Ohio State will smack clemson right upside the temple

Bill Carollo, head of B1G officials says "I haven't talked to anyone who thought it was an incomplete pass".
The head of the B1G. LOL. He's biased! And he's the head of an officiating group that is an absolute joke compared to the SEC and ACC. Thank God for the PAC -- their officials might actually be worse than the B1G's.
 
The head of the B1G. LOL. He's biased! And he's the head of an officiating group that is an absolute joke compared to the SEC and ACC. Thank God for the PAC -- their officials might actually be worse than the B1G's.

Umm...Carollo wasn’t the only one. Did u miss the other head of officials at a Power 5 conference say “the SEC officials probably would like that call back?”

Let me know know when the head of the SEC comes out in support of their officials of this call.

Oh, and where are all your “other officials” who supported the call? Haven’t seen any, anywhere, support the call.

If you are trolling, good job.
 
How is that supposed to matter? The question is whether the call was right. And the rules say NOT A FUMBLE.

I know that you're aware of the rules governing replay which requires indisputable evidence to overturn a call made on the field.

If it was called the other way on the field that changes the conversation considerably.
 
I know that you're aware of the rules governing replay which requires indisputable evidence to overturn a call made on the field.

If it was called the other way on the field that changes the conversation considerably.
No, it doesn't. Theconversation would be exactly the same. Was it a catch and a fumble?
 
Umm...Carollo wasn’t the only one. Did u miss the other head of officials at a Power 5 conference say “the SEC officials probably would like that call back?”

Let me know know when the head of the SEC comes out in support of their officials of this call.
Yeah, the anonymous one. You can read the opinions and explanations of three anonymous referees here (who actually seem to know the rules and teh applicable facts):


And of course we have the opinions of all those neutral SEC officials in the booth and back in Birmingham, plus the rules expert on the broadcast. Andd all you have is the B1G homer supporting his team.

But ultimately it comes down to the RULES, and they are clearly against you. Forward progress was stopped so eiither it was not a catch, or ot was a catch but not a fumble. There's no way to argue the contrary.
 
OP,

I’m late to this thread, but I’d like you to point out where Dabo and his team were brashly onto LSU?

“Is it ever a good idea to look past a great team? Is it ever a good idea to disrespect an ELITE team? Well Dabo and his team is brashly "on to LSU" ..... Without even seeing how hard the Buckeyes will punch them

You remind me of someone 15 years or so ago on another board.
 
MW is dead wrong imo but def an intelligent guy with an honest opinion

Dead wrong. Don’t know him as you might through the board, but respect your input.

I’m still waiting for all those other officials he says came to support the ruling he says was correct.

I’ve seen none. And, furthermore, it’s unprecedented in my opinion to see ANY other officials come out publically to rebuke their fellow officials.
 
Honestly conspiracy theories receive an unfair stigma. I dont think anything is fixed at all but the increasing subjectivity in rule interpretation permits a ton of room for bias that can be masked by the abstractness of the rules which could seem to justify either side. Plus as jedi says these controversies provide so much impetus for conversation...like this thread.
 
This was posted in the ingame during the Clemson game...

Here is the NCAA Rule.....three steps will ball secured sure seems like it would fall within the definition of a catch.....he was trying to avoid the defender

To catch a ball means that a player: 1. Secures firm control with the hand(s) or arm(s) of a live ball in flight before the ball touches the ground, and 2. Touches the ground in bounds with any part of his body, and then 3. Maintains control of the ball long enough to enable him to perform an act common to the game, i.e., long enough to pitch or hand the ball, advance it, avoid or ward off an opponent, etc., and 4. Satisfies paragraphs b, c, and d below. b.


I’ll preface this by saying I had tOSU plus the points in the game. Reading that rule, it would seem difficult to explain how 3 was achieved. He didn’t hold the ball long enough to advance it (he was being pushed backwards), and clearly didn’t ward off an opponent as that opponent knocked the ball out of his hands. So regardless of how many steps he took, he never made a forward moving football move that warded off an opponent.
 
This was posted in the ingame during the Clemson game...

