| Favorite team: | |
| Location: | |
| Biography: | |
| Interests: | |
| Occupation: | |
| Number of Posts: | 25 |
| Registered on: | 1/3/2023 |
| Online Status: | Not Online |
Recent Posts
Message
quote:
quote:
r it did lack what the rules state is necessary to overturn a play.
How so?
To reverse an on-field ruling, the replay official must be convinced beyond all doubt by indisputable video evidence through one or more video replays provided to the monitor.
I was hung up on this early on.. But then I realized that is isn't overturning a call. It is just a re-spot. It doesn't have the same threshold to meet.
0
quote:
I think so. His Left hand being in bounds on the ground was key. If his hand was not where it was, the call is not changed IMO.
I agree...
re: The 4th down overturn for Bowers. Right call?
Posted by bgill0 on 1/4/23 at 6:13 am to GADAWG2017
Why do we keep bringing up false corollaries? The exception is for if a player is airborne or striding out of bounds. And, everyone seems to miss that I conceded that after thinking about the intent of the rule, the hand in bounds probably does negate the exception in this case. I still want to hear it from the NCAA, but I went from leaning that he was airborne to leaning that he isn't..
re: The 4th down overturn for Bowers. Right call?
Posted by bgill0 on 1/4/23 at 6:08 am to GADAWG2017
How many times do we need to explain this is an exception for an airborne player that goes out of bounds.
I didn't say the ball is dead. I said that is where his forward progress is stopped. He can still give up that forward progress.
re: The 4th down overturn for Bowers. Right call?
Posted by bgill0 on 1/4/23 at 6:03 am to Deacon Reds
Again, not the exception I am referencing.
That isn't the exception, because he isn't airborne going out of bounds.
Actually, the more I am thinking about it, I guess the reason is more simple than I was thinking. They use airborne meaning that they aren't in contact with ground, inbounds. I am still thrown by the fact they added the (including a runner in stride). But I now agree than the hand touching probably does negate the exception.
Watch the video.. There is a moment when he left both feet before his hand contacts the ground. These rules have left a large grey area here. I get the point about his hand being down, but this is also the rule for if he was striding out, in which case his back foot would be down in play. To be honest, I don't understand the reason of the word airborne other than to distinguish from sliding out, in which case the play is dead when the first body part is out, not the ball. Because what other scenarios are there? Maybe being pushed out?
That is the part that is debatable. He made an other than running move. I have said from the beginning that I don't know whether his hand being down is of any consequence or not. We went airborne on his way out of bounds, does push off the ground with his hand make him not airborne for the short amount of time that the ball crosses the plane?????? And if so, does that change the ruling? can you go airborne, not airborne and airborne again on the same leap? But at least now we are discussing the part that is the crux of call.
When he dove. He only put his hand down for an aid. Edit: Watched it again, it wasn't a dive or a leap, but it was: "etc., in other than normal running action" He left the ground with both feet.. not sure what you would call it.. But he definately went airborne.
I will add that I have been hung up on not enough to overturn a call. The more I think about it, it wasn't an overturned call, just a re-spot. That does make more sense. But should they have considered the weight of re-spot and analyzed it longer? I don't think there was any way to know from the angles where the ball actually went out, so they took the easy out and used single perspective with marker camera without really considering that there was more to, well, consider.. But the bar was much lower for them to do it than I was originally thinking.
I posted it above.. is 4-2-4-nd you have to remember, it isn't about the ball being dead, it is about establishing forward progress. It cuts both ways, when you get tackled backwards a yard before you go out of bounds, you don't lose that yard.
So I keep going back to the biggest factor is was he airborne. When I watched the play in real time, I forgot how airborne he actually was. His hand was only down for a short period of time to try to keep him airborne longer, as he successfully did. I know that their is no chance of us agreeing here. I just want to hear it debated by professionals, which I'm sure we won't.. They will do it behind closed doors and do clarifications next year, but never admit a mistake that bid an consequential. Like I said before both sides (airborne and not airborne) have a valid argument.
re: The 4th down overturn for Bowers. Right call?
Posted by bgill0 on 1/3/23 at 11:38 am to bigdawg7780
Well, if you have noticed, sometime in the last 10 years or so. Color commentators have quit questioning calls. I tried to watch the play again on my recording, but there was no commentary. The play itself, you can't tell for certain either way, which is why I think they can't overturn it.
re: The 4th down overturn for Bowers. Right call?
Posted by bgill0 on 1/3/23 at 11:28 am to SquatchDawg
That I agree with ;-)
But is it the spirit of airborne and of the rule? It is a very unique play and one that was certainly never anticipated. Also, he wasn't 'diving for the marker?' Is that determination one that they were able to make beyond all doubt (The threshold to overturn the call on the field). Or did they never consider the rule? I really would like the Refs to be held accountable to answering these questions and the decisions added to the decisions book.. This happens far to often with no accountability.
Your citing 4a which isn't pertinent. As I said, I only added that for context. 4d and specifically they Exception in 4d, is what applies here.
Remember that this rule is specific to determining forward progress for someone that is going out of bounds. The only argument that can be made is if he was airborne or not. Everything else is black and white. I can see both sides to airborne or not as well. The definition of airborne says not in contact with the ground but they also said this includes a striding runner. The intent seems to be that when someone is irreversibly going out of bounds, the forward progress stops when the ball crosses the sideline, not when they touch OB.
In my mind, it all comes down to the definition of airborne. I am pretty sure that if it was not for arguing against this rule, we would all agree he was airborne. So it comes down to is there a technical definition of when a player is airborne. Had it not been for the addition if saying a striding runner (presumably with their back foot still on the ground inbound) is included, then I would lean towards technically he wasn't airborne. But in this example, I don't see a difference between a hand and a foot with the rest of the body in the air out of bounds.
That rule is about determining forward progress, not when the play is dead. (Though they really are the same thing at that point) How am I quoting the wrong rule? What rule do you think is more pertinent?
Popular
15
