All 3 ABC Studio announcers say ball was OOB

[PSUFBFAN]

How incompetent was the replay official? Remember our muffed punt that IU recovered after their player was out of bounds? That review should have taken 5 seconds, not one but two Hoosiers were out of bounds in the scramble for the ball. But, the replay official looked at it for 5 minutes to get it figured out.

How incompetent was the replay official?

Is this a trick question? If not, the answer is "he is as incompetent as the one at Nebraska back in 2012".

Did this call cost Penn State a chance of beating Nebraska?

Did a tough call cost Penn State a chance at beating Nebraska in Lincoln?

www.usatoday.com

 

[Courtsensetwo]

I would hope the B10 issues a statement that they got it wrong. It was as clear as day. The pylon moved only after the ball hit the chalk.

No replay indicates what you say here.

it was inconclusive at best so by rule the call stands. had the COTF been OOB that too should have stood.

I too was sure the call would be reversed...not because there was evidence to do so but because that is the long tired history of IU FB, IU has lost innumerable controversial replay calls of consequence so I will take this controversial one all day long.

PS will be fine and will get better all year. They are not a playoff team but will earn that top ten rating by the end of the season. Go beat A - H - I - A.

 

[PSU2UNC]

How incompetent was the replay official? Remember our muffed punt that IU recovered after their player was out of bounds? That review should have taken 5 seconds, not one but two Hoosiers were out of bounds in the scramble for the ball. But, the replay official looked at it for 5 minutes to get it figured out.

The funny thing about that call is that what they ended up calling didn't have anything directly to do with the fumble. They got it right but they shouldn't have taken that long.

 

[PSU2UNC]

No replay indicates what you say here.

it was inconclusive at best so by rule the call stands. had the COTF been OOB that too should have stood.

I too was sure the call would be reversed...not because there was evidence to do so but because that is the long tired history of IU FB, IU has lost innumerable controversial replay calls of consequence so I will take this controversial one all day long.

PS will be fine and will get better all year. They are not a playoff team but will earn that top ten rating by the end of the season. Go beat A - H - I - A.

The replay clearly shows (from multiple angles) that he was short. It was close but short.

 

[Courtsensetwo]

The replay clearly shows (from multiple angles) that he was short. It was close but short.

Lol...they don't show anything that is material to the call "clearly"

Sigh...gotta love fanboy

 

[PSU2UNC]

Sigh...gotta love fanboy

No optometrists in Indiana? Suggest you get your eyes checked.

 

[rmem]

Lol...they don't show anything that is material to the call "clearly"

Sigh...gotta love fanboy

Gotta love homer fanboy. Enjoy your gift, and stay off this board unless you're a moron. I've formed my opinion on that already.

 

[Courtsensetwo]

No optometrists in Indiana? Suggest you get your eyes checked.

One of the better Optometry schools on the planet.

Frankly, I expected fans of a long-successful program like PS to have a better grasp of the rules.

Good luck vs A - H - I - A you are fortunate to have Brooks in that first half.

 

[Courtsensetwo]

Gotta love homer fanboy. Enjoy your gift, and stay off this board unless you're a moron. I've formed my opinion on that already.

Hmm so only "morons" are allowed? Odd

Good luck the rest of the season

 

[PSU2UNC]

One of the better Optometry schools on the planet.

Frankly, I expected fans of a long-successful program like PS to have a better grasp of the rules.

Good luck vs A - H - I - A you are fortunate to have Brooks in that first half.

I know the rules -- you either do not or cannot see.

Bragging about optometry school is fine. Optometrists are in the same category as dentists.

WTF are you talking about re: Brooks?

At least I don't live in Indiana.

 

[bvillebaron]

Have you seen this shot?

View embedded media

That shot doesn’t show the ball hitting the ground OOB and then bouncing forward a few inches to hit the pylon. There are several camera angles which clearly show this.