Here is the NCAA Rule.....three steps will ball secured sure seems like it would fall within the definition of a catch.....he was trying to avoid the defender

To catch a ball means that a player: 1. Secures firm control with the hand(s) or arm(s) of a live ball in flight before the ball touches the ground, and 2. Touches the ground in bounds with any part of his body, and then 3. Maintains control of the ball long enough to enable him to perform an act common to the game, i.e., long enough to pitch or hand the ball, advance it, avoid or ward off an opponent, etc., and 4. Satisfies paragraphs b, c, and d below. b.


I’ll preface this by saying I had tOSU plus the points in the game. Reading that rule, it would seem difficult to explain how 3 was achieved. He didn’t hold the ball long enough to advance it (he was being pushed backwards), and clearly didn’t ward off an opponent as that opponent knocked the ball out of his hands. So regardless of how many steps he took, he never made a forward moving football move that warded off an opponent.

I must be misreading you. You don‘t have to ward off an opponent. There are thousands of catches where a receiver gets tacked immediately ie without advancing forward or warding off an opponent. He made enough steps, brought the ball down securely to try to run with it. He was not successful in avoiding his defender.
 
I must be misreading you. You don‘t have to ward off an opponent. There are thousands of catches where a receiver gets tacked immediately ie without advancing forward or warding off an opponent. He made enough steps.

You’re not misreading me, I didn’t write the rule. Number 3 says he has to perform a move common to the game, either advancing the ball, avoid or ward off an opponent. Which of those did he do while going backwards and having the ball knocked from his hands?
 
You’re not misreading me, I didn’t write the rule. Number 3 says he has to perform a move common to the game, either advancing the ball, avoid or ward off an opponent. Which of those did he do while going backwards and having the ball knocked from his hands?

The rule says „long enough to...“


you dont have to successfully avoid or ward off an opponent, you just need to have long enough time to do that
 
I must be misreading you. You don‘t have to ward off an opponent. There are thousands of catches where a receiver gets tacked immediately ie without advancing forward or warding off an opponent. He made enough steps, brought the ball down securely to try to run with it. He was not successful in avoiding his defender.

And in those catches you’re describing, they held onto the ball, thereby making it a catch. Without holding onto the ball, it’s not a catch.
 
I also think the fact that they did, in fact, overturn the call on the field should lead one to believe they were certain that all 3 facets of that rule were not achieved.
 
You guys are still going at this? Jesus.

Wait.

You're bothered that people are discussing a call because it's 3 days old yet by you're own admission you're bothered by a spot call from a regular season game 4 years ago? Bothered enough that you feel it necessary interject it into a thread which has absolutely nothing to do with your grievance?

You can't have it both ways.
 
Wait.

You're bothered that people are discussing a call because it's 3 days old yet by you're own admission you're bothered by a spot call from a regular season game 4 years ago? Bothered enough that you feel it necessary interject it into a thread which has absolutely nothing to do with your grievance?

You can't have it both ways.

No. It stings. For sure. I'm not bothered because since then I'm numb to refs. Just a lot of hypocrisy because Michigan fans got so much shit for bitching.

My whole point is refs ruin a lot of shit.

You know I bet the buckeyes a lot Ali. Respect the hell out of them.
 
You’re not misreading me, I didn’t write the rule. Number 3 says he has to perform a move common to the game, either advancing the ball, avoid or ward off an opponent. Which of those did he do while going backwards and having the ball knocked from his hands?
Trying to ward off opponent
 
But we have slo mo

Yes but the rules aren’t written to be interpreted in slow mo. Not one person thought that was a catch when it took place, the refs did what they’re instructed and let the play play out, so it was called the way it was on the field. The booth then got it right, by the rules.
 
Trying to ward off opponent

He wasn’t successful though, was he? It doesn’t say trying to ward off, it says avoid or ward off. It also says advance the ball, which he didn’t do either.

Just read number 3 again and let me know which one of those things you think he did. Because he didn’t do any of them, and that’s why it was called incomplete. The rest is just noise, we can all read the rule and see that nothing in #3 was ever accomplished.
 
The no pass interference Saints/Rams

And this call.

