CSNbbs

don't know if ou could have pulled it out but that 4th quarter call reversing their fumble recovery/td return basically decided the winner of that game.

since the call on the field was td ohio, there would have to be overrwhelming evidence to overturn the call. i know how that play works in basketball, but in football i've never seen exactly that play. normally if there's a fumble recovery near the out of bounds line and the ball is in bounds when recovered they don't make an issue out of the rest of the guys body unless he is clearly out. on that play he had one foot clearly in and his other toe on the line. as he picks up the ball, his foot comes up. so he's got the ball and a foot in, with the other foot simultaneously coming in bounds as he picks up the ball, right.

anyone have a confirmation in the rule and the reason for the reversal.

ou played a hell of a game and would have had a pretty decent chance for the win with that play not being reversed.

His foot was out of bounds when he touched the ball. The replay clearly showed that. They got the call right. End of discussion.

Its a clear rule in practice if not on paper...

You cant recover a fumble if any part of you is on the stripe, period... The minute you touch a ball and you're OB the play is dead before you establish control...

To put it another way, when his finger tips touched the ball the ball was OB and he had not yet established possession. The minute I saw the replay I cringed because I knew what the call was going to be.

(09-27-2009 09:09 PM)niubrad00 Wrote: [ -> ]His foot was out of bounds when he touched the ball. The replay clearly showed that. They got the call right. End of discussion.

there you go! besides, if even his foot weren't out of bounds, it's water under the bridge and nothing could be done about it.

it's time to focus on BG!

thanks for the clarification. maybe this is why i don't like replay, but at live - real life speed - his left foot is in and his right foot is in the air (about to plant in) as he grabs the ball. slowed down to unreal, frame by frame time, it appears that his toe is still on the line as his fingertips touch the ball, and in the air as his hands grasp it. so, i guess you could say they made the correct call in the booth. however, i think the ref on the field made the right call cause at real speed to the human eye he is in bounds once he grabs the ball.

comparing it to the indiana-michigan game. that game deciding call on the interception was made on the field as an int cuz it looks like the michigan db wrestled the ball away before the play was dead. on the replay you could clearly see both players with possession as they fall to the turf and the michigan guy pulling it away as they roll over. simultaneous possession on replay, right, not in the big house as the replay confirmed the call on field.

similar play in that the field ref made the call right in terms of how it really looked, but the replay showed that technically the call probably should be different (of course, michigan got the break)

Even still Ohio represented well. After the performance Ohio put on at TN and BSU who many consider the cellar dweller this year in the Western Division putting 30 pts on Auburn; I'm not that impressed with the SEC.

I was under the impression from what I heard on bobcatattack that the bigger issue besides Keller being arguably out-of-bounds (it was very close on the replay as pono mentioned) was that he needed to have both feet in bounds before he picked up the ball after coming from out of bounds. Can anyone verify this rule?

(09-29-2009 05:53 AM)bobcatgrad Wrote: [ -> ]I was under the impression from what I heard on bobcatattack that the bigger issue besides Keller being arguably out-of-bounds (it was very close on the replay as pono mentioned) was that he needed to have both feet in bounds before he picked up the ball after coming from out of bounds. Can anyone verify this rule?

No. All a defensive player needs is one foot in bounds before any part of his body touches out of bounds for possession to occur. Hypothetically, a defensive player could leap from out of bounds, catch a pass or fumble while airborne, and then land with one foot in bounds before returning the ball for a TD. It is not the same for an eligible receiver who goes out of bounds or a defender who goes out while covering a kickoff. In the NCAA, those are the only two instances where a player has to re-establish eligibility to touch the ball or make a tackle. Defenders in plays from scrimmage can travel to and from out of bounds at will. I think this was corrected on bobcatattack as well.

That said, Keller was out of bounds when he picked up the ball.

(09-29-2009 05:20 PM)bobcatbobcatbobcat Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-29-2009 05:53 AM)bobcatgrad Wrote: [ -> ]I was under the impression from what I heard on bobcatattack that the bigger issue besides Keller being arguably out-of-bounds (it was very close on the replay as pono mentioned) was that he needed to have both feet in bounds before he picked up the ball after coming from out of bounds. Can anyone verify this rule?

