Two plays that have me scratching my head

[Enhance]

First, the fourth quarter reception by Minnesota's wide receiver that was initially ruled incomplete and then overturned. From one angle, the player appeared to not have control when his first foot hit, but then gained control when his second foot hit, however his second foot's toe hit the white line when he landed (at least from my POV). From the end zone angle, the player had possession of the football before going out of bounds, but then it bobbled between him and the defender before hitting the turf out of bounds.

 

I was under the impression that not only did a player have to maintain possession of the ball when going out of bounds for it to be a catch, but that the booth had to have "irrefutable" video evidence to overturn the call on the field, which I will remind everyone was incomplete. Neither of these two requirements were met, at least not by estimations. What did you guys see? In the grand scheme of things it didn't matter and Minnesota was getting romped anyways, but it seemed like a poorly officiated call.

 

Second, why did the clock not stop with under two minutes left when our back ran out of bounds? Obviously the game was decided, but I don't care if we're up by 10 or up by 40. If you run out of bounds with under two minutes left in the second or fourth quarter, the clock is supposed to completely stop. Is there a sub point to the rule that leaves clock stopping up to the discretion of the time referee if the game is a blowout?

[huskerscott]

First, the fourth quarter reception by Minnesota's wide receiver that was initially ruled incomplete and then overturned. From one angle, the player appeared to not have control when his first foot hit, but then gained control when his second foot hit, however his second foot's toe hit the white line when he landed (at least from my POV). From the end zone angle, the player had possession of the football before going out of bounds, but then it bobbled between him and the defender before hitting the turf out of bounds.

 

I was under the impression that not only did a player have to maintain possession of the ball when going out of bounds for it to be a catch, but that the booth had to have "irrefutable" video evidence to overturn the call on the field, which I will remind everyone was incomplete. Neither of these two requirements were met, at least not by estimations. What did you guys see? In the grand scheme of things it didn't matter and Minnesota was getting romped anyways, but it seemed like a poorly officiated call.

 

Second, why did the clock not stop with under two minutes left when our back ran out of bounds? Obviously the game was decided, but I don't care if we're up by 10 or up by 40. If you run out of bounds with under two minutes left in the second or fourth quarter, the clock is supposed to completely stop. Is there a sub point to the rule that leaves clock stopping up to the discretion of the time referee if the game is a blowout?

 

Yea I thought the receiver didnt maintain possession of the ball when he landed out of the bounds, so I thought it shouldve been a no catch. It seems everyone of the these replays it always focuses on the players feet, instead of whether the receiver maintained control of the ball.

[BIGREDFAN_in_OMAHA]

Yeah I also wondered why the heck the clock didn't stop

[knapplc]

We were warned by our Big Ten guests before the season started that the refs we bad in the Big Ten. I've seen some very good in-game calls (the option fumble for first down was a weird call, but called correctly the first time) and then some really bad calls, like this Minnesota reception you're talking about, Enhance, and the holding call against Enunwa in the second half which gave us First and Two.

 

How some of those calls were made by refs who clearly know the rules is one of those questions we'll likely never get good answers to.

[VA Husker Fan]

 

Second, why did the clock not stop with under two minutes left when our back ran out of bounds? Obviously the game was decided, but I don't care if we're up by 10 or up by 40. If you run out of bounds with under two minutes left in the second or fourth quarter, the clock is supposed to completely stop. Is there a sub point to the rule that leaves clock stopping up to the discretion of the time referee if the game is a blowout?

I don't recall this play, but the refs will blow the play dead when forward progress is stopped, so it's considered in bounds, and the clock runs. Initially it looks like a clear out of bounds play, but often you look at the replay and see the runner is hit, and carried out of bounds, and especially in a blow out they tend to rule the runner down early. It makes sense too. If he gets driven backwards OB, they will give him his forward progress, which really does mean he was down in bounds. No idea if that's what happened with the play in question. I also think the refs were trained to do this more when the other new clock rules went into effect to speed up the game.

[GBRsal]

i saw the out of bounds scenario in another game too. something was said about there being a difference between being knocked out of bounds and the runner's momentum carrying him out of bounds. i didin't really understand the difference. the college game has been shortened too much.

[Enhance]

 

Second, why did the clock not stop with under two minutes left when our back ran out of bounds? Obviously the game was decided, but I don't care if we're up by 10 or up by 40. If you run out of bounds with under two minutes left in the second or fourth quarter, the clock is supposed to completely stop. Is there a sub point to the rule that leaves clock stopping up to the discretion of the time referee if the game is a blowout?

I don't recall this play, but the refs will blow the play dead when forward progress is stopped, so it's considered in bounds, and the clock runs. Initially it looks like a clear out of bounds play, but often you look at the replay and see the runner is hit, and carried out of bounds, and especially in a blow out they tend to rule the runner down early. It makes sense too. If he gets driven backwards OB, they will give him his forward progress, which really does mean he was down in bounds. No idea if that's what happened with the play in question. I also think the refs were trained to do this more when the other new clock rules went into effect to speed up the game.

I'll have to rewatch this part of the game tonight if the b******* ends on ESPN3. From what I remember, our player was still pushing forward when he went out of bounds so I don't think forward progress was stopped.

[3rd and long]

That's right about where they deem his forward momentum is stopped, if it's in bounds they will keep the clock running.

 

I thought the receiver lost possesion of the ball and it should have been incomplete, but the replay coverage was poor the entire game. Seems like there were numerous occasions where a second look would have been good and they never went back to the play. But it sure didn't seem like there was "irrefutable eveidence" to overturn the call. But it also didn't look clear cut to me that the ball crossed the goal line in the MSU-Wisc game. To my understanding, it has to be clear cut to overturn, and to my eyes, neither of those were. Maybe the Big 10 replay guys like to feel important.

[da skers]

We were warned by our Big Ten guests before the season started that the refs we bad in the Big Ten. I've seen some very good in-game calls (the option fumble for first down was a weird call, but called correctly the first time) and then some really bad calls, like this Minnesota reception you're talking about, Enhance, and the holding call against Enunwa in the second half which gave us First and Two.

 

How some of those calls were made by refs who clearly know the rules is one of those questions we'll likely never get good answers to.

Personally I think the refs in the B10 have done much better than the refs in the B12. They often error on the side of letting the kids play rather than stop the game every other play so they can be on TV.

[Enhance]

That's right about where they deem his forward momentum is stopped, if it's in bounds they will keep the clock running.

 

I thought the receiver lost possesion of the ball and it should have been incomplete, but the replay coverage was poor the entire game. Seems like there were numerous occasions where a second look would have been good and they never went back to the play. But it sure didn't seem like there was "irrefutable eveidence" to overturn the call. But it also didn't look clear cut to me that the ball crossed the goal line in the MSU-Wisc game. To my understanding, it has to be clear cut to overturn, and to my eyes, neither of those were. Maybe the Big 10 replay guys like to feel important.

My thoughts exactly.

 

I have seen several looks at the final play in the Wisc-MSU game. I'm 100% sure the ball crossed the plane. If you draw a thin line across the goal line and the player, and you pause it at the right second, you see the ball crossed.

[3rd and long]

That's right about where they deem his forward momentum is stopped, if it's in bounds they will keep the clock running.

 

I thought the receiver lost possesion of the ball and it should have been incomplete, but the replay coverage was poor the entire game. Seems like there were numerous occasions where a second look would have been good and they never went back to the play. But it sure didn't seem like there was "irrefutable eveidence" to overturn the call. But it also didn't look clear cut to me that the ball crossed the goal line in the MSU-Wisc game. To my understanding, it has to be clear cut to overturn, and to my eyes, neither of those were. Maybe the Big 10 replay guys like to feel important.

My thoughts exactly.

 

I have seen several looks at the final play in the Wisc-MSU game. I'm 100% sure the ball crossed the plane. If you draw a thin line across the goal line and the player, and you pause it at the right second, you see the ball crossed.

 

It kind of looked to me at one point he was pretty upright and turned back to his right, and at that point it looked to me like it might/probably have crossed the goal line, but I'm still not 100% sure. And to me that is the question, without a camera right on the goalline to give a defenitive angle, do you overturn that call at that point and end the game.

[Blackshirt96]

We were warned by our Big Ten guests before the season started that the refs we bad in the Big Ten. I've seen some very good in-game calls (the option fumble for first down was a weird call, but called correctly the first time) and then some really bad calls, like this Minnesota reception you're talking about, Enhance, and the holding call against Enunwa in the second half which gave us First and Two.

 

How some of those calls were made by refs who clearly know the rules is one of those questions we'll likely never get good answers to.

 

In college you do not have to have control after you go out of bounds. You only have to have possession until you step out. Either way it was a close call & I thought it should have been left as called as it was hard to tell if he had possession before stepping out of bounds.

 

Enunwa's hold was a easy call. He got one of his hand on the outside of the player. You have to keep your hands inside of their's.

[The Dude]

I was too drunk by then to notice any of that.

[Enhance]

That's right about where they deem his forward momentum is stopped, if it's in bounds they will keep the clock running.

 

I thought the receiver lost possesion of the ball and it should have been incomplete, but the replay coverage was poor the entire game. Seems like there were numerous occasions where a second look would have been good and they never went back to the play. But it sure didn't seem like there was "irrefutable eveidence" to overturn the call. But it also didn't look clear cut to me that the ball crossed the goal line in the MSU-Wisc game. To my understanding, it has to be clear cut to overturn, and to my eyes, neither of those were. Maybe the Big 10 replay guys like to feel important.

My thoughts exactly.

 

I have seen several looks at the final play in the Wisc-MSU game. I'm 100% sure the ball crossed the plane. If you draw a thin line across the goal line and the player, and you pause it at the right second, you see the ball crossed.

 

It kind of looked to me at one point he was pretty upright and turned back to his right, and at that point it looked to me like it might/probably have crossed the goal line, but I'm still not 100% sure. And to me that is the question, without a camera right on the goalline to give a defenitive angle, do you overturn that call at that point and end the game.

If I'm able to find the frame from the video I saw, it's pretty clear to me he crossed the plane. The camera angle is right on the goal line, and there is a second time frame where the you see a brown football about halfway over the white plane, before it gets dragged out.

[PaulCrewe]

The going out of bounds catch for me reminded me of the Va Tech game and Mennie Holt's catch in the endzone. Ruled incomplete because he did not maintain possession of the ball throughout the catch while going out of bounds. To me in that game as moot of a play as it was in the game, the Minney receiver didn't appear to "maintain possession" throughtout the catch.

 

As for the Wisky/MSU finish. It was a TD, THe thing is, if the Wisky LB that tries to keep Nichol from crossing the plane, is able to hit him from Nichol's left side and go with Nichol's momentum(continue rolling Nichol to his left) he probably doesn't break the plane. It wasn't until the Wisky players pulled Nichol back to his right that the ball crosses the line. Something inmpossible to know during the play but ironic that the Wisky defenders more or less pulled the ball back across the plane of the endzone.