So the BE came out with a statement

[rrlbees]

Explaining the call on the ball that hit the goal line. Guess the call was correct.

But where is the statement admitting the fumble review was BS?

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2

 

[SU2NASA]

Explaining the call on the ball that hit the goal line. Guess the call was correct.

But where is the statement admitting the fumble review was BS?

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2

I have JLH waiting in my bed right now too.

 

[690West]

They're making up the rule that it was correct. Show me the language BE. We're all accepting the BE statement

 

[anglerman]

I don't understand their explanation. They said it ht th goal line but didn't go in to the endzone. Isn't the white line considered the endzone? Isn't hitting the white the endzone?

 

[SU2NASA]

I don't understand their explanation. They said it ht th goal line but didn't go in to the endzone. Isn't the white line considered the endzone? Isn't hitting the white the endzone?

Yes, just like the ball breaking the plane, just like a punt going into the endzone and bouncing out. It's a cut and dry call.

The fact that they released a statement within two hours of the game says everything you need to know.

 

[690West]

I don't understand their explanation. They said it ht th goal line but didn't go in to the endzone. Isn't the white line considered the endzone? Isn't hitting the white the endzone?

That's why it's laughable that we're accepting an "official big east statement". Oooooh. Very formal. They are making up the rule. SHOW ME THE LANGUAGE

 

[Nicknack]

Explaining the call on the ball that hit the goal line. Guess the call was correct.

But where is the statement admitting the fumble review was BS?

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2

Exactly... I don't remember watching a review like that one where even my dog could have made the right call. To not overturn the fumble call, was such an egregious error on the part of the officiating crew. However, it was how our team responded after Nassib's fumble which is what cost us the game.

 

[Rocco]

Look, the call was absolutely balogne (not Doug's kind). The ball was loose and landed on the goal line. That is a touchback resulting from the offensive player fumbling the ball. This is not rocket science.

They are trying to cover their asses.

 

[SouthCampusHero]

I don't understand their explanation. They said it ht th goal line but didn't go in to the endzone. Isn't the white line considered the endzone? Isn't hitting the white the endzone?

Yes, the ball hit the line. However, the ball bounced backward and over the sideline. Thus the ball was placed where it went out of bounds (the six inch line). Heck, the ball could have bounced well inside the endzone but if it bounces back into the field of play and then out of bounds, the ball (according to the rule the commish is citing) will be spotted where it crossed the sideline.

 

[PoppyHart]

That's why it's laughable that we're accepting an "official big east statement". Oooooh. Very formal. They are making up the rule. SHOW ME THE LANGUAGE

SECTION 6. Touchback
When Declared
ARTICLE 1. It is a touchback when:
a. The ball becomes dead out of bounds behind a goal line, except from an
incomplete forward pass, or becomes dead in the possession of a player on,
above or behind his own goal line and the attacking team is responsible for
the ball being there (Rules 7-2-4-a and b) (A.R. 7-2-4-I, A.R. 8-6-1-I and II,
and A.R. 10-2-2-XVI).

 

[SU2NASA]

This is not rocket science.

If it was, I'd still think it's bullshit.

 

[SUskibum]

the fact that they made (such a quick) official statement at all is an obvious sign of guilt

 

[PoppyHart]

Explaining the call on the ball that hit the goal line. Guess the call was correct.

But where is the statement admitting the fumble review was BS?

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2

I think the statement was made b/c there was confusion over what the actual rule is.

With the play in the 1st quarter, everyone knows the rule, it's just a matter of judgment. It certainly looked like a fumble. The only thing I could think of for why they upheld the call is that there was a minor facemask on the play, and they didn't want to call that so they simply ruled it down by contact. But they gave no explanation.

 

[raf4488]

Strange rule. If a ballcarrier breaks the plane and it gets knocked OOB in play, it's still a TD. If a ball bounces off the GL on a punt, it's a touchback, right?

 

[Rocco]

I think the statement was made b/c there was confusion over what the actual rule is.

With the play in the 1st quarter, everyone knows the rule, it's just a matter of judgment. It certainly looked like a fumble. The only thing I could think of for why they upheld the call is that there was a minor facemask on the play, and they didn't want to call that so they simply ruled it down by contact. But they gave no explanation.

The "facemask" should have ZERO to do with whether or not it was a live ball. Not really sure what you are saying here.

 

[DomeStranger]

Someone should ask the BE, why the line judge called TD (without hesitation or checking with his peers) after being knocked out of position and not being able to see the play or the ball.

 

[SWC75]

Just our luck that the ball would fall on the goal line and bounce backwards out of bounds on the 6 inch line. :bang:

 

[PoppyHart]

The "facemask" should have ZERO to do with whether or not it was a live ball. Not really sure what you are saying here.

I'm saying that I think it was a fumble. Since it wasn't ruled a fumble, we're left to figure out what they saw (or didn't see). It did look, imo, like a split second face mask, which would negate any fumble and would impose a 15 yard penalty. So perhaps they compromised. Who knows?

 

[orangenauburn]

the big east technically is wrong -- no surpirse

they were in such a hurry they did not cover their x y z

 

[GoSU96]

Explaining the call on the ball that hit the goal line. Guess the call was correct.

But where is the statement admitting the fumble review was BS?

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2

The message is clear, don't give us a choice.

Ridiculous number of judgment calls off the ball though, pretty weird.

 

[DNABB5]

Look, the call was absolutely balogne (not Doug's kind). The ball was loose and landed on the goal line. That is a touchback resulting from the offensive player fumbling the ball. This is not rocket science.

They are trying to cover their asses.

Same as when Bryce Bevill stripped the due from Oklahoma in 1994.

 

[690West]

SECTION 6. Touchback
When Declared
ARTICLE 1. It is a touchback when:
a. The ball becomes dead out of bounds behind a goal line, except from an
incomplete forward pass, or becomes dead in the possession of a player on,
above or behind his own goal line and the attacking team is responsible for
the ball being there (Rules 7-2-4-a and b) (A.R. 7-2-4-I, A.R. 8-6-1-I and II,
and A.R. 10-2-2-XVI).

Oh bite me poppy. Lol

 

[RICuse44]

That may explain the second one but does not explain the first. In the end though we lost because we did not make plays when it mattered, ie the reddish dropped pick and west's drop in the end zone. Also, we had too many missed tackles and penalties, although some of those penalties were bs. I hope those big east refs can look at themselves in the mirror in the morning.

 

[PoppyHart]

Oh bite me poppy. Lol

Sorry, but you asked for the rule.

 

[liljoe]

Sorry, but you asked for the rule.

Good call, I stand corrected.

And now that I think of it, it's never a dead ball when you fumble in the end zone. It's a free ball until someone recovers or the ball goes out of bonus...