he has to announce to anybody what he is reviewing. If you think this is wrong I would like to see the rule quoted.

 

[Igor Stravinsky10]

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.

You are so f'n dense and dumb. The play that you referred to was called on the field by the referees ON THE FIELD. The call against Iowa was made by the Review Booth.....THERE WAS NO CALL ON THE FIELD. Please try to follow along from here, you f'n moron.

 

[artradley]

Hey Stupid, try to follow this.....THERE WAS NO CALL ON THE FIELD. The Review Booth is not authorized to call plays. They are there for review purposes. They were reviewing to see if DeJean stayed in bounds, which he did. Refer to my earlier messages. If the Review Booth was entitled to call anything, then there would be Holding on EVERY PLAY.

Well, here you demonstrate you simply have no idea what you're talking about. Rules specify that the Replay Official can review plays without being asked to do so by a coach. And they specify exactly when they can review plays. Any play that involves a possible touchdown is reviewable. Period.

 

[jamesvanderwulf]

 

[Igor Stravinsky10]

Well, here you demonstrate you simply have no idea what you're talking about. Rules specify that the Replay Official can review plays without being asked to do so by a coach. And they specify exactly when they can review plays. Any play that involves a possible touchdown is reviewable. Period.

Hey Art or Boo or whatever the F your name is. You are wrong. You are correct that any play involving a TD or a turnover is reviewable. A judgement call is NOT reviewable. There was no call on the field during live action by the refs. That is/was their judgement in the moment. That is NOT REVIEWABLE.

 

[artradley]

Hey Art or Boo or whatever the F your name is. You are wrong. You are correct that any play involving a TD or a turnover is reviewable. A judgement call is NOT reviewable. There was no call on the field during live action by the refs. That is/was their judgement in the moment. That is NOT REVIEWABLE.

Could you cite the rule the specifies the replay official cannot review a play that involves “judgement” and how that is defined? Because fair catch is specified, somIm not sure where that would be overridden.

 

[stickman80]

I hope the Iowa team does a better job putting this game behind them and focusing on their next game than all the wussified fans crying "Screw Job".

 

[tarheelbybirth]

You are so f'n dense and dumb. The play that you referred to was called on the field by the referees ON THE FIELD. The call against Iowa was made by the Review Booth.....THERE WAS NO CALL ON THE FIELD. Please try to follow along from here, you f'n moron.

The replay officials review every play in the game and have the same authority as on field officials within their area. They can call for a stoppage of play after any reviewable play and can make any call that falls under their jurisdiction. That includes fair catch calls…including invalid ones.

 

[gohawks50]

The replay officials review every play in the game and have the same authority as on field officials within their area. They can call for a stoppage of play after any reviewable play and can make any call that falls under their jurisdiction. That includes fair catch calls…including invalid ones.

Limitations on Reviewable Plays ARTICLE 7. No other plays or officiating decisions are reviewable. However, the replay official may correct obvious errors that may have a significant impact on the outcome of the game, including those involving the game clock, whether or not a play is reviewable. This excludes fouls that are not specifically reviewable
(See Article 8, following).


Reviewable Fouls ARTICLE 8. The following plays are reviewable and the replay official may create a foul when there is no call by the on-field officials:


a. Player making a forward pass or forward handoff when the player’s entire body and the ball is or has been beyond the neutral zone or after a change of possession (Rule 12-3-2-c and -d).


b. Player beyond the neutral zone when kicking the ball (Rule 12-3-4- b).


c. Blocking by players of the kicking team before they are eligible to touch the ball on an onside kick (Rule 12-3-4-e).


d. The number of players on the field for either team during a live ball (Rule 12-3-6-a).


e. Illegal touching of a forward pass by an originally eligible receiver who has gone out of bounds or touching of a forward pass by an originally ineligible player (Rules 12-3-2-b and 12-3-3-h).


f. A player touching or recovering a kick or loose ball who has been out of bounds and returned inbounds during the kick. (Rule 12-3-4-f).


g. Forward pass that becomes illegal as a second pass after an on-field ruling of a backward pass is overturned (Rule 12-3-2-e).


h. A clear and obvious targeting foul (Rule 12-3-5-b).

