VA Husker Fan

I don't agree with that statement that the DB did something wrong. The ruling was actually that the receiver did nothing wrong, so he was allowed to reenter. No flag on the DB, as he did nothing wrong. No flag for the receiver, as he did nothing wrong either. It would seem that the rule-makers looked at this situation and decided if nobody did anything wrong, the play continues. The catch has to be made inbounds, so the boundary does count for something. Look at other plays. Ever seen a player go out of bounds, then come back in to recover a fumble? That's allowed. Or step on the sidelines, but still make a block? Allowed. Out of bounds isn't a minefield that takes a player out of a play. But, how is there any other way to interpret the bolded? I'm 99% positive if a player runs out of bound completely on their own accord and back in to make a catch, they're ineligible. They'd have to be as you're cheating the boundaries. So, because there was a contact, Reilly was able to come back in. That to me suggests the DB's contact is the whole reason the play was allowed. And then that's where I draw into question just how impactful that contact really was. If it would've been OK on any other part of the field, how is it all of a sudden enough reason for a WR to run out bounds and back in? So, unless I'm wrong about a player that's completely untouched going out and coming back in on receiving plays... I don't know how to make you stop thinking someone has to be doing something wrong for play to continue. It's just the opposite, since nobody did wrong, play continues. I've already pointed out other instances when a player can go out of bounds and still take part in the play. It's no harm, no foul.

Then we'll disagree, because I think the rule makes a lot of sense. Reilly wasn't allowed to just run out of bounds. He's allowed to run his route. The DB made enough contact to take him out of bounds. If he's out of the play, you're saying he did something wrong, and I disagree with that. If you think Reilly could've stayed in bounds, you try running full speed down a sidewalk while someone is running next to you, getting closer and closer and putting their arm out. And by the way you are also looking back over your shoulder for a pass. You'll step on the grass at some point. Why should you have to stop just because the guy got too close to you? I think we only got lucky to the extent that the ref could've ruled it wasn't enough contact, but I think they will normally give the receiver benefit of the doubt. According to wikipedia, the NFL rule is different in that the receiver must take 3 steps in bounds before catching the pass to be eligible, whether or not he was contacted out. They don't quote the rule so I can't be sure that's accurate and I don't feel like looking up the rule.

How does this make it a scam?

I don't agree with that statement that the DB did something wrong. The ruling was actually that the receiver did nothing wrong, so he was allowed to reenter. No flag on the DB, as he did nothing wrong. No flag for the receiver, as he did nothing wrong either. It would seem that the rule-makers looked at this situation and decided if nobody did anything wrong, the play continues. The catch has to be made inbounds, so the boundary does count for something. Look at other plays. Ever seen a player go out of bounds, then come back in to recover a fumble? That's allowed. Or step on the sidelines, but still make a block? Allowed. Out of bounds isn't a minefield that takes a player out of a play.

Let's say there wasn't that rule about reentry if you were forced out. No receiver could run a route near the sidelines because it would be so easy for a DB to nudge a receiver out which take him totally out of the play. Huge advantage to the defense. The rule as it is basically takes that advantage away. The boundary counts for lots of things--but it gets extended for this one purpose, so that neither team gains an advantage. Somebody, maybe it was you, earlier asked why a receiver doesn't just go up and tap a DB and go out of bounds. For one thing, that's not contact causing him to go out of bounds, so the refs would rule an illegal touch. For another, unless he does some crazy thing like I mentioned before where he hides in with his team and then slips back in bounds, there's no advantage to be gained. To answer your last question, and I'm not a ref, I'd guess if there was no contact that the refs would rule the receiver ineligible. He either was running parallel to the DB and bailed out on his position before contact, or he was running far enough behind that he should've been able to cut back into the field. I can't recall the exact wording on the rule but it does say contact so I'm assuming that's how it's called. The receiver should be battling for his position, which causes contact, which allows him to go out and come back in.

This is kind of where my head is at. We give a lot of leniency to offenses and wide receivers. In my own opinion, I don't think MSU's DB did anything wrong and I don't think Reilly should have been able to do what he did in that scenario. I know it didn't draw a flag, but, I compare it to pass interference. The amount of contact the DB had on Reilly was minimal based on the best replays I've seen. If Reilly really was shoved, forced, or whatever, then similar contact should draw 15 pass interference calls each and every game. But, based on the rule, I understand why Reilly was able to score. Still don't think it put the DB in the best situation. They're already at a huge disadvantage. Why would you compare it to pass interference? These are totally separate things. You are wrong to make this comparison. That's almost like comparing a goal line judgement whether the ball carrier was down before he made the end zone, or if the defender should be flagged for a late hit. Pass interference and what happened to Reilly are two different things? I wasn't saying they were the same thing. I thought I made the context of my post clear enough, but I'll clarify. I'm specifically talking about the amount of contact that occurred. The DB, in my own opinion, barely touched Reilly and barely impeded his process to run his route. I believe Reilly ran out of bounds almost entirely on his own accord. That's where I drew the comparison to PI - again, focusing on the contact. I see WR's and DB's have similar contact between the hashmarks on pass plays. But, now the DB all of a sudden does similar contact along the boundary and that makes it OK for the WR to come back in bounds and make a play? Like the DB all of a sudden is doing something wrong now that he's near the sideline? I just don't buy it. I think the DB was well within his rights to have his hand where he did and I personally don't believe a player should be able to just run back in bounds like that and make a play. Why is it such a big deal that a receiver can come back in bounds after contact with the defender makes him go out? Nobody is saying the DB did anything wrong at all. That's why no flag was thrown. It's just that the play continues just like it did if that minimal contact happened anywhere else on the field. The defender may have barely touched him but he was clearly squeezing Reilly out of the field of play. The rules don't require him to leave the receiver a lane in bounds to run in, but they do say that the receiver can come back and establish position in bounds and make a play.

