Rules interpretation

[DRAINO]

this may have been mentioned earlier but they ruled correctly.. the actual rule u are looking for is that the ball must be maintained through contact with a player or the ground.. clearly he lost control when he hit the ground

[zoogs]

I know the officials probably got it right.

 

But there is so much holding that goes unflagged. There's so much penalties that get called or not called by the book. In the end it's a bit of a subjective line to walk between "strict enforcement" and "letting football players play football."

 

And on that drive, it looked like the officials were out there with an agenda.

 

Not saying they were -I'm sure they didn't, being Big 12 officials, too - but that looked like a crew determined to not let Nebraska score. It killed me watching us self-destruct on that drive. If I'm a player, I put the blame on my shoulders. But I'm a fan. So I grit my teeth and whine. Big pot of BS. Grumble.

[Fuzzy]

The holding call was the right call, unfortunately for us. Because even if he wasnt holding him i think Lee wouldve still gotten the ball off and we would have had a TD. It was just a bad move by Henry.

 

As for the catch, well, im not good with interpreting the rules, but i do agree they should have atleast reviewed it to see if maintained control while coming down with the ball.

 

I thought the rule was if the receiver maintain control of the ball until he was out of bounds that it was ruled a complete pass.

[nebraskapit]

It was the correct call....end of story.

 

The bad part is no one seems to know right away what parts of the rule book to refer to (as seen right here). How do you think today's officials were going to be able to make a completely correct call that is consistent with others around the league?

 

I'm just saying, I think the NCAA and the officials needs to sit down and really hammer out what the call is going to be like in situations like this so everyone is making consistent calls across the board. -- then we can continue just complaining about the officials and not the rules..

[kansas husker]

just for further clarification:

 

"Catch, Interception, Recovery

ARTICLE 7. a. To catch a ball means that a player:

1. Gains possession of a live ball in flight; or

2. Leaves his feet and firmly grasps a live ball in flight, the ball first

touching the ground inbounds while still in his firm grasp; or

3. Leaves his feet, firmly grasps a live ball in flight and either first

returns to the ground inbounds with any part of his body or is so held

that the dead-ball provisions of Rule 4-1-3-p apply (A.R. 2-2-7-I-V and

A.R. 7-3-6-IV).

If one foot first lands inbounds and the receiver has possession and

control of the ball, it is a catch even though a subsequent step or fall takes

the receiver out of bounds (A.R. 7-3-6-XVII). A player who satisfies any of

these three conditions is said to have completed a catch.

...

e. Loss of ball simultaneous to returning to the ground is not a catch,

interception or recovery.

f. When in question, the catch, recovery or interception is not completed."

 

This is my interpretation again, but, "loss of the ball simultaneous to retruning to the ground" in live action would make the td "catch" incomplete. However, in replays it shows Holt returning to the ground via his knee before he loses control.

 

I frickin love football! Go Big Red

 

In addition to the rule books there are often interpretations and case plays to sort out these sorts of things. I believe that if you looked in there you'd seem something about a player whose knee/foot hits the ground and then the rest of his body hits, causing the ball to come out. That play was correctly called.

 

No one gonna comment on the holding call?

 

 

I know it has been already said but the refs made the right call article f. Clearly states "when in question is not complete"

 

We just need to take our medicne with a heart breaking loss and still look forward to a 10 win season!

[EbylHusker]

The holding call was the right call, unfortunately for us. Because even if he wasnt holding him i think Lee wouldve still gotten the ball off and we would have had a TD. It was just a bad move by Henry.

 

As for the catch, well, im not good with interpreting the rules, but i do agree they should have atleast reviewed it to see if maintained control while coming down with the ball.

 

I thought the rule was if the receiver maintain control of the ball until he was out of bounds that it was ruled a complete pass.

 

There was no need to stop the game and review. The replay officials, if we're told correctly, look at every play and stop the game if more time is needed. It only takes a single, brief viewing of the end of that play (when he hits the ground) to see that he loses control of the ball. That's all that matters...that he got a foot in bounds is absolutely irrelevant because he did not maintain control of the ball through impact with the ground. I've posted the NCAA interpretation covering that very thing, and they clearly rule it as an incomplete pass.

