So what was up with that Cornelius replay review?

[OttoinGrotto]

I thought Cornelius made a big time play and it was pretty clear on the broadcast he got his foot down before the other one was down out of bounds. Was that just another blown call by the officials? What happened there?

I don't know that it changes the game outcome much, but it would have extended a drive at least.

 

[OrangeXtreme]

We all know the ACC has the best officiating crews, hands down.

:rolling:

 

[Yegorange]

He supposedly didn't have full possession of the ball. Looked to me like he did, but after that was concentrating on the feet, so not sure about that.

 

[85SUAlum]

I think it may have come down to whether he had control of the ball when the foot came down inbounds.
Always harder to overturn than confirm.

 

[orangeinohio]

ACC officials are probably scared of making any big decisions right now.

 

[suorange08]

Foot was in though he bobbled the ball when he hit the ground out of bounds. They got it right... cant believe I said that about acc refs :bat:

 

[OttoinGrotto]

I think it may have come down to whether he had control of the ball when the foot came down inbounds.
Always harder to overturn than confirm.

Here's the thing I don't understand though - how do you determine control? You sometimes see them take receptions away when a guy loses the ball after he's out of bounds.

Why? If a guy takes a handoff and runs out of bounds, the instant his foot is out of bounds what happens with the ball doesn't matter anymore. Same with breaking the plane of the endzone. You see guys dive in to the endzone and muff the ball a lot. That's never called a fumble. Because at the exact moment he crossed the plane or went out of bounds, he was in control. Why are receptions different?

 

[OttoinGrotto]

Foot was in though he bobbled the ball when he hit the ground out of bounds. They got it right... cant believe I said that about acc refs :bat:

When a running back goes out of bounds and then loses the ball they don't call it a fumble.

 

[Yegorange]

Agree. Makes no sense.

 

[suorange08]

When a running back goes out of bounds and then loses the ball they don't call it a fumble.

Well if he loses the ball after touching out of bounds then he is out. For a catch it is a different rule. Possession must be maintained even after hitting the ground. I don't think its a good rule though. He had the ball with one foot in and still never let the ball hit the ground. That is a catch to me, though rule says it isnt.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

Well if he loses the ball after touching out of bounds then he is out. For a catch it is a different rule. Possession must be maintained even after hitting the ground. I don't think its a good rule though. He had the ball with one foot in and still never let the ball hit the ground. That is a catch to me, though rule says it isnt.

Yeah, it's dumb.

 

[85SUAlum]

Well if he loses the ball after touching out of bounds then he is out. For a catch it is a different rule. Possession must be maintained even after hitting the ground. I don't think its a good rule though. He had the ball with one foot in and still never let the ball hit the ground. That is a catch to me, though rule says it isnt.

My guess is that rule on controlling the ball out of bounds is related to the rule that it's not considered a catch in the field until the player comes down with control and makes a "football move", otherwise if the ball comes out, it's considered incomplete.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

My guess is that rule on controlling the ball out of bounds is related to the rule that it's not considered a catch in the field until the player comes down with control and makes a "football move", otherwise if the ball comes out, it's considered incomplete.

OK, but couldn't you define the "football move" as having possession when he is ruled out of bounds? If the player is already out of bounds they aren't permitted to make the catch (I know there are exceptions to this, just go with it) so by natural consequence a player that was once inbounds and is now out of bounds has made a "move." to get there.

It's just bizarre that things matter after it's established that the player is out of bounds. If you want to say a guy is bobbling the ball when he goes out of bounds, fine, incompletion. But if he has control, that's a completion and the instant he's out bounds the play is dead and it's a good reception. So what if something happens after that?

At least, this is what makes sense to me.

 

[DomeStranger]

I was looking for an explanation on this too.

But I think the worse call was them giving LVille the call on the spot that made it 4th and 1. I have no idea where they came up with that spot. When Dungey's knee touched the ball was right on the line to make. Even the announcers called that. It was a matter of inches from the original spot. Not only did they overturn but they placed the ball a full yard back.

I'd love to see the evidence to back up taking away the first down and moving it back. I could see if they moved it a foot but that spot was crazy bad. Usually spots aren't upheld anyways because its hard to determine exactly where the ball is from camera angles.

Then when they didn't overturn AC's catch I was pretty livid.

 

[85SUAlum]

I was looking for an explanation on this too.

But I think the worse call was them giving LVille the call on the spot that made it 4th and 1. I have no idea where they came up with that spot. When Dungey's knee touched the ball was right on the line to make. Even the announcers called that. It was a matter of inches from the original spot. Not only did they overturn but they placed the ball a full yard back.

I'd love to see the evidence to back up taking away the first down and moving it back. I could see if they moved it a foot but that spot was crazy bad. Usually spots aren't upheld anyways because its hard to determine exactly where the ball is from camera angles.

Then when they didn't overturn AC's catch I was pretty livid.

I think the situation there is that spot of the ball is determined at the point where the ball is when the QB starts the slide, not the point where his knee hits.
I believe the interpretation is that once the QB starts the slide, the play is over. This is for the protection of the QB - the defense should not be attempting to hit the QB once he's started his slide. Thus the ball cannot be moved forward once the play has "ended".
I could be wrong, but this is how I've always understood the rule.

 

[W'boro'Cuse315]

In my eyes, it was clearly not a catch. As others have stated, his feet were not the issue, it was control of the ball.

AC didn't have full, secure control of the ball until he was laying on his backside out of bounds...therefore, no catch.

 

[upperdeck]

the ref ruled he was OB not that he didnt have control. the replay should explain they over ruled one call and then made a new one. i never saw a replay other than the backside one that even showed the ball and that was a long range one at best. perhaps he didnt catch it but they should explain the call not leave every one wondering since the feet were in.

 

[blizz]

Refs blew the call. This is Syracuse we're talking about so I'm mystified at the surprise. Ace made a play. We'd all trade it for the one that bounced off his wide open chest in the endzone, but as I was saying...this is Syracuse...