That last picture of Fulton Chapel is on the Ole Miss campus, not Missouri. There are no confirmed reports of the KKK on campus nor any shootings.

It all depends on how many teams lose. Right now the best scenario for that is probably Ohio St losing to Mich St in a close game and Iowa winning out, and enough other teams losing for Ohio St to climb back to 4th. LSU could climb back as well. I know that wouldn't go over well here. The committee has shown a willingness to move teams up and down without requiring a team above them to lose as the other polls mostly do. Between that and a lot of loss opportunities for top teams, I don't really look at anybody in the top 10, maybe even top 13, being totally out of the picture.

This is kind of where my head is at. We give a lot of leniency to offenses and wide receivers. In my own opinion, I don't think MSU's DB did anything wrong and I don't think Reilly should have been able to do what he did in that scenario. I know it didn't draw a flag, but, I compare it to pass interference. The amount of contact the DB had on Reilly was minimal based on the best replays I've seen. If Reilly really was shoved, forced, or whatever, then similar contact should draw 15 pass interference calls each and every game. But, based on the rule, I understand why Reilly was able to score. Still don't think it put the DB in the best situation. They're already at a huge disadvantage. Why would you compare it to pass interference? These are totally separate things. You are wrong to make this comparison. That's almost like comparing a goal line judgement whether the ball carrier was down before he made the end zone, or if the defender should be flagged for a late hit.

We didn't go 9-0 though, and Iowa did, so congrats to them for making the top 5. But we're going to F that up for them before anyone has their turkey.

Iowa #5. Wow. But what the hey, it'll shake out for them or not.

I am shocked that Bo only had two top 10 wins. Hopefully Riley can tie him when we play Iowa in two weeks. Those are final rankings. Riley will only tie him (this year) if Iowa and MSU both end up in the top 10. With the schedule Iowa has played this year, there's no way they end up in the top 10 with a loss unless they do something special against a quality team in a bowl game. If they finish with 1 loss, to us, they will be top 10, because that means they won the Big 10 and the Rose Bowl. I find that scenario very unlikely though. Both Iowa and MSU in the top 10 is very unlikely because they both can't win out, and I don't think the 2 loss team gets in the top 10.

You should actually understand the bowl rules and under what circumstances a 5-7 team would make it before going on a hissy fit.You should probably understand my post before calling me out.Yes, the chances of Nebraska making a bowl at 5-7 are slim, I understand how the bowl system works. No you don't. Can't happen. Lol maybe you should check your facts brah. Since there are so many bowls now, 5-7 teams can qualify if there aren't enough 6-6 teams to fill the spots. I'll wait here while you run away from this argument.And how is that getting in over a team with a better record? Like I said, the bowl system is a corrupt system. Nebraska puts more bodies in a stadium than a Florida International. Loopholes are made, people get paid. So you make an incorrect statement, tell me to check my facts, post something that supports my facts and proves that you are wrong, and then tell me that they will use a loophole that's never been done before to get us in a bowl. You got me there, brah. Can't argue against stupid.

You should actually understand the bowl rules and under what circumstances a 5-7 team would make it before going on a hissy fit.You should probably understand my post before calling me out.Yes, the chances of Nebraska making a bowl at 5-7 are slim, I understand how the bowl system works. No you don't. Can't happen. Lol maybe you should check your facts brah. Since there are so many bowls now, 5-7 teams can qualify if there aren't enough 6-6 teams to fill the spots. I'll wait here while you run away from this argument. And how is that getting in over a team with a better record?

You should actually understand the bowl rules and under what circumstances a 5-7 team would make it before going on a hissy fit.You should probably understand my post before calling me out. Yes, the chances of Nebraska making a bowl at 5-7 are slim, I understand how the bowl system works. No you don't. Can't happen.

You should actually understand the bowl rules and under what circumstances a 5-7 team would make it before going on a hissy fit.

I'm actually pretty impressed with the Missouri team and Pinkel making a stand. The players have a lot of power as they are responsible for so much revenue, and maybe it's not a bad thing for them to try to use it for what seems like a worthwhile cause. I've only heard and read a little about this. And how about that, the president did resign. It doesn't fix the problem, but it's a very good step. From what I understand he was really dragging his heels on the issues. Again, based on my limited knowledge.