 

[bvillebaron]

No replay indicates what you say here.

it was inconclusive at best so by rule the call stands. had the COTF been OOB that too should have stood.

I too was sure the call would be reversed...not because there was evidence to do so but because that is the long tired history of IU FB, IU has lost innumerable controversial replay calls of consequence so I will take this controversial one all day long.

PS will be fine and will get better all year. They are not a playoff team but will earn that top ten rating by the end of the season. Go beat A - H - I - A.

It wasn’t inconclusive to anyone who saw the replay from the side.

 

[bvillebaron]

One of the better Optometry schools on the planet.

Frankly, I expected fans of a long-successful program like PS to have a better grasp of the rules.

Good luck vs A - H - I - A you are fortunate to have Brooks in that first half.

Well since you have decided to act like a jack you know what, here’s hoping OSU hangs 60 on Indians. Apparently the commentators on TV, most of whom are former players, don’t understand the rules like you do.

 

[rmem]

Hmm so only "morons" are allowed? Odd

Good luck the rest of the season

No, moron. Only a moron would stay here posting. So now you have proven you are, and ironically you didn't get it. Because you're a moron.

 

[Courtsensetwo]

I know the rules -- you either do not or cannot see.

Bragging about optometry school is fine. Optometrists are in the same category as dentists.

WTF are you talking about re: Brooks?

At least I don't live in Indiana.

Ellis brooks

Two wicked targets vs IU in back to back games. Concussed Whop Phylor last year helmet to helmet and then again last night on an ugly launch vs Scott.

I can see that you are getting frustrated with the insults you are resorting to, so I will leave you alone. I have lived in PA...no better or worse than IN but i understand your need to lash out.

 

[Chris92]

That shot doesn’t show the ball hitting the ground OOB and then bouncing forward a few inches to hit the pylon. There are several camera angles which clearly show this.

I agree, he was clearly OOB and the ball bounced before hitting the pylon/breaking the plane.

 

[Courtsensetwo]

No, moron. Only a moron would stay here posting. So now you have proven you are, and ironically you didn't get it. Because you're a moron.

I simply responded to what you posted.
So your written composition needs work. I get it.

 

[PSU2UNC]

Ellis brooks

Two wicked targets vs IU in back to back games. Concussed Whop Phylor last year helmet to helmet and then again last night on an ugly launch vs Scott.

I can see that you are getting frustrated with the insults, so I will leave you alone. I have lived in PA...no better or worse than IN but i understand your need to lash out.

Keep demonstrating that you don't know the rules. Neither of those were targeting.

And I don't live in PA.

 

[Courtsensetwo]

Well since you have decided to act like a jack you know what, here’s hoping OSU hangs 60 on Indians. Apparently the commentators on TV, most of whom are former players, don’t understand the rules like you do.

I have been respectful and complimentary of your team unlike most fans from other schools. Simply stated my case. But I do understand your frustration with losing to the likes of IU in FB.

No problem, I will move on to next week

Good luck the rest of the season

 

[Harrisburg Dave]

Would haves, could haves, should haves, are for losers.

Man up, admit your failures, and never apologize, it’s a sign of weakness.

 

[BoulderFish]

And was a bad call. “We are always told when ball crosses sideline it is out of bounds. Ball was clearly out of bounds”. Halftime of SCum vs MN

I have no idea why they were saying that, because the plane of the sideline is irrelevant. They were still correct that the call was wrong, but had nothing to do with the plane of the sideline.

The facts are, it was very clear from replay that the ball TOUCHED the turf OOB (because you can see the movement of the ball caused by impact with the ground), then moved forward some distance (not much, but probably a couple of inches), then impacted the FRONT side of the pylon with what is likely the most forward part of the ball.

And I will concede that there is a slim possibility that the point of the ball that impacted the front of the pylon might not be the most forward point, BUT it's clear that the the distance the ball traveled between touching the ground OOB and touching the pylon was MUCH more than any reasonable estimate of the distance between the front of the pylon (plane of the end zone) and the furthest forward point of the ball at when the ball hit the pylon.

