• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Out of bounds rule

Just replayed the play on my dvr and his right foot was clearly out of bounds...his left foot possibly. He jumped...caught the pass....landed in bounds. They flat out missed it or didn't know the rule. I am beside myself on how you miss that. Even the announcer mentions that he jumped from out of bounds. Of course, he ignores that fact thereafter.
 
I like when the ref upheld the call it sounded like he said "The ruling on the fan stands." Wonder if there was anything in his head worried to overturn the call.
 
DeaconVendetta said:
There's another rule nuance I am not clear on. I guess they changed this recently, but I may have missed it, but apparently it is now FUCKING LEGAL TO HOLD GOD DAMN CAMPANARO ANY TIME HE IS AN ELIGIBLE RECEIVER. And not just a quick subtle hold. I mean, fucking grab him, and don't let go for 15 mother fucking yards holding.
Click to expand...

Yeah, they went with the Coach K philosophy - just foul on every play and dare the refs to call it every time. In this case, just grab onto their WRs as the run crossing routes on every single play.
 
wsc8521s said:
Play in question was 2nd down.
Click to expand...

Yep, it would gave been 3rd and goal from the 8 or 9, if it is just loss of down. Who knows, maybe they score on 3rd down and it ends up a moot point, but it would be nice for them to have to do so under the rules of the game.
 
Yeah don't disagree. Just pointing that out since it was asked
 
DeaconVendetta said:
There's another rule nuance I am not clear on. I guess they changed this recently, but I may have missed it, but apparently it is now FUCKING LEGAL TO HOLD GOD DAMN CAMPANARO ANY TIME HE IS AN ELIGIBLE RECEIVER. And not just a quick subtle hold. I mean, fucking grab him, and don't let go for 15 mother fucking yards holding.
Click to expand...

I feel your pain on that.
 
I feel like there should be a way to play a game under protest, or something like that, like they do in baseball. Then I remember that Jim Grobe is way too nice of a guy to bother with anything like that, even if it existed.
 
It's Wake at Clemson. But damn I can see the refs jobbing us but what is the point of having a supposed neutral group reviewing if they don't know the rule or don't want to put the refs on the field in a bind.
 
I'm just amazed at how stupid the refs and announcers are. This isn't an obscure rule. Everyone I talked to saw it and understood the rule. Is it that everyone else didn't see it or they just don't know the rules? And isn't there someone in the box for Wake that can say "Hey, he went out of bounds and came back in. Go tell the ref." Amazing.
 
NativeCamel said:
I'm just amazed at how stupid the refs and announcers are. This isn't an obscure rule. Everyone I talked to saw it and understood the rule. Is it that everyone else didn't see it or they just don't know the rules? And isn't there someone in the box for Wake that can say "Hey, he went out of bounds and came back in. Go tell the ref." Amazing.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I would just like to know the reasoning for it not being overturned:

Was it because they didn't feel there was clear evidence that he was out of bounds? I have a hard time with that one, given it was pretty obvious in real life, let alone the one replay they showed. Also, the TV guys didn't seem to have a doubt that he was out of bounds before catching the ball (though they didn't seem to connect the dots to that being illegal and a non-catch).

Did they not review that part of the catch; just look to see if he got his feet in bounds after catching it? If so, wouldn't starting out of bounds as part of the catching action be part of that decision?

Did they think that the "illegal touching" part was not reviewable? If so, it appears they would be clearly wrong in that situation.

Did they not know the rule? Sadly, I wouldn't put it past ACC refs.

Did they realize that it wasn't a TD and just say "screw it, we aren't going to change it"? Maybe because of the crowd?
 
PhDeac said:
Deacfreak07 wrote: Someone mentioned in the game thread, that illegal touching is not reviewable. Is this true?

It took them years to find it at Penn State. They're clearly not going to see it in a Death Valley endzone.
Click to expand...

That is awful..... I have to pos rep it when I get to a computer.
 
With the 4th down mis-spot in the Red Zone and this awful blown call, I am inclined to believe that the refs understand it is better for the ACC to represent the Atlantic in the title game.
 
Bubble Boy said:
Yeah, I would just like to know the reasoning for it not being overturned:

Was it because they didn't feel there was clear evidence that he was out of bounds? I have a hard time with that one, given it was pretty obvious in real life, let alone the one replay they showed. Also, the TV guys didn't seem to have a doubt that he was out of bounds before catching the ball (though they didn't seem to connect the dots to that being illegal and a non-catch).

Did they not review that part of the catch; just look to see if he got his feet in bounds after catching it? If so, wouldn't starting out of bounds as part of the catching action be part of that decision?

Did they think that the "illegal touching" part was not reviewable? If so, it appears they would be clearly wrong in that situation.

Did they not know the rule? Sadly, I wouldn't put it past ACC refs.

Did they realize that it wasn't a TD and just say "screw it, we aren't going to change it"? Maybe because of the crowd?
Click to expand...

After thinking about it, I assume the out of bounds prior to the catch was irrelevant since they didn't throw the flag and therefore a penalty never occurred. The only thing left to review was the catch and where he came down. Either way, they missed it. Should have thrown the flag.
 
We benefited from this on Chris Given's 4th down overturn against Duke.
 
NativeCamel said:
After thinking about it, I assume the out of bounds prior to the catch was irrelevant since they didn't throw the flag and therefore a penalty never occurred. The only thing left to review was the catch and where he came down. Either way, they missed it. Should have thrown the flag.
Click to expand...

This is not the case. Illegal touching discovered on review can negate a reception even without a penalty flag being thrown on the play.

http://www.arbitersports.com/Groups/104777/Library/files/InstantReplayPlaySituations.pdf
 
the acc jizzed all over themselves over the 2 inches gained on the FSU spot. what are the chances a similar memo goes out this week saying it should not have been a td?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top