Can you catch a ball between your legs? If so - and after watching the replay - the ball was securely between his legs and even though the nose touched the ground - it didn't move. Thoughts?
Bumphis/Favre play...
- Thread starter dawgstudent
- Start date
When the nose touched the ground, it looked like it was pushed up further between his legs. I can't believe we got that call and the Chris Smith catch. I think USC got hosed by the refs on Smith's catch.
the ruling of incomplete pass was a huge shock. We all thought it would either be a complete pass or an interception.
To me it had to be a catch or incomplete, he had it locked with his knees on the ground. I have no problem with the call but I couldn't understand Ware being so adamant about it being an interception....other than the fact he had the cocks in his mouth all day.
Here is the Link.
It was definitely an interesting play, I just think in order for it to be an interception that he would have to have possession when the ball hit the ground. And if he had possession, then he was down and therefore no interception. I think the replay pretty clearly showed the ball hit the ground, but I could not tell if it bobbled as far as I could see.
It was definitely an interesting play, I just think in order for it to be an interception that he would have to have possession when the ball hit the ground. And if he had possession, then he was down and therefore no interception. I think the replay pretty clearly showed the ball hit the ground, but I could not tell if it bobbled as far as I could see.
For anyone who was watching at home...
On South Carolina's final drive (I think), there was a pass to a receiver along our sideline that the line judge (or side judge) pretty adamently called incomplete. The head ref announced that the play was being review and that the review was initiated by the replay booth. And then afterwards, it was ruled as a catch. Gave SC the ball at about the 19-yard line.
Anyway, was it a good call, bad call? Just curious.
On South Carolina's final drive (I think), there was a pass to a receiver along our sideline that the line judge (or side judge) pretty adamently called incomplete. The head ref announced that the play was being review and that the review was initiated by the replay booth. And then afterwards, it was ruled as a catch. Gave SC the ball at about the 19-yard line.
Anyway, was it a good call, bad call? Just curious.
The first foot was down in bounds but the WR seemed to really be trying to get the second foot down. When he failed, the ref called it incomplete. Replay showed it was clearly complete.
The out of bounds foot came down pretty quickly, but I'm not sure why the ref missed the first foot.
Along those lines, Gary Danielson said during the LSU game, it would be nice if the on field officials could speak to the replay official. That play would be a good example (although I think it was clearly complete). Let that official tell the official what he saw....maybe he thought the guy bobbled the ball, or maybe he thought the right foot never touched the ground in the field of play. Then the replay official can look at it and say "Nope, he never bobbled it," and its much easier for him to reverse the call.
Along those lines, Gary Danielson said during the LSU game, it would be nice if the on field officials could speak to the replay official. That play would be a good example (although I think it was clearly complete). Let that official tell the official what he saw....maybe he thought the guy bobbled the ball, or maybe he thought the right foot never touched the ground in the field of play. Then the replay official can look at it and say "Nope, he never bobbled it," and its much easier for him to reverse the call.
I still don't think the play call was terrible and I'd be curious to see the overhead camera view to see if the DB's bought the run fake and if the WR's would have been open if Favre hadn't dropped the pitch.
Once he dropped that pitch he should have run or just hurled it out of bounds unless somehow the WR was so open it didn't matter.
Once he dropped that pitch he should have run or just hurled it out of bounds unless somehow the WR was so open it didn't matter.
That's why I advocate having on field replay the way the NFL does it, not this booth review business. The NFL typically does things right, and they have replay right. I even like the reviewing of all scoring plays they've started this year in the booth, followed by an on field review.
I just don't like a guy in a box making the official call for the on field ref. Sure let a guy in the booth handle the buzzing down to let the ref know to review a play, but then let that guy go to a booth and make the call.
The other thing I think it would fix are these instances when the official makes a call because he thinks he knows what happened. The Bumphis play was a good example. The ruling on the field was an interception. To overturn that, the rule says you have to have indisputable video evidence to overturn the call. It then becomes like a court of law. If you can't convict with 100% confidence, and you can't give a screen shot that shows the exact reason why, the call stands as called on the field. The replay officials only have the same angles they show on the television broadcast. On the Bumphis play, there was no angle that showed definitively that the nose of the ball touched the ground. It appeared from one angle that the ball likely touched the ground as Bumphis went to the ground, but at no point, that I could see, did the video show conclusive evidence that the ball hit the ground.
The announcers were even saying that the play would stand as called. All you could tell from the video is that Bumphis never had full control, and you couldn't see an angle where the ball touched green grass, but the replay officials interpreted what they thought happened. That, to me, wouldn't happen nearly as much with an on field official.
I just don't like a guy in a box making the official call for the on field ref. Sure let a guy in the booth handle the buzzing down to let the ref know to review a play, but then let that guy go to a booth and make the call.
The other thing I think it would fix are these instances when the official makes a call because he thinks he knows what happened. The Bumphis play was a good example. The ruling on the field was an interception. To overturn that, the rule says you have to have indisputable video evidence to overturn the call. It then becomes like a court of law. If you can't convict with 100% confidence, and you can't give a screen shot that shows the exact reason why, the call stands as called on the field. The replay officials only have the same angles they show on the television broadcast. On the Bumphis play, there was no angle that showed definitively that the nose of the ball touched the ground. It appeared from one angle that the ball likely touched the ground as Bumphis went to the ground, but at no point, that I could see, did the video show conclusive evidence that the ball hit the ground.
The announcers were even saying that the play would stand as called. All you could tell from the video is that Bumphis never had full control, and you couldn't see an angle where the ball touched green grass, but the replay officials interpreted what they thought happened. That, to me, wouldn't happen nearly as much with an on field official.
As others have said, and despite what the announcers were saying, the only 2 options on that play appeared to be a complete pass or an incomplete pass. I don't see any way that it could stand as aninterceptions ascalled. If the ball hit the ground, it was incomplete. If the ball did not hit the ground, Bumphis maintained control with his legs and was down (i.e., play is over) before the SC player grabbed the ball from him. I could argue either way based on the replay, but the announcers claiming it should have stood as an interception made no sense to me at the time.
to put Relf in and try to power it in the end zone in 3 plays. We were playing the top rated pass defense in the nation after all. Instead we go with passes on 1st and 3rd down and try a run once. If we were going to pass however I wish we would have tried something faster developing like either a quick slant or a stop route just past the goal line. Throws to the back of the end zone didn't seem to have much chance. The 3rd down had no chance while the 1st down play to Bumphis would have worked with a perfectly thrown ball.
They are only a slight stepup from the SportsSouth guys. I think you were just wishingthat it would be an interception and that affected what you thought you saw.RebelBruiser said:
I sawa white stripe touching ground level which meant that even though the nose was obscured by shadow, the ball touched the ground.