Online Now 2594

MSU Red Cedar Message Board

The largest and most active MSU Spartans board on the web

On this Board 2564
Record: 12118 (3/18/2012)

Online now 3316
Record: 10351 (3/11/2012)

Boards ▾

MSU Red Cedar Message Board

The largest and most active MSU Spartans board on the web

The Press Box

The place to ask questions to SpartanTailgate's recruiting experts

Duffy Daugherty Forum

"The Duff" is dedicated to Michigan State football recruiting discussion

Jack Breslin Forum

"The Bres" is dedicated to Michigan State basketball recruiting discussion

Wells Hall Off Topic Board

This is your pulpit to preach to the masses about everything from politics to religion

Marketplace & Ticket Exchange

The place to buy, trade or sell Michigan State tickets

Fantasy Sports Forum

For fantasy football and other fantasy sports discussion

Test/Feedback Forum

Reply

UM contacts Big Ten for further review of Iowa game

  • GregTTR said...

    Porpoises =/= purposes.

    Get a brain! moran

    Sigmakan ●

  • scott91575 said...

    Can someone send this pic to Hoke and explain to the moron that if the ball hits the ground while the player is going to the ground during a catch, it's incomplete. Is that really that hard to understand?

    Actually, that's not what the rule says. The rule actually allows the ball to touch/hit the ground, but the ground can't assist the player in securing the ball. (Now how in hell is a ref supposed to make that call in real time?!?! But that's what the rule says.)

    And for those who think it was clearly the right call, sorry, I disagree. Yes, it was the right call, but it was also a CLOSE call. If you saw UM's interception against Northwestern a couple of weeks ago, the same exact thing took place - the UM defender made the INT, but the nose of the ball hit the ground hard, and you could see the ball being pushed up into him armpit (helping him secure the catch). It was ruled an INT on the field, and the call was upheld on replay. Huge turning point in the game.

    So yes, it was a close call that could've gone either way. But the right call was made.

    This post was edited by VladtImpaler20535 on 11/8/2011 at 3:09 PM

    VladtImpaler20535

  • Sigmakan said...

    Get a brain! moran

    That kind of stupidity truly bottles the mind.

    Jools Holland

  • Does the university have nothing better to do?

    RCMB Premium Poster

    Count gHostula

  • Count gHostula said...

    Does the university have nothing better to do?

    No...They're Michigan.

    signature image

    RPMadMSU

  • Vlad-t-Impaler said...

    Actually, that's not what the rule says. The rule actually allows the ball to touch/hit the ground, but the ground can't assist the player in securing the ball. (Now how in hell is a ref supposed to make that call in real time?!?! But that's what the rule says.)

    And for those who think it was clearly the right call, sorry, I disagree. Yes, it was the right call, but it was also a CLOSE call. If you saw UM's interception against Northwestern a couple of weeks ago, the same exact thing took place - the UM defender made the INT, but the nose of the ball hit the ground hard, and you could see the ball being pushed up into him armpit (helping him secure the catch). It was ruled an INT on the field, and the call was upheld on replay. Huge turning point in the game.

    So yes, it was a close call that could've gone either way. But the right call was made.

    I haven't seen the play. Interested in what the BIG says. Bang Bang play???

    This post was edited by Ron_in_ATL on 11/8/2011 at 5:48 PM

    Ron_in_ATL

  • to be fair, i haven't seen the team whining about this, just their administration and fanbase. i saw a quote from robinson about how they have to make the plays and not rely on the calls. he seems like a good kid, too bad he plays for a douche-bag school.

    Turf

  • They lost....They gone..We will see them in AA next year and I will be there.

    My bet is I will be happy when it is over.

    Victory for MSU

    This post was edited by northandwells on 11/8/2011 at 6:24 PM

    northandwells

  • faygo said...

    Let's not shortchange Schembechler. He was a world class whiner in his day. Some posters weren't around, but his bowl loss to BYU where he complained that they held his .500 team all game long was gold, Jerry. Not to mention the vote to send OSU to the Rose Bowl.

    BS was the one that came up with the high crown on the field excuse and the "they watered the field the night before the game" excuse. And the other team always held.

    charliemarlow ●

  • Vlad-t-Impaler said...