Lol, stop. There’s not even a comparison to be made with those calls. The Saints no call was as obvious as it gets and there’s isn’t a person who can even justify it not being called with a straight face.
 
He wasn’t successful though, was he? It doesn’t say trying to ward off, it says avoid or ward off. It also says advance the ball, which he didn’t do either.

Just read number 3 again and let me know which one of those things you think he did. Because he didn’t do any of them, and that’s why it was called incomplete. The rest is just noise, we can all read the rule and see that nothing in #3 was ever accomplished.

I said before that he didn‘t have to be successful in warding off the cornerback...the rule says that he must have long enough time to do that
 
And you don‘t have to advance the ball either...thats just an example of a football move proving that x is a catch.
 
The key is if he held it for long enough and it seems obvious that he did based on the number of steps that he took and his ability to bring the ball down to secure it and run with it/try to ward off his opponent
 
Yes but the rules aren’t written to be interpreted in slow mo. Not one person thought that was a catch when it took place, the refs did what they’re instructed and let the play play out, so it was called the way it was on the field. The booth then got it right, by the rules.

Nah the booth got it wrong cause the rules aren‘t meant to be interpreted in slow mo lol

And saying that nobody thought it was a catch when it happened while they let the play go on is baseless at best
 
He wasn’t successful though, was he? It doesn’t say trying to ward off, it says avoid or ward off. It also says advance the ball, which he didn’t do either.

Just read number 3 again and let me know which one of those things you think he did. Because he didn’t do any of them, and that’s why it was called incomplete. The rest is just noise, we can all read the rule and see that nothing in #3 was ever accomplished.

What are you like MW?!?

No, if you read what Head Referee Ken Williamson said in post game press statement. They thought the ball was “moving”.

It wasn’t it until Okudah knocked it from his hands. Nothing about “advancing the ball”, “forward momentum”. They overturned it because they thought the ball was never secured.

You can’t look at that, especially in slow motion and say he never caught it. He caught it up high, brought it down towards his body, then it was knocked out of his hands.
 
Nah the booth got it wrong cause the rules aren‘t meant to be interpreted in slow mo lol

And saying that nobody thought it was a catch when it happened while they let the play go on is baseless at best

The booth came out and said they actually watched it in real time when deciding to overturn.

Just as baseless as you claiming you’ve seen this called a catch thousands of times, when the ball was held onto in those instances.
 
Catch, Not a Catch -- Let's Learn the Rules Together!
Fiesta Bowl Jordan Fuller fumble return

Late in the third quarter of Ohio State’s 29-23 loss to Clemson in the 2019 Fiesta Bowl, Tigers wide receiver Justyn Ross caught a third-down pass away from his body and tried to fight out of a tackle while taking four steps with the ball securely in his hands.
The fighting failed, however, as OSU cornerback Jeffrey Okudah knocked the ball out of Ross’ hands, seemingly forcing a fumble.

The assumed fumble was picked up by Buckeye safety Jordan Fuller and run into the end zone for a lead-giving touchdown. The on-field officials immediately ruled the play a fumble and a touchdown, but the replay official wanted a better look.

The officials determined that upon review, “We had a lot of good looks on it. We put on fast motion and slow motion. The player did not complete the process of the catch, so, therefore, the pass was incomplete.
“After the video, instant replay in the stadium as well as back at the video center, they both looked at it slow and fast and they determined when he moved, the ball was becoming loose in his hands and he did not complete the process of the catch.”

Those officials were correct. The ball was moving when Okudah was knocking it out of Ross’ hands, but since he never brought the ball in and was instead trying to break a tackle, they ruled that he never had possession.
Speaking of possession, here is what the NCAA rule book says.

Sec. 4, Article 1, a) The ball is in player possession when a player has the ball firmly in his grasp by holding or controlling it with hand(s) or arm(s) while contacting the ground inbounds.

Now, possession and a catch aren’t exactly the same thing, so we should also clarify what a catch is by rule.

