F*CK IOWA

[TClone99]

Again, you don't want to go down this rabbit hole. It is murky I admit and hard to follow.

Basically, the allowable reviewable plays state that you can review "advancement of a fair catch", which they interpret as both valid and invalid fair catches and obviously what happened as it doesn't become illegal until Cooper advances the ball.

However, it is a 5 yard penalty for "advancement of a fair catch", and the replay official simply called it Invalid Fair Catch and dead ball at the place of where Cooper fielded the punt.

Why would they do that and not give Iowa a 5 yard penalty as they should have?

Because "advancement of a fair catch" isn't allowed in the penalized play list that can be created in the review booth. The Big 10 office used the reasoning of "advancement of a fair catch" as the reasoning why the play was open to review, but then didn't use that in their conclusion because they can't go back to review and create a penalty for that.

JFC!!!! It wasn't a ******* fair catch signal and it wasn't a ******* penalty for the love of God!!! This isn't that difficult to understand.

 

[carvers4math]

At this point, you're just either highly ignorant or a bad troll.

Obviously those two things are not mutually exclusive.

 

[GMackey32]

Again, you don't want to go down this rabbit hole. It is murky I admit and hard to follow.

Basically, the allowable reviewable plays state that you can review "advancement of a fair catch", which they interpret as both valid and invalid fair catches and obviously what happened as it doesn't become illegal until Cooper advances the ball.

However, it is a 5 yard penalty for "advancement of a fair catch", and the replay official simply called it Invalid Fair Catch and dead ball at the place of where Cooper fielded the punt.

Why would they do that and not give Iowa a 5 yard penalty as they should have?

Because "advancement of a fair catch" isn't allowed in the penalized play list that can be created in the review booth. The Big 10 office used the reasoning of "advancement of a fair catch" as the reasoning why the play was open to review, but then didn't use that in their conclusion because they can't go back to review and create a penalty for that.

So now you're claiming the head of the NCAA Officiating is also wrong? It was a scoring play so when a play is under review, ALL aspects of the play are under review.

"Carollo, according to those on the call, clarified that "all aspects of the play" under review can be examined once the review is initiated."

""I can assure you you'll have returners trying to trick the kicking team players," Shaw said. "And that's the intent of the rule. Fortunate or unfortunate, if there's waving motion, and I think clearly you can look at the video and it's indisputable that there's waving motion, then by rule, it's an invalid fair catch signal, which causes the ball to become dead.""

https://www.cbssports.com/college-f...head-td-was-called-back-in-loss-to-minnesota/

 

[Cyrocks]

So now you're claiming the head of the NCAA Officiating is also wrong? It was a scoring play so when a play is under review, ALL aspects of the play are under review.

"Carollo, according to those on the call, clarified that "all aspects of the play" under review can be examined once the review is initiated."

""I can assure you you'll have returners trying to trick the kicking team players," Shaw said. "And that's the intent of the rule. Fortunate or unfortunate, if there's waving motion, and I think clearly you can look at the video and it's indisputable that there's waving motion, then by rule, it's an invalid fair catch signal, which causes the ball to become dead.""

https://www.cbssports.com/college-f...head-td-was-called-back-in-loss-to-minnesota/

Yeah, but that is just his opinion, right iahawk?

 

[iahawks]

JFC!!!! It wasn't a ******* fair catch signal and it wasn't a ******* penalty for the love of God!!! This isn't that difficult to understand.

An invalid fair catch signal is not a penalty and it is a dead ball. It also isn't listed as a reviewable play.

Advancement of a fair catch (valid or invalid) is a 5 yard penalty. It is listed under the list of reviewable plays, but it is not listed under the list of penalty plays that can be created under review.

The review official called it invalid fair catch and dead ball, but that isn't reviewable. The Big 10 office said they reviewed it for "advancement of a fair catch", which would be a 5 yard penalty, but again isn't listed under the list of penalty plays that can be created under review.