[walksalone]

I'm wondering why they didn't call a time out or something to get the zebra's attention, and at least try to have it looked at.

 

The thing that bothers me is that they just huddled up, and ran the next play.

 

 

Also, most refs interpret the rules. Oakland in the monday night game got hosed on just about the same play.

 

If you really wanted to get anal about, i'm sure you could call holding on just about every play.

[VA Husker Fan]

Did you see Holt after the catch? He looked at the ref and kind of raised his arms, like "TD, right?", then when he saw them signal incomplete he gave it up right away. He knew it wasn't a catch. There's no way we burn a TO to have them review the obvious. And as Ebyl says, they DO review these plays, they just saw right away that they didn't need any additional time to examine it.

[Fuzzy]

Did you see Holt after the catch? He looked at the ref and kind of raised his arms, like "TD, right?", then when he saw them signal incomplete he gave it up right away. He knew it wasn't a catch. There's no way we burn a TO to have them review the obvious. And as Ebyl says, they DO review these plays, they just saw right away that they didn't need any additional time to examine it.

 

I was expecting the booth to review, not Pelini to burn the TO.

[VA Husker Fan]

Ebyl's post explains that the booth almost certainly did look it over, and saw there was no need to stop the game to take a longer look. The only people that think a longer look was needed don't seem to understand the rule. The refs did, and it was black and white. No catch.

 

And the person who posted before me did suggest we take a time out.

[NoKoolAidForME]

I know the officials probably got it right.

 

But there is so much holding that goes unflagged. There's so much penalties that get called or not called by the book. In the end it's a bit of a subjective line to walk between "strict enforcement" and "letting football players play football."

 

And on that drive, it looked like the officials were out there with an agenda.

 

Not saying they were -I'm sure they didn't, being Big 12 officials, too - but that looked like a crew determined to not let Nebraska score. It killed me watching us self-destruct on that drive. If I'm a player, I put the blame on my shoulders. But I'm a fan. So I grit my teeth and whine. Big pot of BS. Grumble.

I hope we dont continue to hear talk of a fix or out to get NU.

Penalties:

Nebraska 9-60

V Tech 7-53

Surely we dont believe that 7 yards lost us this game. If you go through the game thread from yesterday alot of people made reference to all the calls going NU way in the first half. I even read a couple that said "I would be pissed if I was a V tech fan on that call, oh well go big red."

We can't have it both way the offense need to be fixed and the defense has to fix its holes to be fixed.

[Captain K]

I didn't have the patience to read all of the posts and this may have already been said, but what part of running erect, landing on one foot, then the other, then to a knee makes the player ''airborne?'' He didn't jump to catch it, he stumbled from stretching and trying to keep his feet trailing his body so he could establish possession inbounds. Watch it again! It's a catch! Bad Call!

[nebraskapit]

...Surely we dont believe that 7 yards lost us this game.

 

 

Not to start a whole other argument, but it actually may have.. (ie-- first & goal, and moving ourselves out of field goal range on penalties...) I know we cannot place the whole game on a signal play or "7 yards," but just a thought.

[shyndy]

im kinda surprised that that is what the rules say, and have to admit I was wrong but during the game, at full speed, i just thought "great catch for td"

 

we've all watched a lot of football and it has to mean something. I guess what I'm wondering, is if I have now seen players do that same thing and get credit for a catch bc I wouldn't just think it is a catch for no reason, you know? Based on past experiences.

 

I have a hard time pinning much on the refs. The worst call of the game gave us 15 anyway.

[EbylHusker]

I didn't have the patience to read all of the posts and this may have already been said, but what part of running erect, landing on one foot, then the other, then to a knee makes the player ''airborne?'' He didn't jump to catch it, he stumbled from stretching and trying to keep his feet trailing his body so he could establish possession inbounds. Watch it again! It's a catch! Bad Call!

 

 

Look at the example and the interpretation I posted. It clearly states you must maintain possession of the ball through the impact with the ground. Once again...that he got a foot in bounds is totally irrelevant. He did not maintain possession of the ball through the entire catch (meaning through impact with the ground) and hence it is not a reception as per NCAA rules. End of story.