In other words, there is no physical way the ball could have broke the plane of the goal line prior to touching OOB.

 

[rmem]

I have been respectful and complimentary of your team unlike most fans from other schools. Simply stated my case. But I do understand your frustration with losing to the likes of IU in FB.

No problem, I will move on to next week

Good luck the rest of the season

You keep saying you are moving on but you keep posting here. Leave, moron. BTW, look at the box score for the game and then try to say you really "won" the game. You got a gift, including that lovely phantom "facemask" penalty. Go away.

 

[BoulderFish]

Approved Ruling 8-2-1
I. The ball, in possession of airborne ball carrier A21, crosses the sideline above the one-yard line, continues beyond the pylon and is then declared dead out of bounds in possession of A21. RULING: Ball is declared out of bounds at the one-yard line (Rules 2-12-1 and 4-2-4-d).

Rule 4-2-4-d:
d. The most forward point of the ball when declared out of bounds between the goal lines is the point of forward progress (A.R. 8-2-1-I and A.R. 8-5- 1-VII) (Exception: When a ball carrier is airborne as he crosses the sideline (including a striding runner), forward progress is determined by the position of the ball as it crosses the sideline (A.R. 8-2-1-II-III and V-IX).

Yeah, as much as I want that to apply here, it doesn't.

Regardless, refs still got the call wrong.

 

[DandyDonII]

I have not seen a "proof beyond all possible doubt " video proof that he was short. However, every view I have seen leads me to believe it was short. I have not see one view where I thought he got it.
While I understand why you usually want incontrovertible video proof to overturn a call, it has always seemed weird to have that standard on bang/bang type plays where the ref was clearly guessing. To have to view all of the player's body, where the ball was and where the goal line was in a bang bang play like that is more than anyone's eyes can handle.

All of that being said, we need to get our downfield passing game in order, otherwise we are toast.

 

[NittanyTerp]

Because they are not spending that much time reviewing such play. What happened was obvious with quick review other than the possibility that ball bounced up and hit #47 in facemask as he might still have been OOB. The replay refs were likely looking up the relevant rules that they were not sure of. Even the broadcast expert referee forgot the "muffed punt" exception to the general rule that you can go out and reestablish on-filed position and eligibility to participate in a play (sometimes requiring someone else to touch the ball first, I believe).

 

[Harrisburg Dave]

You keep saying you are moving on but you keep posting here. Leave, moron. BTW, look at the box score for the game and then try to say you really "won" the game. You got a gift, including that lovely phantom "facemask" penalty. Go away.

Stop it. You are acting like a little b****. Stop embarrassing all of us.

 

[BoulderFish]

Yeah, IF there were any question as to whether or not any part of the ball broke the plane before impacting the front of the pylon, this picture erases that question. Besides the fact that it simply looks clear that no part of the ball on the in bounds side of the pylon (the part we couldn't see from the other pictures) is breaking the plane, the pylon is being pushed either directly forward, or maybe even a bit towards the field (hard to tell that for sure with the angle), which would be additional proof that the most forward part of the ball could not be in bounds.

 

[BoulderFish]

The entire pylon is in the end zone by rule so if the ball touched the pylon before going OOB (and I don't think it did) then he scored. Still not clear from the replay if the nose of the ball ever broke the plane of the goal line before going OOB. In any case there was only 1:47 left when we got the ball back so we should have taken a knee 3 times and the game would have been over since Indiana only had 1 timeout remaining. Very bad decision by Franklin not to do that.

I used to think the pylon was in the end zone by rule too, but based on what I'm learning (and seeing with my own eyes) from this play, it appears we were/are wrong about that.

