It's the College Football thread!

[JohnT]

Wait...

Kaak, your guys won. Why are you sounding as if you got robbed of a game?

[Kaak]

John: I realize they won, but that doesn't change the fact that the officiating was horrible. Imram, i'm sorry if you don't like it, but that's the rule And don't think I'm trying to take anything away from bush. He is a phenomenal player, and arguably one of the best college rbs to ever play the game. Any year when Vince Young wasn't to be considered, he'd be a shoe-in. This year, Vince Young just brought more to the table. He was (not single handedly, but nearly) responsible for for an offense that averaged over 50 points a game. Bush was just one of many huge offensive weapons for USC.

[Kaak]

by the way, young's rushing total on the year was over a thousand at 1050.

[Imran Siddiqui]

[q=Kaak]Imram, i'm sorry if you don't like it, but that's the rule[/q]

Bull****. Another officiating crew would have probably ruled that a pass and fumble. He had posession, he had 1 foot in bounds... it's a caught pass. The 'football move' is a tool used to determine posession. It's not an end in itself.

If he did the same thing in the end zone, as soon as he got posession, it would have been ruled a TD. I've seen that same exact play in the end zone ruled a TD, because he had posession with a foot in bounds. You can't change the rule because you are somewhere else on the field.

And sorry, but I think Bush's play this year earned him the Heisman trophy. Young was a close second, but wasn't as phenomenal as Bush was. Not to mention he put up those numbers as part of a platoon.

[Kaak]

The end zone is a special circumstance. of course it is different in the endzone. It may or may not have been ruled a catch in the end zone, but the "must make a football move" thing is pretty common knowledge. Have you ever played organized football?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Kaak
The end zone is a special circumstance. of course it is different in the endzone. It may or may not have been ruled a catch in the end zone, but the "must make a football move" thing is pretty common knowledge. Have you ever played organized football?

The end zone is a special circumstance.



The end zone is no different than the rest of the field aside from the fact that the play stops when posession is established beyond the goal line. "Must make a football move" is not required if the player clearly had possession of the ball. I mean that is crystal clear. Like I said, if the player stood for 10 minutes without moving, before the ball was knocked out, would that be an incomplete pass because of a lack of a "football move".

When a reciever catches a ball on his knees, what is the football move there?

[Kaak]

http://www.discussanything.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-3940.html

This is talking about a quarterback, but makes note of the rule for receivers:

what do you think about the instant replay call at the end of the game?

I am still a proponent of instant replay because it allows ofr some obvious mistakes to be corrected. i think the ruling on sunday wasn't instant replay's fault, but the rule itself. people shouldn't be complaining about the replay system or the refs.

at first i thought the whole thing was a travesty, and a good reason to junk instant replay. come to find out that the rule states, the quarterback, after bringing the ball down, must make "a football move" before it can be considered a fumble. This is like the reception/posession/fumble rule that governs wide receivers.

Did you watch the replay in realtime? he had the ball only for a fraction of a second. He did not make a football move. It was an incomplete pass. Very simple. Of course the endzone is a special circumstance. There is no need to make a "football move" because you are already in the end zone, which would stop play. I realize the logic here is difficult to grasp, but you'll get it.

[Kaak]

When he is on his knees, like in the end zone, play is stopped immediately.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Answer my original question. If the guy caught the ball and stood still for 10 minutes, at which point it was knocked out, would you rule it an incomplete forward pass because of a lack of a 'football move'?

There is no need to make a "football move" because you are already in the end zone, which would stop play.

Why? Wouldn't the play stop only once you've demonstated possession? And isn't the "football move" designed to demonstrate possession? I mean if the rule is that it is an incomplete forward pass if you don't make a "football move" before the ball is stripped, what difference does it make in the end zone? By that logic, if the ball is stripped before a "football move" is made, that indicates there was no possession and thus an incomplete forward pass. After all, isn't the point of a "football move" to decide if the reciever had possession of the ball?

When he is on his knees, like in the end zone, play is stopped immediately.

But not, say, in the NFL.


As you linked a forum post, so will I (but for NFL) .

http://www.officialforum.com/thread/16294

"football-related move" is a guideline, not a rule. There's no mention of this requirement to make a football move in the rulebook. All that there is in the rulebook is the requirement that the player have possession of the ball. "Football-related move" is an aid to help determine whether he had possession in plays where the player is hit or disrupted at or near the time the ball comes to the receiver.

If a receiver makes a catch, and for some reason remains motionless for a couple of seconds, and is then hit, it is a fumble, even though there was no "football-related move".

[Kaak]

well, as in your post, he was hit at or near (a fraction of a secong is near) the time the ball came to him. Thanks

[Imran Siddiqui]

But established posession before hand. They didn't need a 'football move' to aid in deciding that, because the replay showed his posession before the hit.

I mean, you should really read before you post. You would have noticed where the post said it was an 'aid to help determine whether he had posession', not a be all and end all as you seem to think it is.

Oh, and if it was a 'fraction of a second', he wouldn't have been able to get the ball from his helmet area down to his stomach before he was hit. There was a full second from his posession of the ball to the hit. That is why there is controversy about that call... there was possession before the hit.

[Kaak]

i've seen and played enough football to know that's the way it's called, i didn't need to read it in a forum. I'm telling you, that would be ruled an incomplete pass 99 times out of 100.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Kaak
i've seen and played enough football to know that's the way it's called, i didn't need to read it in a forum. I'm telling you, that would be ruled an incomplete pass 99 times out of 100.

No it wouldn't. In fact, I'd say a majority of the time, on instant replay, that would be ruled possession with a fumble. Hell, I understand the original call. The ref was behind the play, so he couldn't see the possession, but on replay they should have caught it.

And I'm sure that Keith Jackson and Dan Fouts have seen and played far more football than you . Oh... I forgot, they are biased (and what are you?) because they don't worship at the alter of Texas football .

[Solomwi]

Donegeal, if it makes you feel better, that Alabama team we were so clearly head and shoulders above a month ago finished at 8th, so I agree with you for now.

[Kaak]

I'm not a Longhorns fan, if that's what your asking i've been rooting against them all year because everyone in austin jumps on the Longhorn bandwagon. The ref couldn't have missed it on the replay. There is no way he would have looked at that and blown the call, as it was an unblocked frontal shot, and he knows that his superiors will review it. He called it according to conventions. End of story.