New replay debate: what constitutes "ground"

[18IsTheMan]

PSU battled back in their game against Oregon but was on the losing end of a replay call when the officials overturned this fumble by Oregon, ruling that the runner's knee was down.

Now, clearly, his knew is NOT on the ground. He knee DOES touch the top of the grass. Ultimately the officials determined that brushing the top of the grass was enough to be down. Seems too razor thin to me to overturn the call on the field.

 

[LonesomeRooster]

I think he was down.

 

[18IsTheMan]

Unrelated, but just getting caught up on action from other games. Earlier on that same drive by Oregon on a 3rd and long, the officials somehow missed this holding call. They would go on to score a TD. I mean, there are the typical holding non-calls that fans of every school complain about in every game against every opponent every season. In some sense, there's holding on every play. But this is about as egregious of a holding as you'll see. That OL is just hanging on for dear life lol

 

[18IsTheMan]

I think he was down.

To me, you gotta hit ground. His knee never actually stops moving, so you can tell it never contacted the ground.

This is the kind of play I would expect to see happen against us.

 

[Lurker123]

That is crazy, and I never really thought about it. Is the grass the ground?

My initial gut instinct is that no, the grass is not the ground.

 

[Gamecock Jacque]

That is crazy, and I never really thought about it. Is the grass the ground?

My initial gut instinct is that no, the grass is not the ground.

So grass is not part of the ground now? Is it now part of the sky? Where's the ground with artificial turf?

 

[18IsTheMan]

So grass is not part of the ground now?

Well, that's the big question. If grass was 5" high and you touched the top of a blade of grass, would you say you were touching the ground? Deep thoughts.

I believe the NCAA rule book states that being down is when part of the runner's body other than hand or foot touches the ground. They could make it more non-specific and say when any part of the body other than hand or foot touches the playing surface.

 

[Uscg1984]

So grass is not part of the ground now? Is it now part of the sky? Where's the ground with artificial turf?

Yeah, if the rule becomes that you have to touch _dirt_, that's going to be problematic. I think it's accurate to say the Oregon player's knee barely touched the ground, but it still touched. Asking officials to make determinations about the length of the grass becomes too subjective.

 

[Lurker123]

So grass is not part of the ground now? Is it now part of the sky? Where's the ground with artificial turf?

Good questions. I think of it like someone said, with an extreme example.

If the grass was 5" high, you could be "down" just by running through it with your lower leg.

Silly example, but it makes you ask of brushing the top of the grass is really the limit.

I just think the hard ground, be it dirt or rubber, should be the "ground".

But I get that it can be argued.

 

[18IsTheMan]

Yeah, if the rule becomes that you have to touch _dirt_, that's going to be problematic. I think it's accurate to say the Oregon player's knee barely touched the ground, but it still touched. Asking officials to make determinations about the length of the grass becomes too subjective.

Here's the thing, and why I hate replay so much. Live speed and even on regular slow motion, your eyes tell you he wasn't down and it was a fumble (also, the Oregon player thought he fumbled the ball, which tells you he didn't think his knee touched). It's only when you replay it in the slowest of slow motions AND zoom in super close that you maybe come away with the conclusion that possibly his knee touched. To me, that is not the proper application of replay.

Kind of like with Harbor's non-catch against VaTech. Live speed, you say it was a catch. Even regular slow motion. But they take these plays and replay them in the absolute slowest possible slow motion and zoom in.

 

[Gamecock Jacque]

Good questions. I think of it like someone said, with an extreme example.

If the grass was 5" high, you could be "down" just by running through it with your lower leg.l

Silly example, but it makes you ask of brushing the top of the grass is really the limit.

I just think the hard ground, be it dirt or rubber, should be the "ground".

But I get that it can be argued.

A football field doesn't have 5" grass so yeah, a silly example.

 

[Uscg1984]

Here's the thing, and why I hate replay so much. Live speed and even on regular slow motion, your eyes tell you he wasn't down and it was a fumble (also, the Oregon player thought he fumbled the ball, which tells you he didn't think his knee touched). It's only when you replay it in the slowest of slow motions AND zoom in super close that you maybe come away with the conclusion that possibly his knee touched. To me, that is not the proper application of replay.

No argument from me about replay. I think it's way over used and the standard for overturning the call on the field doesn't seem like much of a standard to me. But for the grass vs ground discussion, I think "ground" has to be considered synonymous with "playing surface."

 

[Lurker123]

A football field doesn't have 5" grass so yeah, a silly example.

It does not. Although I do remember a game with ND and Southern Cal when Bush was at southern cal. They complained that the grass was left to grow so high as to slow players down, hurting the speed advantage that southern cal had.

 

[18IsTheMan]

No argument from me about replay. I think it's way over used and the standard for overturning the call on the field doesn't seem like much of a standard to me. But for the grass vs ground discussion, I think "ground" has to be considered synonymous with "playing surface."

Agree. I think when they first started using replay they were much more strict about the criterion that there had to be irrefutable video evidence to overturn the call on the field (or however it's worded) and more cautious to overturn calls. But I've seen plenty of replays in recent years where the replay itself was just as close and they still overturned the call.

 

[SILVERSPUR-rier]

A football field doesn't have 5" grass so yeah, a silly example.

Unless of course you are Notre Dame and are trying to slow down a really speedy running back... (Tony Dorsett in 1976 and Reggie Bush 2005 at least)... They also suppoesedly wet the grass pre-game...

 

[Gamecock Jacque]

Unless of course you are Notre Dame and are trying to slow down a really speedy running back... (Tony Dorsett in 1976 and Reggie Bush 2005 at least)... They also suppoesedly wet the grass pre-game...