I think where that idea comes from is because in 99.9999999% of instances where a ball is controlled by a player that is still established in bounds, and the ball touches the pylon, the ball broke the plane and it's a touchdown. The odds are so overwhelming, from the perspective of the ball and the end zone, we consider the pylon as a part of the end zone. But in reality, it is not.

 

[NittanyTerp]

Approved Ruling 8-2-1
I. The ball, in possession of airborne ball carrier A21, crosses the sideline above the one-yard line, continues beyond the pylon and is then declared dead out of bounds in possession of A21. RULING: Ball is declared out of bounds at the one-yard line (Rules 2-12-1 and 4-2-4-d).

Rule 4-2-4-d:
d. The most forward point of the ball when declared out of bounds between the goal lines is the point of forward progress (A.R. 8-2-1-I and A.R. 8-5- 1-VII) (Exception: When a ball carrier is airborne as he crosses the sideline (including a striding runner), forward progress is determined by the position of the ball as it crosses the sideline (A.R. 8-2-1-II-III and V-IX).

So, if I am reading these rules together correctly, would we all agree that within the known laws of physics, UNLESS the ball carried pushed any portion of the ball across the goal line AND THEN RETRACTED the ball to push it in to the upfield front face of the pylon (for which there is no evidence, there is NO WAY the the ball in the possession of this airborne carried COLD NOT have crossed the plane of the OOB sideline BEFORE carrier pushed the middle of the ball being pushed in to the upfield face of pylon? Therefore, ignoring the reality that much of the ball touched down before the pylon, prior to even getting to that point, the ball would NECESSARILY have had to cross the OOB plane and been declared end of forward progress at that point 6" to a foot upfield from the pylon?

 

[mydome88]

How incompetent was the replay official? Remember our muffed punt that IU recovered after their player was out of bounds? That review should have taken 5 seconds, not one but two Hoosiers were out of bounds in the scramble for the ball. But, the replay official looked at it for 5 minutes to get it figured out.

They were trying to find something in the rule book that would allow them to rule it Indiana’s ball. Part tongue in cheek. But how our top ten program fails to get the benefit of the doubt more often is definitely hard to believe when you look at OSU and UM. I mean the face mask was a horrible and huge call. I seem to remember a Bosa ripping off Hack’s head and not getting a call. The offensive pass interference was a horrible and huge call. They also didn’t rule a fumble on the field at the end of the first half and thankfully there was a clear shot of that. As far as football goes I really despise this conference.

 

[nits74]

I would hope the B10 issues a statement that they got it wrong. It was as clear as day. The pylon moved only after the ball hit the chalk.

Good luck with that. Of course, don't think the Big Ten is the only party in denial. Our own announcer, Big Ten house boy Steve Jones said they got it right during the broadcast. Does that guy ever take a stand on anything even remotely controversial?

 

[MANASSASPSU]

One more.

Is his forearm/ hand wrist touching the ground if so he is out of bounds.
no 2 pt conversion

 

[KnightWhoSaysNit]

I'd like to see a sharp still frame shot that shows the ball hitting the sideline while there is still a gap between the ball and the pylon. Haven't seen one. I've seen the ball touching both, wherein we are left to assume that the tip of the ball did not touch the goal line plane, but not the definitive photo that we need.

The shutter speed wasn't fast enough, nor sharp enough to show spacing between the ball and ground/pylon.

Only an overhead shot synced with a ground shot can provide proof. Again, I'd say it is close to 100% that he did not make it -- probably enough for any reasonable person to overrule -- but not 100%, if that's really what it takes to overturn.

 

[pennstatefan111]

The pylon only moves after the tip of the ball bounces off of the white OOB area and if the pylon represents the plane, then no reasonable person can determine that it ever broke the plane. Its another shafting by the B1G.

Add this one to the multitude of apologies we're owed from the B1G, but will never see from them. Its officiating incompetence is astounding, but not surprising.