No. All a defensive player needs is one foot in bounds before any part of his body touches out of bounds for possession to occur. Hypothetically, a defensive player could leap from out of bounds, catch a pass or fumble while airborne, and then land with one foot in bounds before returning the ball for a TD. It is not the same for an eligible receiver who goes out of bounds or a defender who goes out while covering a kickoff. In the NCAA, those are the only two instances where a player has to re-establish eligibility to touch the ball or make a tackle. Defenders in plays from scrimmage can travel to and from out of bounds at will. I think this was corrected on bobcatattack as well.

That said, Keller was out of bounds when he picked up the ball.

Thanks. Wanted the rules involved straight.

(09-27-2009 09:30 PM)pono Wrote: [ -> ]thanks for the clarification. maybe this is why i don't like replay, but at live - real life speed - his left foot is in and his right foot is in the air (about to plant in) as he grabs the ball. slowed down to unreal, frame by frame time, it appears that his toe is still on the line as his fingertips touch the ball, and in the air as his hands grasp it. so, i guess you could say they made the correct call in the booth. however, i think the ref on the field made the right call cause at real speed to the human eye he is in bounds once he grabs the ball.

That's exactly why replay is good. The naked eye is too fallible.

(09-29-2009 07:45 PM)OZoner Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-27-2009 09:30 PM)pono Wrote: [ -> ]thanks for the clarification. maybe this is why i don't like replay, but at live - real life speed - his left foot is in and his right foot is in the air (about to plant in) as he grabs the ball. slowed down to unreal, frame by frame time, it appears that his toe is still on the line as his fingertips touch the ball, and in the air as his hands grasp it. so, i guess you could say they made the correct call in the booth. however, i think the ref on the field made the right call cause at real speed to the human eye he is in bounds once he grabs the ball.

That's exactly why replay is good. The naked eye is too fallible.

well. thats a matter of perspective. i see it completely opposite. the game is played at full speed by humans in motion. going back in time and changing the outcome of plays because of how it looks through the lens of a camera and then a computer editing program is technology intruding on real sport.

if they only applied it to horribly mistaken on field calls, that are blatant on a replay, i could accept it. but to repeatedly stop the action of a game for at least several minutes at a time to change what was probably the correct call to the human eye at real speed (often for plays that have minimal impact on the scoreboard), kills the energy of the game and often results in questionable judgments (plus it costs a lot)

So you want the refs to get things wrong because they're physically incapable of getting everything right? And it doesn't cost a lot.

(09-29-2009 11:55 PM)pono Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-29-2009 07:45 PM)OZoner Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-27-2009 09:30 PM)pono Wrote: [ -> ]thanks for the clarification. maybe this is why i don't like replay, but at live - real life speed - his left foot is in and his right foot is in the air (about to plant in) as he grabs the ball. slowed down to unreal, frame by frame time, it appears that his toe is still on the line as his fingertips touch the ball, and in the air as his hands grasp it. so, i guess you could say they made the correct call in the booth. however, i think the ref on the field made the right call cause at real speed to the human eye he is in bounds once he grabs the ball.

That's exactly why replay is good. The naked eye is too fallible.

well. thats a matter of perspective. i see it completely opposite. the game is played at full speed by humans in motion. going back in time and changing the outcome of plays because of how it looks through the lens of a camera and then a computer editing program is technology intruding on real sport.

if they only applied it to horribly mistaken on field calls, that are blatant on a replay, i could accept it. but to repeatedly stop the action of a game for at least several minutes at a time to change what was probably the correct call to the human eye at real speed (often for plays that have minimal impact on the scoreboard), kills the energy of the game and often results in questionable judgments (plus it costs a lot)

That's ridiculous. Why won't you let this go? It was extremely obvious on replay that his foot was out of bounds. There is no debate or controversy. The play was overturned correctly. Period.

(09-30-2009 02:17 PM)OZoner Wrote: [ -> ]So you want the refs to get things wrong because they're physically incapable of getting everything right? And it doesn't cost a lot.

yes, i'd rather the refs occasionally blow a call, than having to stop an otherwise good game several times for 5 minutes of them staring at monitors to decide if they should change their mind. most of these games are on tv and already have twice the normal delays for commercials, now we have several more. i mean, it doesn't matter when you are watching tv, but when you're at the game it sucks.