Sec. 4, Article 3, a, 1-3) To catch a ball means that a player:
1. Secures firm control with the hand(s) or arm(s) of a live ball in flight before the ball touches the ground, and
2. Touches the ground in bounds with any part of his body, and then
3. Maintains control of the ball long enough to enable him to perform an act common to the game, i.e., long enough to pitch or hand the ball, advance it, avoid or ward off an opponent, etc.


Ken Williamson, who was the referee from the Fiesta Bowl who spoke to a pool reporter after the game (and just so you know, 100% of the time a referee has to answer questions from the pool reporter it means that they are one of the main stories of the game) said that Ross didn’t complete the process of the catch.
What people keep referring to is that Ross didn’t make a football move.
The term “football move” is not found in the NCAA rulebook however. What the qualification actually is “perform an act common to the game.”
You know, like warding off an opponent from getting to the football.
Ross was literally doing one of the things that is in the rule book to constitute a completed catch.

The irony is that if Ross had been in the end zone, they likely would have ruled it a completion and a touchdown because the rules are different there for some reason.
From Rule 7, ARTICLE 6. Any forward pass is complete when caught by a player of the passing team who is inbounds, and the ball continues in play unless completed in the opponent’s end zone or the pass has been caught simultaneously by opposing players.

And if you want a visual representation of what this rule looks like, we can stay in the greater Phoenix area for last week’s Cheez-It Bowl.
And this brings us to America’s worst game show — CATCH, NOT A CATCH!

This is ruled a catch.


This is ruled not a catch.


Ross had much more security on the football than Washington State’s Max Borghi did, but because it happened in the end zone, the play was ruled dead as soon as the feet were down and the ball was secured.
And now you know what a catch is.
Of course, until the replay officials know what a catch is, nothing really matters
 
What are you like MW?!?

No, if you read what Head Referee Ken Williamson said in post game press statement. They thought the ball was “moving”.

It wasn’t it until Okudah knocked it from his hands. Nothing about “advancing the ball”, “forward momentum”. They overturned it because they thought the ball was never secured.

You can’t look at that, especially in slow motion and say he never caught it. He caught it up high, brought it down towards his body, then it was knocked out of his hands.

I’m not sure I get the dig on MW, or what that even means. Not everyone has to agree with you or be the enemy, what are you 12?

So they didn’t even need to get to the fact he never performed #3, they said he was bobbling it. Great. That doesn’t negate my position, it means they didn’t need to get that far in the rule to call it incomplete.
 
I’m not sure I get the dig on MW, or what that even means. Not everyone has to agree with you or be the enemy, what are you 12?

So they didn’t even need to get to the fact he never performed #3, they said he was bobbling it. Great. That doesn’t negate my position, it means they didn’t need to get that far in the rule to call it incomplete.

See the above “let’s learn what is a catch, what isn’t”. Specifically the Washington State example
 
You’ll have to refer us to where they said he was bobbling it and that’s why it was called incomplete. That article with the quote says he didn’t complete the process of the catch, which would mean he had control but didn’t perform an act in good ol’ #3.
 
You’ll have to refer us to where they said he was bobbling it and that’s why it was called incomplete. That article with the quote says he didn’t complete the process of the catch, which would mean he had control but didn’t perform an act in good ol’ #3.

Neither did the Washington State kid, but it stood as a TD.
 
See the above “let’s learn what is a catch, what isn’t”. Specifically the Washington State example

But that’s a different game and different officials. Officiating sucks, I agree 100% and bang on it all the time. I’m simply pointing out how they determined it was a no catch in the Clemson game. You either think he made a move or don’t. They didn’t.
 
It also said the rules are different in the EZ. Did you even read the whole thing?

Yes, the hypocrisy in replay officials trying to change rulings on the field is the problem. The Washington St kid had it for a second. In this case u could say Dobbins catch on the screen pass could’ve been ruled a TD
 
Yes, the hypocrisy in replay officials trying to change rulings on the field is the problem. The Washington St kid had it for a second. In this case u could say Dobbins catch on the screen pass could’ve been ruled a TD

But again it wasn’t the same replay officials, and the examples are also two different rules due to where they occurred on the field. I’m not arguing that officiating is good or consistent.
 
Back
Top