-
Hi Guest, want to participate in the discussions, keep track of read/unread posts access private forums and more? Create your free account and increase the benefits of your eGriz.com experience today!
I'll say it
- Thread starter mtgrizrule
- Start date
The interesting part about it is per section 11 of the officiating standards states that on scoring plays.
1. When in question it is not a touchdown.
2. When in question it is not a safety.
3. When in question it is a touchdown when the a non-airborne runner crosses the goal inside the pylon with the ball crossing the goal line extended.
Since there was disagreement between the back judge and the side judge it probably shouldn’t have been ruled a touchdown.
Regardless, the Weber kicker bangs the PAT through and likely if we have the same play call lose the game d/t the fumble.
Look, I get the appeal to authority by quoting a nameless/faceless official, but can't anybody provide the written rules that say what is required for the player to correctly re-establish himself back in bounds? Some people say one foot down, others say two feet down. That's a big difference considering the receiver in this case only got one foot down (barely) before touching the ball. Several people have posted part of the rules but not the part that addresses what constitutes re-establishing oneself in the field of play.
Dont Kick 2 Bergen
Well-known member
Weber receiver absolutely had re established himself inbounds and made the TD catch. Its not even debatable, that is why the review by the officials was so fast and correct. Indisputable video evidence
You thought that review was fast? It took almost 5 minutes. That was an eternity.
Yeah I don't think so. The explanation was that the call on the field STANDS, not CONFIRMED. If the video evidence were indisputable, then they would have said confirmed. They also took a long time to review it, which usually means that there is a question of whether the call was correct or not. When the call in the field is correct, the review is usually done very quickly.
As well, simply reasserting your opinion over and over in order to sound more authoritative does nothing to convince others that you are correct. Facts and evidence are important.
The question as far as "re-establishing in bounds", do you have to have one foot in bounds? Two feet? Do your feet have to be touching the turf? Or does your body just have to be in the "field of play"? From replays, it looks like he may have one foot in possibly, but that's where the question of "What constitutes re-establishing in bounds"?
Dont Kick 2 Bergen
Well-known member
One foot in college football, just like the catch rule. the refs got it right
Post the written rule
oldngrizzly
Well-known member
Talk about betting a dead horse-OMG- suck it up.We lost to a shitty team.
Dont Kick 2 Bergen
Well-known member
"In college football, a player must have at least one foot in bounds to re-establish themselves in the field of play after going out of bounds"
www.google.com
try it out
www.google.com
try it out
Whoooops. Rule was changed. Bing. Try it:
A player who is out of bounds is re-established when his second foot comes down in bounds, or if another body part (other than the hand, ankle, or wrist) touches in bounds when no part of the body is touching out of bounds.
Rule loophole closed on out-of-bounds receivers
A loophole in the catch rules for receivers that step out of bounds was closed by one of the rule changes that will take effect in 2016.
www.footballzebras.com
Google does not write the NCAA rulebook. Try again.
Dont Kick 2 Bergen
Well-known member
What would I know I only played the game. You guys enjoy yourself the rest of the week but remember the refs got the call correct
So based on this rule... That catch was illegal and should have been a penalty since it wasn't tipped, at minimum, before he caught it.Whoooops. Rule was changed. Bing. Try it:
A player who is out of bounds is re-established when his second foot comes down in bounds, or if another body part (other than the hand, ankle, or wrist) touches in bounds when no part of the body is touching out of bounds.
Rule loophole closed on out-of-bounds receivers
A loophole in the catch rules for receivers that step out of bounds was closed by one of the rule changes that will take effect in 2016.
BadlandsGrizFan
Well-known member
Brain dead comment from a new poster. It went through the entire song How Bizarre. And then the stadium started booing. That’s how not long it took you goober
HelenaHandBasket
Well-known member
Whoooops. Rule was changed. Bing. Try it:
A player who is out of bounds is re-established when his second foot comes down in bounds, or if another body part (other than the hand, ankle, or wrist) touches in bounds when no part of the body is touching out of bounds.
Rule loophole closed on out-of-bounds receivers
A loophole in the catch rules for receivers that step out of bounds was closed by one of the rule changes that will take effect in 2016.
Every official I have spoken too says 2 feet when a receiver goes out on his own, one foot when forced.
A player who steps out on their own can not return to the field for that play regardless of how many feet they get in. The re-establishment rules only apply to a player who is forced out. That is true for both NCAA and NFL.