It means no more or no less than we beat a team that the coaches, writers, and expert panel all deemed at the time were in the top 10. Period. You seem to be the one trying to attach more meaning to that factual statement. And just because you don't think they were top 10, we are supposed to pay attention to you rather than the voters? Yes, rankings are imperfect. There are a limited amount of games and you rank teams based on that limited information, and that information changes. Do people really think Iowa is better than MSU? Maybe, maybe not, but so far Iowa has proven themselves better than every team they've played so we don't know their top limit so every week they nudge ahead of teams who we've learned maybe aren't quite as good as we thought. We may find out in the next couple of weeks and they'll tumble, but are the voters supposed to keep them at 20 and if they get through the season unbeaten and beat a good bowl team suddenly say, "you know, I'm going to put them at #3 now". It's how the ratings work. You don't like them, so don't pay attention to them and don't even open and read threads like this. Go piss in your own punchbowl , and let the rest of us celebrate that we beat a top 10 team. Maybe it would make more sense to wait until the end of the season and see where a team is ranked at the end before celebrating it, but why should we wait another 2 months before celebrating this win? Also, if MSU has some major injuries in practice this week and they lose out because they aren't nearly the same team, why does it mean less that we beat a team that didn't wind up ranked at all when they were a lot better when we played them? Certainly beating a top 10 team 9 games into the season means more than beating one the first or second week. How about this: we beat a team that beat Oregon, Michigan and all 6 other teams on their schedule. Want to take a shot at crapping on that too?

Yeah, I can't believe how wide open we got on the 2 catches leading up to the TD. Good routes and very on target passes helped, but they sure made it easier on us.

Go get 'em, MB. Has he ever had a defense where he wants it? We're not talking about a Venables or Bud Foster here. Banker doesn't have a history to show that he's capable of having such a defense.

There are pics on this board and in this thread that positively show contact. Whether or not there was contact really isn't up for debate, that one has been put to bed.Whether or not there was contact isn't really the controversy. That was just the one of two things they could review, the other being out of and back in bounds. The controversy is whether the contact from the defender was the cause of Reilly going out of bounds which is a judgement call that has to be made by the referee on the field. Somehow the narrative got started on this board that as long as there is any contact on a play like this the receiver is automatically free to leave the field of play. The statements by the Big 10 and the former NFL VP of officiating clearly illustrate that is not how the rule is interpreted. It's still a 50/50 call and hardly could be considered "blown". But we look silly when we act like it was the only possible call on this play and there is no other side. The Fox guy is the former NFL VP of officials and a rules expert and he feels the wrong call was made. I'm not saying he's right but i think he's a credible source and probably understands this rule a lot better than posters here who actually read the rule for the first time Saturday night. Hell even our head coach thought it would be overturned I haven't seen anyone say that. Take a look at the person I quoted and you'll understand why I made my post. The only thing that is really up for debate on this officiating call is whether or not there was enough contact to make the receiver go out of bounds. Everything else is pretty cut and dried in the rule. One official even said that receivers are always given the benefit of the doubt. With all that said, I don't understand why people are still arguing about it. *Edit* While an official can rule a receiver wasn't forced out of bounds, that isn't what happened this time. And if you look closely at all of the still pics and video clips earlier in this thread I think its pretty obvious that the defender forced Reilly out of bounds. Sorry not aimed at you specifically you were just the last post. Like I said. I think reasonable people can disagree on this call. Personally I think a questionable call went our way. Judging from Coach Riley's comments I think he may think so to Yes, Riley did say he thought the TD was probably going to be taken away, but he wasn't in a very good position to see if his receiver got bumped or ridden out of bounds. The way this season has been going he probably figured it was one more call not going our way. Also, the offense really should've been in a mental state to be ready to go back out on the field to try to score again so having that view wasn't a bad thing. I agree it could've gone the other way. Whether it was 50/50 or 70/30 or whatever I don't know. What I do know what was wrong is Griese saying that the defender was looking back for the ball so he couldn't have been guilty. That's for pass interference, not for forcing a receiver OB. That's like looking at a holding penalty and saying it shouldn't have been a penalty since he didn't block from behind. I don't think announcers are told to make close plays controversial. I've seen a lot of times where they acknowledge that a ref got a close call right even if they didn't think so initially. I think the so-called expert analyst Griese doesn't understand the rule.

What was the other one? Hopefully Iowa. You apparently don't understand that the word "can" which I've bolded for you indicates a prediction for the future. Otherwise the OP would've said "has won".

Yeah, this was all argued over in previous threads. You must not have looked very hard for them because they are out there with obvious titles, and recent. Then again, there were a lot of recent meltdown threads, but search should work. FWIW I agree with this but not going to get into it again. Besides, we'll go 6-6 and get a bowl that way, even if some have the notion that bowls have to be earned to their standards.

And no, it doesn't matter how many contracts your conference has, because if you're conference doesn't have enough qualified teams they pass to other available schools, and finally down to 5-7 schools if there aren't enough qualifiers.

Got a source for that? Because I count 10. 11 if we get two teams in the top bowls. http://www.fbschedules.com/ncaa/college-football-bowl-schedule.php