    Actually, that's not what the rule says. The rule actually allows the ball to touch/hit the ground, but the ground can't assist the player in securing the ball. (Now how in hell is a ref supposed to make that call in real time?!?! But that's what the rule says.)

    Yes, it was the right call, but it was also a CLOSE call. I

    In real time, it was a close call...but on replay it was clearly not in his possession when it hit the ground.

    charliemarlow ●

  • charliemarlow said...

    BS was the one that came up with the high crown on the field excuse a

    No that was Lloyd Carr after they played and lost at Oregon.

    "I'll tell you one thing about John Navarre -- he has never made an excuse. When you've been around football as long as I have, you know that in the old fields, there's a big crown, and that field at Oregon to me looked like an eight- to 10-inch crown, and that affects the throws to the sidelines particularly, and I think that affected John. We haven't played on a field with a crown like that. We don't make excuses, but I'm making one for him, because I don't think it's an excuse; it's the truth."......Lloyd Carr

    This post was edited by WBill19542 on 11/8/2011 at 6:48 PM

    WBill19542 ●

  • msusnee said...

    You're right that the ball can hit the ground and it can still be a catch if possession is unchanged, but that wasn't the case here. As he goes to the ground his hands are on the ball one way, but as he bounces/rolls over his hands are on a different spot on the ball. That means the ball moved, and he didn't maintain possession.

    I never said that it was a catch in this instance - I refuted the notion that there is no catch if the ball makes contact. The OP claimed Hoke was an idiot for thinking it could ever be a catch since it touched the ground. As you correctly note, there are catches that involve the ball contacting the ground. You at least were respectful in your response though - kudos for that.

    signature image

    ---

    tenaciousb

  • MSULordyoda said...

    You know, he must have some sort of radar for this board and UM threads.

    Quick the RCMB are bashing UM and their fan base...Time to go be a douche and act like I'm superior!

    Problem is, dude doesn't realize no one gives a shit and most of what he says is just wrong.

    Funny how the moderators disproportionately dole out 'penalties' for personal attacks. Untrue remarks with personal attacks like this are allowed because they're aimed at me but I've been docked for saying someone's opinion was 'stupid.'

    signature image

    ---

    tenaciousb

  • Ron_in_ATL said...

    I haven't seen the play. Interested in what the BIG says. Bang Bang play???

    It was a judgment call that probably would have remained a catch if called one on the field and remained an incompletion because it was called one on the field. B1G will probably say he didn't show conclusive possession, which is a fair comment(ary).

    signature image

    ---

    tenaciousb

  • Think how pissed off uofFm is going to be if this gets put on the back burner with all the PSU stuff going on.

    EdMartinsLoan

  • vator88 said...

    Watch the video, the ball is moving the entire time, and he basically falls on the ball, look at his hands in the photo, they are on top of it. You're delusional. It's not a catch. I googled the tony dungy rule, nothing came up, might want to provide a link to support your fantasy world before you call someone a moron.

    You must not have watched SNF this week. Jordy Nelson made a catch where he pinned the ball to his body but it hit the ground first. Still a catch. Anyways, they went into a diatribe asking Mike Pereira to explain the Tony Dungy rule as it's come to be referred wherein a ball can hit the ground during the process of a completion as long as the possession is achieved. Fresh in my mind when I posted it. Regardless, others have noted that it can be a catch if the ball isn't moving so I can stop talking - unless you have found proof of mine, and others', fantasy world.

    signature image

    ---

    tenaciousb

  • tenaciousb said...

    You must not have watched SNF this week. Jordy Nelson made a catch where he pinned the ball to his body but it hit the ground first. Still a catch. Anyways, they went into a diatribe asking Mike Pereira to explain the Tony Dungy rule as it's come to be referred wherein a ball can hit the ground during the process of a completion as long as the possession is achieved. Fresh in my mind when I posted it. Regardless, others have noted that it can be a catch if the ball isn't moving so I can stop talking - unless you have found proof of mine, and others', fantasy world.

    Watch the vid on the ESPN link, at the 48 second mark, the ball is sliding thru his hands when he falls to the ground, he does not have control of it. I think it is a legit question to ask for an explanation of how the rule was being applied, but it is not a catch. The end.