 

[Lewey24]

You mean the same officials that were probably wrong in their right to review and in their defense of reviewing the play, but not sure you want to go down that rabbit hole. LOL.

Again, this is directly reviewable under the rules. What is it with Hawk fans and being scared of reading?

 

[Lewey24]

An invalid fair catch signal is not a penalty and it is a dead ball. It also isn't listed as a reviewable play.

Advancement of a fair catch (valid or invalid) is a 5 yard penalty. It is listed under the list of reviewable plays, but it is not listed under the list of penalty plays that can be created under review.

The review official called it invalid fair catch and dead ball, but that isn't reviewable. The Big 10 office said they reviewed it for "advancement of a fair catch", which would be a 5 yard penalty, but again isn't listed under the list of penalty plays that can be created under review.

It is reviewable according to the rulebook. Read the rules before sounding stupid.

 

[madguy30]

An invalid fair catch signal is not a penalty and it is a dead ball. It also isn't listed as a reviewable play.

Advancement of a fair catch (valid or invalid) is a 5 yard penalty. It is listed under the list of reviewable plays, but it is not listed under the list of penalty plays that can be created under review.

The review official called it invalid fair catch and dead ball, but that isn't reviewable. The Big 10 office said they reviewed it for "advancement of a fair catch", which would be a 5 yard penalty, but again isn't listed under the list of penalty plays that can be created under review.

All scoring plays are reviewable.

 

[GMackey32]

An invalid fair catch signal is not a penalty and it is a dead ball. It also isn't listed as a reviewable play.

Advancement of a fair catch (valid or invalid) is a 5 yard penalty. It is listed under the list of reviewable plays, but it is not listed under the list of penalty plays that can be created under review.

The review official called it invalid fair catch and dead ball, but that isn't reviewable. The Big 10 office said they reviewed it for "advancement of a fair catch", which would be a 5 yard penalty, but again isn't listed under the list of penalty plays that can be created under review.

NCAA national coordinator of officials included this in his weekly rules/review explanation video

Head of NCAA officiating says you're wrong

 

[Cyinthenorth]

Truth be told I thought as soon as minnesota's punt team went out there that Iowa had that game won. Iowa has been extremely lucky to have so many improbable things bounce their way, that even with their garbage offense this seemed pretty probable.

Right there with you. Minnesota almost unfathomably threw the ball on 2nd down on the drive prior to the invalid fair catch and it fell incomplete, stopping the clock. They then ran their 3rd down play for the typical Big 10 West up the middle for 2 yards and a cloud of dust. The punt ensued, and while I did not think Minnesota would give up a punt return TD, I did think that things were playing too nicely into Iowa's hands, just like they so frequently tend to do. I saw the ball come off the punters foot and was thought to myself crap, he miss kicked that pretty bad. Now Iowa is going to get the ball with very little yardage needed for a game winning field goal, just watch I told my wife who was watching it with me. Nope, Dejean houses the kick and all hell is breaking loose and I feel like I have never been more right in my life about Iowa and their never ending string of favorable luck. So happy I was wrong.

For the record, I think Minnesota had the kick covered decently well. There was a wall of defenders coming at Dejean and they held up a bit prior to him picking up the ball and advancing it. Then they all kind of had "Oh Sh_t" moments but were out of position to make a play. They either had to have seen him waving his hand signalling the invalid fair catch, or heard him shouting "get away" etc.

 

[Cyhig]

An invalid fair catch signal is not a penalty and it is a dead ball. It also isn't listed as a reviewable play.

Advancement of a fair catch (valid or invalid) is a 5 yard penalty. It is listed under the list of reviewable plays, but it is not listed under the list of penalty plays that can be created under review.

The review official called it invalid fair catch and dead ball, but that isn't reviewable. The Big 10 office said they reviewed it for "advancement of a fair catch", which would be a 5 yard penalty, but again isn't listed under the list of penalty plays that can be created under review.

What color is the sky in your world?

 

[GMackey32]

Who am I going to believe? The head of NCAA officiating or HaydenLuvr69420? That's a tough call.