 

[BoulderFish]

Approved Ruling 8-2-1
I. The ball, in possession of airborne ball carrier A21, crosses the sideline above the one-yard line, continues beyond the pylon and is then declared dead out of bounds in possession of A21. RULING: Ball is declared out of bounds at the one-yard line (Rules 2-12-1 and 4-2-4-d).

Rule 4-2-4-d:
d. The most forward point of the ball when declared out of bounds between the goal lines is the point of forward progress (A.R. 8-2-1-I and A.R. 8-5- 1-VII) (Exception: When a ball carrier is airborne as he crosses the sideline (including a striding runner), forward progress is determined by the position of the ball as it crosses the sideline (A.R. 8-2-1-II-III and V-IX).

So, if I am reading these rules together correctly, would we all agree that within the known laws of physics, UNLESS the ball carried pushed any portion of the ball across the goal line AND THEN RETRACTED the ball to push it in to the upfield front face of the pylon (for which there is no evidence, there is NO WAY the the ball in the possession of this airborne carried COLD NOT have crossed the plane of the OOB sideline BEFORE carrier pushed the middle of the ball being pushed in to the upfield face of pylon? Therefore, ignoring the reality that much of the ball touched down before the pylon, prior to even getting to that point, the ball would NECESSARILY have had to cross the OOB plane and been declared end of forward progress at that point 6" to a foot upfield from the pylon?

No, that does not apply here. That rule is for when the player's body touching OOB is what causes the play to be over.

In this case, the ball itself touching OOB is what causes the end of the play. In this case, when the ball touched the ground -- because it's....

Hmmm.... Actually, I'm doubting myself on this now.

Imagine a hypothetical play where the player leaps from the 2 yard line, way out of bounds, BUT... the ball is the first thing to touch down OOB and it crossed the extended plane of the goal before it touched down.

That wouldn't be a TD/score just because the ball crossed the extended plane of the goal line before touching.

Yeah, I think you're right. I think that would in fact apply here.

Ugh. This call is getting more egregious by the minute.

 

[KnightWhoSaysNit]

The pylon only moves after the tip of the ball bounces off of the white OOB area and if the pylon represents the plane, then no reasonable person can determine that it ever broke the plane. Its another shafting by the B1G.

Do you have video proof that the ground was contacted before the pylon? I don't think we do. The shutter speed wasn't fast enough to show this.

But even if the pylon was contacted first, for it to be a score some part of the ball would still have had to touch the plane inside of the pylon when the ball was above the ground. Again, the snapshots seem to suggest this did not occur, but there isn't 100% video proof. There is no synced overhead shot of the goal line plane / pylon with a camera angle that could show the ball's position relative to the ground.

 

[BoulderFish]

I'd like to see a sharp still frame shot that shows the ball hitting the sideline while there is still a gap between the ball and the pylon. Haven't seen one. I've seen the ball touching both, wherein we are left to assume that the tip of the ball did not touch the goal line plane, but not the definitive photo that we need.

The shutter speed wasn't fast enough, nor sharp enough to show spacing between the ball and ground/pylon.

Only an overhead shot synced with a ground shot can provide proof. Again, I'd say it is close to 100% that he did not make it -- probably enough for any reasonable person to overrule -- but not 100%, if that's really what it takes to overturn.

I disagree. I thought the slow mo shown on TV clearly showed the ball hit OOB, continue forward some distance/time, and THEN hit the pylon.

 

[YogiMan71]

I read Draft Kings cancelled all bets and returned the money as credits because they did not agree with the call.

 

[fastlax16]

but not 100%, if that's really what it takes to overturn.

It isn't what it "really" takes to overturn. If there was enough to overturn this one last year then last nights isnt even close.

 

[harbest]

And was a bad call. “We are always told when ball crosses sideline it is out of bounds. Ball was clearly out of bounds”. Halftime of SCum vs MN

Would loved to have been "fly on the wall" and heard the conversation between the ref and replay officials.