https://www.ncaapublications.com/productdownloads/FBC23.pdf

 

[hawkedoff]

I can't seem to find invalid fair catch anywhere in the following plays that are reviewable. Only fair catches are addressed. Amazing how the rules experts don't feel bound by the rules and subjected us all to all their lies and bullshit. I am absolutely positive they will smugly state that invalid fair catches fall under fair catches. The problem is they are distinct things in the rules and so no they are not the same thing. That asshole replay official needs to apologize. So does rhat asshole bill whatever that is the head of officials and stated that the overhead view is the only place it can be seen. You pricks lectured the world and were completely wrong. **** you

Kicks ARTICLE 4. Reviewable plays involving kicks include:

a. Touching of a kick.
b. Player beyond the neutral zone when kicking the ball.
c. Kicking team player advancing a ball after a potential muffed kick/ fumble by the receiving team.
d. Scrimmage kick crossing the neutral zone.
e. Blocking by players of the kicking team before they are eligible to touch the ball on an on-side kick.
f. A player touching or recovering a kick or loose ball who is or has been out of bounds during the kick.
g. Receiving team advancing after a fair catch signal

 

[tarheelbybirth]

Limitations on Reviewable Plays ARTICLE 7. No other plays or officiating decisions are reviewable. However, the replay official may correct obvious errors that may have a significant impact on the outcome of the game, including those involving the game clock, whether or not a play is reviewable. This excludes fouls that are not specifically reviewable
(See Article 8, following).


Reviewable Fouls ARTICLE 8. The following plays are reviewable and the replay official may create a foul when there is no call by the on-field officials:


a. Player making a forward pass or forward handoff when the player’s entire body and the ball is or has been beyond the neutral zone or after a change of possession (Rule 12-3-2-c and -d).


b. Player beyond the neutral zone when kicking the ball (Rule 12-3-4- b).


c. Blocking by players of the kicking team before they are eligible to touch the ball on an onside kick (Rule 12-3-4-e).


d. The number of players on the field for either team during a live ball (Rule 12-3-6-a).


e. Illegal touching of a forward pass by an originally eligible receiver who has gone out of bounds or touching of a forward pass by an originally ineligible player (Rules 12-3-2-b and 12-3-3-h).


f. A player touching or recovering a kick or loose ball who has been out of bounds and returned inbounds during the kick. (Rule 12-3-4-f).


g. Forward pass that becomes illegal as a second pass after an on-field ruling of a backward pass is overturned (Rule 12-3-2-e).


h. A clear and obvious targeting foul (Rule 12-3-5-b).

https://www.ncaapublications.com/productdownloads/FBC23.pdf

Dang...I thought you had something there. I looked through the book...

105. Advance of fair catch–Ball not declared dead During a kick, B33 gives a fair catch signal and catches the ball at the B-20. The ball is not declared dead. B33 carries to the 50-yard line where he is pushed out of bounds. RULING: Reviewable play under Rule 12-3-4-g. Team B’s ball at the B-20. Reset clock to when B33 gained possession if within two minutes of the 2nd quarter or two minutes of the 4th quarter.

It doesn't differentiate between a valid and invalid fair catch signal so neither can we. DeJean gave an invalid fair catch signal and the ball was not declared dead. The play is reviewable and the ball is returned to the point of possession. Not sure what the time was on the clock so no idea if they were required to reset the clock.

 

[hawkedoff]

Dang...I thought you had something there. I looked through the book...

105. Advance of fair catch–Ball not declared dead During a kick, B33 gives a fair catch signal and catches the ball at the B-20. The ball is not declared dead. B33 carries to the 50-yard line where he is pushed out of bounds. RULING: Reviewable play under Rule 12-3-4-g. Team B’s ball at the B-20. Reset clock to when B33 gained possession if within two minutes of the 2nd quarter or two minutes of the 4th quarter.

It doesn't differentiate between a valid and invalid fair catch signal so neither can we. DeJean gave an invalid fair catch signal and the ball was not declared dead. The play is reviewable and the ball is returned to the point of possession. Not sure what the time was on the clock so no idea if they were required to reset the clock.

That is quite the leap there. Invalid fair catches and fair catches are distinct things in the rulebook. So unless they call it out what they have addressed there is a fair catch.