 

[Cyrocks]

An invalid fair catch signal is not a penalty and it is a dead ball. It also isn't listed as a reviewable play.

Advancement of a fair catch (valid or invalid) is a 5 yard penalty. It is listed under the list of reviewable plays, but it is not listed under the list of penalty plays that can be created under review.

The review official called it invalid fair catch and dead ball, but that isn't reviewable. The Big 10 office said they reviewed it for "advancement of a fair catch", which would be a 5 yard penalty, but again isn't listed under the list of penalty plays that can be created under review.

LET...



IT.....



GO.......

 

[iahawks]

All scoring plays are reviewable.

Yep, I agree, as a matter of fact I think all plays are reviewable now.

However, invalid fair catch signals cannot be a part of those reviews as they aren't listed as plays up for review. Advancement of a fair catch are a part of those reviews and what the Big 10 said they used in order to include that into the review. But advancement of a fair catch is a five yard penalty and that isn't listed under the list of penalty plays that can be created while under review if it wasn't called on the field.

 

[qwerty]

All my Iowa friends agree with fact that if Iowa had an offense, then the "controversial call" is a moot point. They all agree that Brian needs to go without a doubt. Nothing happens with Kirk until they have new AD. I guess the big donors don't want to help with the buyout.

Your Iowa friends are mistaken and incorrect. Brian is a state treasure that needs protected and resigned to an iron-clad, no fault 5+ year contract, then promoted to MFHFC.

 

[madguy30]

Yep, I agree, as a matter of fact I think all plays are reviewable now.

However, fair catches cannot be a part of those reviews as they aren't listed as plays up for review. Advancement of a fair catch are a part of those reviews and what the Big 10 said they used in order to include that into the review. But advancement of a fair catch is a five yard penalty and that isn't listed under the list of penalty plays that can be created while under review if it wasn't called on the field.

It wasn't a fair catch signal.

 

[GMackey32]

Yep, I agree, as a matter of fact I think all plays are reviewable now.

However, fair catches cannot be a part of those reviews as they aren't listed as plays up for review. Advancement of a fair catch are a part of those reviews and what the Big 10 said they used in order to include that into the review. But advancement of a fair catch is a five yard penalty and that isn't listed under the list of penalty plays that can be created while under review if it wasn't called on the field.

Once a play is reviewed, all aspects of the play can be looked at. You're using what can trigger a review as your reasoning. Again, are you saying the head of NCAA officiating is wrong?

 

[iahawks]

Once a play is reviewed, all aspects of the play can be looked at. You're using what can trigger a review as your reasoning. Again, are you saying the head of NCAA officiating is wrong?

There are a list of penalties that can be created within the review once it is opened up. Advancement of a fair catch is not listed under those plays same as holding, PI etc...

 

[MJ271]

An invalid fair catch signal is not a penalty and it is a dead ball. It also isn't listed as a reviewable play.

Advancement of a fair catch (valid or invalid) is a 5 yard penalty. It is listed under the list of reviewable plays, but it is not listed under the list of penalty plays that can be created under review.

The review official called it invalid fair catch and dead ball, but that isn't reviewable. The Big 10 office said they reviewed it for "advancement of a fair catch", which would be a 5 yard penalty, but again isn't listed under the list of penalty plays that can be created under review.

Just because they can't retroactively enforce the penalty doesn't mean that they can't change the spot of the ball on review. The rules say that the "Receiving team advancing after a fair catch signal." is a reviewable play. It also says that fouls are not reviewable unless specifically described in Article 8. I think that clearly means they don't want to retroactively punish a team with a penalty when the referees chose to let the play continue because they were unsure of whether there was any fair catch signal, whether valid or invalid.

 

[qwerty]

Who gives a rip what you think? The Big 10 Conference has stated the Iowa invalid fair catch was the correct call, and the Iowa leaping was a missed call.

Move on or take your crap to a Hawkeye message board that cares.

I heard that Iowa message boards are Awesome . . . .