Fiesta Bowl: #3 Clemson 29, #2 Ohio State 23 (Postgame)

[MrNubbz]

There really aren’t. There was a questionable call in the catch/fumble.

Re-Open the thread,wrong,he took 3 full steps with the ball firmly in his grasp other officials have come forward and said he blew it.So many bad calls have not been reversed,this one was right from the getgo.Why didn't they call holding on Lawerance's 67yd td run?They could have w/o even reviewing it - then they reach in to the witches caldron and pull that - BS

[utee94]

it was a bad overturn

if it adheres to the rule of completing the catch, the rule needs to be changed

IMO

I think there's another interesting rule at play here that was never considered-- forward progress.

IF we're going to agree that 3 steps constitutes a football move (and I certainly do) then we can take that bit out of the equation-- he caught the ball.

However, he was never able to make a forward move, he was being pulled from the moment he caught it, and so if we imagine an extreme instance of the scenario where, say, 3 other defenders arrive, literally pick him up, and shove him 5 yards further back, but he holds onto the ball, then this is where we typically see the officials spot the ball right where he made the catch.  Because his forward progress was stopped.  And even if a whistle doesn't occur immediately where forward progress is stopped, the refs typically treat ANYTHING that happens after that point, as a dead ball.

So IF we concede it was a catch (and I do), then we also have to consider that his forward progress could have been considered to be stopped, and so there actually was no fumble at all, and therefore no fumble return.

Which comes back to my 3rd most hated rule in football-- forward progress.  I understand why they feel it's necessary to have such a rule, but man it is one of the most inconsistently called, subjective, POS decisions that refs can make in a game.  And it occurs dozens of times in any given game, not just a handful like targeting or PI, so I believe its cumulative effect could end up being far greater than most of those one-offs.

[MrNubbz]

C’mon Badge. Really?

In one poll over 80% said it was a fumble....because it was

[MrNubbz]

So IF we concede it was a catch (and I do), then we also have to consider that his forward progress could have been considered to be stopped, and so there actually was no fumble at all, and therefore no fumble return.

Because the receiver also conceded he made the catch by trying to get away

[utee94]

Because the receiver also conceded he made the catch by trying to get away

Not sure what you're saying here?  The receivers attempts, or lack thereof, to evade defenders, don't really have anything to do with forward progress.

[847badgerfan]

C’mon Badge. Really?

Hell yes, really. There has been terrible ESecPN bias ever since ESecPN bought and paid for the SEC, and it started even earlier - when Delany showed ESecPN his ass, and started his own network. It's bitter, and it's even worse now that Fox has come in and gotten first dibs on Big Ten games.

It's terrible pro-SEC bias, and it shows - especially for the Big Ten, which is the SEC's primary rival (not just on the field).

[847badgerfan]

A receiver catches a ball, sticks one foot down and goes out of bounds. Same goes for the end zone.

Catch. 

Not incomplete. 

Catch.

[bayareabadger]

You mean, the expert from ESecPN?


Gotcha.

Badge, I mean this nicely, what in the hell does this post mean?

The expert is agreeing the call should've gone the way of the Big Ten team. Against the ACC team. Which is not an SEC team.

I get that people really like to feel like the world is against their team. But this doesn't make any sense.

[847badgerfan]

I get it but the in game expert on the game disagreed right from the start. Even before it was  overturned he was saying it should be overturned.

And even if it was a bad overturn it doesn’t mean  it was done with bad intentions.

BAB - my post was in response to this one. How does my post not make sense? Did you read the OP wrong?

[Kris60]

Badge, I mean this nicely, what in the hell does this post mean?

The expert is agreeing the call should've gone the way of the Big Ten team. Against the ACC team. Which is not an SEC team.

I get that people really like to feel like the world is against their team. But this doesn't make any sense.

He’s saying the guy was getting a stack of 100s to say on air it wasn’t a catch.

[847badgerfan]

He’s saying the guy was getting a stack of 100s to say on air it wasn’t a catch.

No. I'm saying the guy on the air is employed by a network that has intense anti-B1G bias.

[Kris60]

No. I'm saying the guy on the air is employed by a network that has intense anti-B1G bias.

Is there anyone besides Big Ten fans who believe that?  I mean, are there Arizona fans who turn on ESPN and think, “God ESPN really hates the Big Ten?”

[bayareabadger]

BAB - my post was in response to this one. How does my post not make sense? Did you read the OP wrong?

Ahhh, now I see. I thought you were talking about the tweet posted. It makes slightly more sense now, but still not a ton of sense. 

Those in-game experts tend to be wrong often. They're kind of a running joke. To read into it that it is because ESPN likes the SEC, and in this case really just hating the Big Ten because Delaney dared sign with Fox, this is a stretch of logic that is a tad much. 

If you start with the presupposition that the TV network hates your team and conference, you will find lots of "coincidences." If there was a an SEC-Big Ten game and the same rules guy sided with the Big Ten team, you wouldn't say, that's a good job by they guy who drew a Big 10 paycheck for two decades. But the SEC team's fans would point it out as a clear bias against them. Because it's feelings.

98 percent of this angst about the great conspiracy isn't real. 

[medinabuckeye1]

I think there's another interesting rule at play here that was never considered-- forward progress.

IF we're going to agree that 3 steps constitutes a football move (and I certainly do) then we can take that bit out of the equation-- he caught the ball.

However, he was never able to make a forward move, he was being pulled from the moment he caught it, and so if we imagine an extreme instance of the scenario where, say, 3 other defenders arrive, literally pick him up, and shove him 5 yards further back, but he holds onto the ball, then this is where we typically see the officials spot the ball right where he made the catch.  Because his forward progress was stopped.  And even if a whistle doesn't occur immediately where forward progress is stopped, the refs typically treat ANYTHING that happens after that point, as a dead ball.

So IF we concede it was a catch (and I do), then we also have to consider that his forward progress could have been considered to be stopped, and so there actually was no fumble at all, and therefore no fumble return.

Which comes back to my 3rd most hated rule in football-- forward progress.  I understand why they feel it's necessary to have such a rule, but man it is one of the most inconsistently called, subjective, POS decisions that refs can make in a game.  And it occurs dozens of times in any given game, not just a handful like targeting or PI, so I believe its cumulative effect could end up being far greater than most of those one-offs.

This is interesting and I've seen FP called all kinds of different ways.  One that tOSU fans will all remember was a safety in a bowl game against Arkansas a while back.  The tOSU ball-carrier got out of the EZ then got shoved back in.  Then he broke free of the pile, changed direction, and ended up getting tackled in the EZ.  The Refs ruled it a safety.  Ohio State fans far and wide thought that was ridiculous because he had been out of the EZ at one point.  

The thing is that IF he had broken free and run 100 yards for a TD then we all know that Arkansas fans would have screamed FP, down at the 1 while tOSU fans would have said TD.  How should that be called, I don't know.