Bet it wasn't 5 inches.

 

[SILVERSPUR-rier]

Bet it wasn't 5 inches.

You are right. It was six inches...

Per "google":

In the 1976 season-opener, Notre Dame let its grass grow to approximately six inches high, a tactic nicknamed the "Dorsett cut," to hinder Pittsburgh Panthers running back Tony Dorsett. The strategy was unsuccessful, as Dorsett ran for 61 yards on his first carry and eventually gained nearly 200 yards in Pitt's 31-10 victory. The taller grass did not slow down Dorsett, who went on to win the Heisman Trophy that year and led Pitt to a national title

 

[Gamecock Jacque]

You are right. It was six inches...

Per "google":

In the 1976 season-opener, Notre Dame let its grass grow to approximately six inches high, a tactic nicknamed the "Dorsett cut," to hinder Pittsburgh Panthers running back Tony Dorsett. The strategy was unsuccessful, as Dorsett ran for 61 yards on his first carry and eventually gained nearly 200 yards in Pitt's 31-10 victory. The taller grass did not slow down Dorsett, who went on to win the Heisman Trophy that year and led Pitt to a national title

I don't even let my lawn get that high. That's tall grass. Thanks for the clarification.

 

[PrestonyteParrot]

The holding is clear as a bell and should have been an easy call.
I think a thin crust pizza would have fit between the knee and the ground.

 

[Lurker123]

Bet it wasn't 5 inches.

I was so going to take that in a different direction before the clarification.

 

[18IsTheMan]

Interesting take from an Oregon Ducks site:

"Penn State head coach James Franklin, after reviewing the play postgame, said he didn't think there was enough on the replay to overturn the call on the field. It's not hard to see why he disagreed, as the replay — as shown on TV — had to be zoomed in. Even still, Whittington's knee barely grazed the grass — if it did at all."

Even the Ducks folks acknowledge they got away with one.

Instant replay should not be able zoom in. If you have to zoom in to make the call, there's not enough evidence to overturn the call.

 

[SouthernBelly]

Shouldn’t a ball carrier have to touch all of the ground if the grass is the ground. Its convoluted. Because if it’s grass and not turf the blades may not be of equal height. What if they’re cutting it at one inch but a scraggler made it through and one of the blades is 1 3/16ths? Or there’s a contour or dip of some kind, and some of the grass got cut lower than an inch? Or maybe there’s a contour but all the lawn mower wheels stayed level so it appears all the grass is equal height but some is an inch and some is longer than an inch but because of where it sits it all looks to be an inch. My point is this is the fault of the officials from last year’s LSU game.

 

[Gradstudent]

No argument from me about replay. I think it's way over used and the standard for overturning the call on the field doesn't seem like much of a standard to me. But for the grass vs ground discussion, I think "ground" has to be considered synonymous with "playing surface."

Grass is the playing surface so grass is the ground, so he would be down, that would be my thought.

 

[Gradstudent]

So grass is not part of the ground now? Is it now part of the sky? Where's the ground with artificial turf?

And if you don't consider the grass the playing surface or ground, so then what is the ground? The Dirt?

How do you even know that the player hit the actual dirt and not the grass?

Maybe I'm missing some logic in my thoughts? I dont really get the debate

 

[Gamecock Jacque]

And if you don't consider the grass the playing surface or ground, so then what is the ground? The Dirt?

How do you even know that the player hit the actual dirt and not the grass?

Maybe I'm missing some logic in my thoughts? I dont really get the debate

I'm with you. Seems pretty straightforward.

 

[Uscg1984]

Shouldn’t a ball carrier have to touch all of the ground if the grass is the ground. Its convoluted. Because if it’s grass and not turf the blades may not be of equal height. What if they’re cutting it at one inch but a scraggler made it through and one of the blades is 1 3/16ths? Or there’s a contour or dip of some kind, and some of the grass got cut lower than an inch? Or maybe there’s a contour but all the lawn mower wheels stayed level so it appears all the grass is equal height but some is an inch and some is longer than an inch but because of where it sits it all looks to be an inch. My point is this is the fault of the officials from last year’s LSU game.

What if the groundskeeper has a mower like mine that has hit a rock or fifty since the last blade change and the blades are all wonky and bent all over the place? Part of the cut gets scalped and the other part looks like a porcupine's back. Agreed, the blame lies with the LSU officials.

 

[Joelft2001]

It all depends on whether you’re pitching or catching

 

[USCEE82]

Good questions. I think of it like someone said, with an extreme example.

If the grass was 5" high, you could be "down" just by running through it with your lower leg.

Silly example, but it makes you ask of brushing the top of the grass is really the limit.

I just think the hard ground, be it dirt or rubber, should be the "ground".

But I get that it can be argued.

Lurker, this post's format is the same as the poster that I recently blocked. Sentence, blank line, sentence, blank line, etc. Hmmm...

 

[USCEE82]

Nm

 

[18IsTheMan]

And if you don't consider the grass the playing surface or ground, so then what is the ground? The Dirt?

How do you even know that the player hit the actual dirt and not the grass?

Maybe I'm missing some logic in my thoughts? I dont really get the debate

I think the Oregon site above hit the nail on the head. Even the Oregon folks think they go away with one here. If you have to zoom in to see if the knee even maybe touched grass, he wasn't down.

IMO, the grounds stops/slows your momentum. When a limb hits the ground, it stops. His knee never stops moving.

 

[SouthernBelly]

College needs to adopt the down by contact rule like the NFL.