Show me where else we get to assume things not stated in the rules?

 

[tarheelbybirth]

I can't seem to find invalid fair catch anywhere in the following plays that are reviewable. Only fair catches are addressed. Amazing how the rules experts don't feel bound by the rules and subjected us all to all their lies and bullshit. I am absolutely positive they will smugly state that invalid fair catches fall under fair catches. The problem is they are distinct things in the rules and so no they are not the same thing. That asshole replay official needs to apologize. So does rhat asshole bill whatever that is the head of officials and stated that the overhead view is the only place it can be seen. You pricks lectured the world and were completely wrong. **** you

Kicks ARTICLE 4. Reviewable plays involving kicks include:

a. Touching of a kick.
b. Player beyond the neutral zone when kicking the ball.
c. Kicking team player advancing a ball after a potential muffed kick/ fumble by the receiving team.
d. Scrimmage kick crossing the neutral zone.
e. Blocking by players of the kicking team before they are eligible to touch the ball on an on-side kick.
f. A player touching or recovering a kick or loose ball who is or has been out of bounds during the kick.
g. Receiving team advancing after a fair catch signal

And again...an invalid fair catch signal IS a fair catch signal. It's just invalid. A valid fair catch signal is also a fair catch signal. Both are defined in the section titled Fair Catch. Both are treated exactly the same way. There is no penalty...the ball is dead where the returner possessed it.

No apologies necessary. The call was correct.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

That is quite the leap there. Invalid fair catches and fair catches are distinct things in the rulebook. So unless they call it out what they have addressed there is a fair catch.

Show me where else we get to assume things not stated in the rules?

They're both defined as fair catches. You just did it yourself.

 

[gohawks50]

Dang...I thought you had something there. I looked through the book...

105. Advance of fair catch–Ball not declared dead During a kick, B33 gives a fair catch signal and catches the ball at the B-20. The ball is not declared dead. B33 carries to the 50-yard line where he is pushed out of bounds. RULING: Reviewable play under Rule 12-3-4-g. Team B’s ball at the B-20. Reset clock to when B33 gained possession if within two minutes of the 2nd quarter or two minutes of the 4th quarter.

It doesn't differentiate between a valid and invalid fair catch signal so neither can we. DeJean gave an invalid fair catch signal and the ball was not declared dead. The play is reviewable and the ball is returned to the point of possession. Not sure what the time was on the clock so no idea if they were required to reset the clock.

It doesn't even mention invalid fair catch so I don't know how you can claim they are the same thing.

 

[gohawks50]

They're both defined as fair catches. You just did it yourself.

Then the call should have been Cooper called for a fair catch. The word invalid in itself means it is the opposite of a fair catch. At the very least you should agree that the language is not clear. Iowa lost, I'm not arguing that, but the rule needs to be clarified and enforced in a somewhat consistent manner.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

It doesn't even mention invalid fair catch so I don't know how you can claim they are the same thing.

They're BOTH defined in Section 8 Fair Catch. They are BOTH treated the same way by the officials. Are you actually going to make the claim that they CAN review an uncalled valid fair catch signal that is advanced but they CAN'T review an uncalled invalid fair catch signal that is advanced???

To say that's a reach is what we call an understatement.

 

[Gimmered]

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.

The thing you need to understand about Hawkeye fans is they don't ever except a loss. It's nearly always the officials.

They very well could lose out this season and finish 6-6, they will claim they are the best one loss team in the nation.

There's really no point in arguing your point anymore.

 

[bdg8]

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.

You forgot biased

And corrupt

 

[gohawks50]

They're BOTH defined in Section 8 Fair Catch. They are BOTH treated the same way by the officials. Are you actually going to make the claim that they CAN review an uncalled valid fair catch signal that is advanced but they CAN'T review an uncalled invalid fair catch signal that is advanced???

To say that's a reach is what we call an understatement.

Can you copy the section that states that a fair catch and an invalid fair catch are the same thing I can't find it?

 

[gohawks50]

The thing you need to understand about Hawkeye fans is they don't ever except a loss. It's nearly always the officials.

They very well could lose out this season and finish 6-6, they will claim they are the best one loss team in the nation.

