I guess it couldn't happen to a nicer bunch of assholes but geezuz, this was bad. NW punts and the Wisky receiver is waving his arms side-to-side, BELOW his waist to keep his guys away from the ball, then grabs the ball and runs for a TD. Refs call it back saying he was calling fair catch. Wisky wishes they had ACC refs today I bet.
Wisky got hosed
- Thread starter Chewback
- Start date
I don't see how that is screwing them. Sounds like an attempt to cheat
I have no idea but it was that level of pooch-screwing, if not worse.
So gunners running full speed down the field towards him are supposed to figure out if he is waving his arm above or below his waist? Shouldn't have waved his arm at all if he didn't want to fair catch.
It happens on nearly all punts where the ball isn't fielded. The PR waves his arms below his waist signaling his guys to stay away.
No, that was O'Neill's crew that worked the Iowa-Minn game.
This is McGinn's crew that worked the Iowa-Indiana game with the bad holding calls and shitty spots.
if you waive your arms it's a fair catch signal. he shouldn't have tried to advance it.
How'd that non-TD catch on 1st and goal (I think it was) get overturned? They say he never had control?....I missed the call after the review. I saw the Wisconsin WR catch it near the side of the endzone and they ruled it a touchdown, though I figured they'd review it. I also figured it'd stand so I changed the channel. Next thing I know, it's 3rd and goal and all hell breaks loose.
I think they got hosed on the replay personally. Sure looked like a good catch to me. Didn't have control? Wtf?
Badgers had, what, 5 turnovers? That's how you lose most often, not by bad calls...
If the Badger had waved his hands and not tried to run it...OK...but waving hands is risky...especially if you grab it at the end and try to run it. Seen it be called before...
The bobble as the Badger was falling down and going out the side of the endzone was incomplete...as strange as it seemed.
Never feel sorry for the Badgers...bad karma...
If the Badger had waved his hands and not tried to run it...OK...but waving hands is risky...especially if you grab it at the end and try to run it. Seen it be called before...
The bobble as the Badger was falling down and going out the side of the endzone was incomplete...as strange as it seemed.
Never feel sorry for the Badgers...bad karma...
And thank you, Northwestern, for covering the spread, and winning outright...ding, ding, ding...
I don't know what play you were watching, but it was not the same play as I saw. The play I saw the receiver caught the ball and then took two steps with the ball firmly in his grasp and he only began to bobble the ball after he hit the ground and slid.
You may not like Wisconsin, but they were playing Northwestern.
Even if he calls fair catch, if the ball bounces he can take it and go, no? I didn't see the play, but that's how I'm interpreting what happened.
And I'm no expert on rules.
And I'm no expert on rules.
Curious why you think this proves a point? Those aren't fielded.
I did watch the "bobble" in real time and the several replays...I am not expert...nor an official but I think that such a "catch" has been more clearly "defined"...in the NFL and perhaps the NCAA...especially when you are falling down out of bounds. I wasn't surprised it was overturned when they reviewed it. It seems unfair and odd...and it did when I saw it in past games. If he had caught it, had possession with one foot or feet in without going down to the ground and rolling out of bounds it wouldn't be an issue...when he hit the ground, bobbled...then it was up for review and in fact, was overturned. Perhaps more can clarify... Point is...don't give up 5 turnovers and complain about a loss...you had many, many, chances at home to win this Bucky. Glad Wisconsin lost in such a painful way, honestly, sickening fans, mostly. These little piggies cry all the way home... And very glad I have a ticket to cash...taking Northwestern and the 11 points I was most graciously given...
They have to do something about this. Every game I watched yesterday had one of those ridiculous reviews. The new "interpretation" has been nothing but a disaster from Day One.
If the guy has possession when he goes down and/or out of bounds, it's a catch. End of story. Don't stand there trying to imagine how much longer he should have control.
The "Fair catch" punt return was BS by the returner. 3 Purdue guys were right there and were going to cream him, but they backed off. The touchdown catch that was over ruled was a bad call. That was a touchdown and Bucky got hosed.
I think he took 4 steps with the ball in the end zone. Yes, he was "stumbling". But, c'mon. He hadn't completed the catch?
If that play was "correctly" ruled incomplete, then there is something very seriously wrong with the rule.
If that play was "correctly" ruled incomplete, then there is something very seriously wrong with the rule.
Why is the process of the catch so hard to understand? If you go to the ground you must have control of the ball the whole way through. Wissy receiver let the ball roll between his legs when he hit the ground.
Shouldn't the Purdue players have been flagged for illegal participation?
Well, I'm just trying to figure that out because if he had control of it and then didn't maintain once he went out of bounds, therefore making it incomplete, then why was the Nebraska OT catch against us last year a completion?......
I'm not saying the call last year was wrong. Just that this seemed pretty similar....
I'm guessing that since he wasn't "stumbling", he had completed the catch.
Oh, and I looked at the replay again - 4 steps in bounds, then a knee in bounds as he goes down, all with control of the ball. Geesh.
P.S. Make no mistake - I'm glad they got hosed. Wisky fans were throwing snowballs at referees and their own cheerleaders. Very classy.
Last edited:
Lol, yeah like I said before, I saw the play and watched the replay once and was like 'meh, that's a catch' *channel-change*...............I flip back and it's 3rd and goal.
Welcome to the NFL/NCAA.
Dez Bryant set the stage for this rule and personally its stupid. If a player takes 2 steps with the ball in possession, it should of been a TD.
Last year vs Nebbie you see the WR catch the ball in the end zone, then gets hit backwards and he dropped the ball. They ruled he had possession in the end zone, and this guy didn't??
Also in the field of play, when a player has control for 2 steps and then drops its a fumble. This was a bad call by the officials.
Dez Bryant set the stage for this rule and personally its stupid. If a player takes 2 steps with the ball in possession, it should of been a TD.
Last year vs Nebbie you see the WR catch the ball in the end zone, then gets hit backwards and he dropped the ball. They ruled he had possession in the end zone, and this guy didn't??
Also in the field of play, when a player has control for 2 steps and then drops its a fumble. This was a bad call by the officials.
If it was a bad call vs Bucky...all the better...they have been living a "charmed" life for the last few years, in lots of ways...things tend to work out...and balance over time...their turn.
Their 5 turnovers doomed them...and their offensive line play this year has been far below what they are used to having...
Their 5 turnovers doomed them...and their offensive line play this year has been far below what they are used to having...
The punt fair catch was called 100% correct. Badger forums have cited the rule. Please educate yourself before you claim officials botched a game.
My understanding is that:
1) You must initially have firm control. We agree he that appears to be true, yes?
2) When going out of bounds, control must be maintained. ("Must complete the football play").
On this second point, he does clearly bobble. And maybe by the technically following the rules as written, this is incomplete. But if so, the rule, as written, is ridiculous.
The rule is intended to say that a catch can't be "saved" by the out-of-bounds line. That is, just because you appeared to have possession before going out, doesn't mean you can drop it the instant you are out. HOWEVER! In this case, had the out-of-bounds line not been there, it obviously would have been a catch because the ball never hit the ground (regardless of the fact that it was bobbled). In other words, he completed the football play. The situation is different had he not had control before hitting the ground, but he did have control before hitting the ground.
So unless they are going to start calling incomplete passes in-bounds for balls that were bobbled as the player hit the ground yet never touched the ground, calling this pass incomplete is simply wrong. The rule is being perverted to apply to situations that were never the intent of the rule in the first place.
