Rules interpretation

They do apply, don't get caught up in specifics. Those interpretations are there to try and help clarify what the rules are trying to say (as they're pretty poorly written). They are not intended to cover every single conceivable circumstance, but rather demonstrate the intention of the rules.

Holt got the ball and in the process of doing so he started falling to the ground. It was one continuous motion...he could not have kept his balance. Watch the replay, this is blatantly obvious. This means he must maintain possession of the ball through contact with the ground. This rule has been consistently called this way since it was put in.

It's just how it is. I'm sorry, but you're wrong.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
i'm not gonna get into the whole "correct rule" argument whatsoever.

but i can tell you something that is true.

i've watched football since i was 5 years old and i've seen atleast 200 catches just like that where the exact same thing happened and it was ruled a touchdown. just since instant replay came out i've seen it many times reviewed and STILL called a touchdown. i cant remember exact moments or games cause i never seen the call hurt a team so badly. but i assure everyone here that if the call against us was right. then i've seen it called wrong HUNDREDS of times. and like i said even have seen it reviewed and STILL called wrong. so that's something to think about. i know it's football sh#t happens and refs have to make calls quick. i know they're gonna be wrong sometimes and everyone in the world makes mistakes. but i personally believe that those officials did not want us to get in the endzone. argue with me all you want but i know it's a fact. and in a game that was as close as it was. ONE CALL like that can lose the game for ya. that's all i gotta say about that.

 
Woulda, shoulda, coulda and if only, don't mean nuttin' this is a conversation for Jan., Feb., Mar., Apr. During the season we live in the now, last week is over and done and the only thing to think about is next Saturday.

T_O_B

dedhoarse dedhoarse dedhoarse dedhoarse dedhoarse

 
no one said it was a conspiracy. it was just a crappy situation that couldve gone better for us. and like i said earlier i've seen it called wrong plenty of times. just so happens to get called right when it affects us.

 
Yes it was a TD that was incorrectly not called a TD. Most know this as a fact - however it's over and time move on. All the complaining and referee excuse making will do nothing to change the outcome. Our only saving grace is that these Big 12 refs are suspended and never ref another NU game.

 
Well we must have been watching all different games. The times I've seen a similar situation (a player catching a ball and falling the ground in one motion, then losing the ball as he hits the ground) it has been ruled incomplete. I can't think of a single time when it was ruled complete. This is due to the rule changes on what constitutes possession, I believe.

 
Vince from ShamWOW said:
Yes it was a TD that was incorrectly not called a TD. Most know this as a fact - however it's over and time move on. All the complaining and referee excuse making will do nothing to change the outcome. Our only saving grace is that these Big 12 refs are suspended and never ref another NU game.
Click to expand...

:facepalm:

lmfao

 
EbylHusker said:
Well we must have been watching all different games. The times I've seen a similar situation (a player catching a ball and falling the ground in one motion, then losing the ball as he hits the ground) it has been ruled incomplete. I can't think of a single time when it was ruled complete. This is due to the rule changes on what constitutes possession, I believe.
Click to expand...
true. im not arguing with the rule. im saying that since that's the rule. ive seen it called wrong plenty of times. especially to teams who ALWAYS get the benefit of the doubt. and it makes me sick to see teams get the call wrong in there favor and we don't. its a bad rule. plain and simple.

 
Was Meno really airborne?

My impression was he got both feet on the ground, and a knee to boot.

 
Long time watcher, first time poster. Please tell me that the people who think that was a touchdown were watching the end of the half on Monday Night Football. Same situation, though not in the end zone. Ball squirts out after the guy gets two feet in bounds and falls out of bounds. Not a catch.

I'm not saying it's a smart, intuitive rule. I'm not saying that I'm not mad about the loss.

It might have been a touchdown in 1983...it's an incomplete pass in 2009.

 
CormsHusker said:
Long time watcher, first time poster. Please tell me that the people who think that was a touchdown were watching the end of the half on Monday Night Football. Same situation, though not in the end zone. Ball squirts out after the guy gets two feet in bounds and falls out of bounds. Not a catch.

I'm not saying it's a smart, intuitive rule. I'm not saying that I'm not mad about the loss.

It might have been a touchdown in 1983...it's an incomplete pass in 2009.
Click to expand...
EbylHusker has a sock. Nice....we now get wrong twice.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top