There's really no point in arguing your point anymore.

Then the call should have been Cooper called for a fair catch. The word invalid in itself means it is the opposite of a fair catch. At the very least you should agree that the language is not clear. Iowa lost, I'm not arguing that, but the rule needs to be clarified and enforced in a somewhat consistent manner.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

The thing you need to understand about Hawkeye fans is they don't ever except a loss. It's nearly always the officials.

They very well could lose out this season and finish 6-6, they will claim they are the best one loss team in the nation.

There's really no point in arguing your point anymore.

I really don't want to like that post because I do think it was a ticky-tack call and I would be pissed that it was called but it was the correct call. Yeah, I'm done - you can't fix delusional.

 

[Gimmered]

Can you copy the section that states that a fair catch and an invalid fair catch are the same thing I can't find it?

An invalid fair catch and a valid fair catch are both a fair catch. The only difference is if you hit a returner after an invalid fair catch there is no penalty.

 

[gohawks50]

An invalid fair catch and a valid fair catch are both a fair catch. The only difference is if you hit a returner after an invalid fair catch there is no penalty.

So does that mean if Cooper would have been hit and fumbled with Minnesota recovering that Iowa would have maintained possession?

 

[gohawks50]

I really don't want to like that post because I do think it was a ticky-tack call and I would be pissed that it was called but it was the correct call. Yeah, I'm done - you can't fix delusional.

That's exactly what I'm arguing about, it's a rule that needs clarification and consistency. Iowa lost there's no amount of arguing that will change that fact.

 

[Gimmered]

So does that mean if Cooper would have been hit and fumbled with Minnesota recovering that Iowa would have maintained possession?

Only if he had clear possession and made a football move. So if he caught the ball, made a football move was hit and fumbled it would be Iowa ball, If he were hit as he received the ball and lost it, it would be Minnesota ball. If he made a valid fair catch signal, and was hit as he caught the ball it would be Iowa ball and a 15 yard penalty for fair catch interference.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

So does that mean if Cooper would have been hit and fumbled with Minnesota recovering that Iowa would have maintained possession?

Yup

 

[tarheelbybirth]

That's exactly what I'm arguing about, it's a rule that needs clarification and consistency. Iowa lost there's no amount of arguing that will change that fact.

👍 Maybe make it waving the arm at or above shoulder height - though that still leaves room for all kinds of controversy. I have no idea how consistently it's called but defining it clearly should be a point of emphasis with both officials and punt returners.

 

[gohawks50]

Only if he had clear possession and made a football move. So if he caught the ball, made a football move was hit and fumbled it would be Iowa ball, If he were hit as he received the ball and lost it, it would be Minnesota ball. If he made a valid fair catch signal, and was hit as he caught the ball it would be Iowa ball and a 15 yard penalty for fair catch interference.

Yup

That's what should happen, but I'm not sure the replay booth would have even looked for an "invalid" fair catch if DeJean hadn't scored.

 

[Gimmered]

That's what should happen, but I'm not sure the replay booth would have even looked for an "invalid" fair catch if DeJean hadn't scored.

I'm sure we all know how the Minnesota fans would have reacted if a fumble would have gone back to Iowa too.

 

[sdhawkeye]

The thing you need to understand about Hawkeye fans is they don't ever except a loss. It's nearly always the officials.

They very well could lose out this season and finish 6-6, they will claim they are the best one loss team in the nation.

There's really no point in arguing your point anymore.

The most Nebraska fan thing to say ever! Keep it up!

 

[Moral]

Have any minds been changed in here?

 

[Gus is dead]

To address some poster's questions........If the officials had blown the whistle no one would be complaining as we wouldn't have had the chance to see him return it for a TD and it wouldn't have been so criminally egregious.

That is why the failure to blow the whistle, on the field, matters.

 

[torbee]

Watched the Sam Houston - UTEP game last night. SH punt returner waved away his teammates and returned a punt 25 yards. No flag. It’s not a real penalty for any official who doesn’t either suck or have bias.

 

[torbee]

BlackHave any minds been changed in here?

Inchoate rage is cathartic, Moral.

We aren’t here to change minds.

We are here to speak truth to power!