    Iowa Upends No. 15 Michigan In Nailbiter - ESPN Video - ESPN

    ESPN Video: Marcus Coker ran for 132 yards and a pair of touchdown and Iowa held off Michigan's late rally.

    espn.go.com

    vator88

  • They really need to go back to the old rule where no part of the football can touch ground. Simple, factual, and almost always easy to verify on replay.

    The current rule is nearly impossible to apply in real time, and even on replay, it is simply the on-field official's judgment versus the replay official's judgment. If a ball hits the ground with any amount of force (even when it's held in both hands), it is going to move. Is that a catch?? How much movement is too much movement? Did the movement help the receiver make the catch, or would he has caught it anyway??

    WHAT THE EFF?!?!

    VladtImpaler20535

  • vator88 said...

    Watch the vid on the ESPN link, at the 48 second mark, the ball is sliding thru his hands when he falls to the ground, he does not have control of it. I think it is a legit question to ask for an explanation of how the rule was being applied, but it is not a catch. The end.

    That's fine. For the sake of my sanity I've not really gone back to rewatch it. I thought it was a catch when I saw it live and watching the replay knew it would never be overruled and frankly there's no purpose in revisiting it because it will make me unhappy whether it is a catch or not. I was just explaining the rule is all. If you see movement, then it's not a catch.

    This post was edited by tenaciousb on 11/8/2011 at 8:04 PM

    signature image

    ---

    tenaciousb

  • Wasn't a catch and michigan is 2-0 for phoning the big ten office after losses under Hoke. He really is a Michigan man

    This post was edited by DWags on 11/8/2011 at 8:18 PM

    signature image signature image signature image

    DWags

  • D.Wags said...

    Wasn't a catch and michigan is 2-0 for phoning the big ten office after losses under Hoke. He really is a Michigan man

    Exactly...how hysterical! But, we're MEEEEECHHHIGAN!!!

    BleedGreen4ever

  • Vlad-t-Impaler said...

    Actually, that's not what the rule says. The rule actually allows the ball to touch/hit the ground, but the ground can't assist the player in securing the ball. (Now how in hell is a ref supposed to make that call in real time?!?! But that's what the rule says.)

    And for those who think it was clearly the right call, sorry, I disagree. Yes, it was the right call, but it was also a CLOSE call.

    If it was called a touchdown, it would not have been overturned either.

    signature image signature image signature image

    DWags

  • vator88 said...

    Watch the vid on the ESPN link, at the 48 second mark, the ball is sliding thru his hands when he falls to the ground, he does not have control of it. I think it is a legit question to ask for an explanation of how the rule was being applied, but it is not a catch. The end.

    Finally watched the vid. Wow - I have no idea why UM is whining. That is not a catch. Give him credit for a nice one-handed snag - but as he's gaining control of the ball, he lands on top of it. Not a catch, case closed.

    Furthermore, that was not the deciding play. scUM still had one more shot. And if that had been successful, they had to get a 2-pt coversion. Even after that, they'd have to win overtime.

    I don't get it....

    Dicks Fake Eye20793

  • Dick's Fake Eye said...

    Finally watched the vid. Wow - I have no idea why UM is whining. That is not a catch. Give him credit for a nice one-handed snag - but as he's gaining control of the ball, he lands on top of it. Not a catch, case closed.

    Furthermore, that was not the deciding play. scUM still had one more shot. And if that had been successful, they had to get a 2-pt coversion. Even after that, they'd have to win overtime.

    I don't get it....

    "I find a lot of the things they do amusing."

    - Mark Dantonio

    signature image

    RPMadMSU

  • Here's the actual rule:
    (Google "NCAA football rulebook" and go to the chapter on Passing the ball)

    Incomplete Pass
    ARTICLE 7. a. Any forward pass is incomplete if the ball is out of bounds by rule or if it touches the ground when not firmly controlled by a player.

    In real speed, it's a tough call. On replay, in slow motion, it's an easy call. Someone should send Hoke a rule book for Christmas.

    SpartyOn82

Michigan State
247Sports
Features
Resources
Connect

247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports