Rules interpretation

CoachKevin said:
His Knee was in bounds. He had one foot in than his knee came down in bounds. He lost possation when his arm and ball hit after that.

It was a bad call. Should have been reviewed.
Click to expand...
I agree. I thought possession in the endzone=touchdown? I guess not.

 
They played the Holt touchdown several times on chanel 3 Sunday evening.

Both Travis and Dr. Rob Z. agreed it was a touchdown. They played the replay from several angles!

Will we ever hear from the Big 12 on this?

The officals were not interested in making sure in this game, but, in every other college game I watched they did booth reviews on almost every touchdown.

They really seemed to want to get it right. VT must have had the booth review guy.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
This has been disscussed several times the correct call was made please read the other threads on this issue. But to answer your question we will not be hearing from the big 12, ncaa, or any other governing body on this issue and I hope we are done hearing about it on here soon I for one am ready to move on

 
Don't the rules state that you have to hold onto the ball when you hit the ground? Holt coughed up the ball..

 
Twodocs said:
They played the Holt touchdown several times on chanel 3 Sunday evening.

Both Travis and Dr. Rob Z. agreed it was a touchdown. They played the replay from several angles!

Will we ever hear from the Big 12 on this?

The officals were not interested in making sure in this game, but, in every other college game I watched they did booth reviews on almost every touchdown.

They really seemed to want to get it right. VT must have had the booth review guy.
Click to expand...
He did not maintain control=no touchdown

 
EbylHusker said:
Captain K said:
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!
Click to expand...
:facepalm:

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.
Click to expand...
I think its relevant, because if you consider his "impact with the ground" to have been the initial contact, then the loss of the ball afterward is no more than a ground caused fumble after he had shown maintained possesion by having control when not only his foot hits but knee as well. The ball didn't move until it touched the ground, and he didn't go straight to the ground. I've seen many a catch like this called a catch. Just not maybe EXACTLY like that.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
The only thing that will come out of this is Meno will hold on to the ball better...

Whether or not it was the correct call.

 
Yes, he had the TD. Nothing will come of it though as the game is done and over.

The reason it should be a TD is because the rule states when you come down you must maintain control. When his 2nd knee hit in bounds I might add, he had control. At that point the play should be blown dead. Anything after that should not matter.

The other factor is that any time the ball is cross the goal line in control, it is a TD and play is dead at that moment.

 
Well I missed out on the thread! So thanks for bringing it up again!!!!

He had complete control, got his feet inbounds then after he went out of bounds he hit the ground and it caused a fumble! Give me a link!! I need to read the rule on it! :bang

 
LOL Husker fans are never going 2 agree whether or not it was a catch. I was watching the game with some friends & when I saw Holt catch it, I just started shouting & high fiving my friends real hard - I was so excited about it I didnt see him 'drop' it after the catch.

Either way, I cant help but feel like we were getting screwed by the refs that whole game & honestly, it seems like Nebraska always gets screwed by the refs (I'm not just talking about the 'catch' either, that mightve been the correct call for all I know). All I know is calling penalties on four straight plays is just *%#^ing ridiculous. And if you're going to hit us with penalties like that, how the #$@% are you not going to call that 1 late hit on Zac Lee??? Being unbiased as possible, the refs did give us 1 or 2 no calls for us on what couldve been pass interference, but other than that the calls seemed to be going against us all day. Yeah, VT got some penalties like that late hit on Helu but the penalties they called on VT were clearly penalties IMO.

In response to the poster who said its ridiculous that referees try to intentionally screw us just because we're Nebraska, yeah that does sound ridiculous. But I'm as hardcore a Husker fan as any, I watch every game, & it really does seem that more often than not we're the team getting screwed over by the refs. A good ref is a ref that doesnt get noticed & refs in Nebraska games seem to get noticed alot

 
By rule, it was a no catch. I just don't like the rule. A guy catches the ball, controls the ball while one foot (2 in this case) touch the ground in bounds. He controls the ball as he falls to the ground and the ball comes out when he hits the ground out of bounds. Again, by rule it's incomplete so it was the correct call. It's just a bad rule.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top