I already replied to you once about this but you refuse to read. Head of NCAA Officiating says you're wrong.
F*CK IOWA
- Thread starter FallOf81
- Start date
Ok… but did you see what Aaron Rodgers said?
Because they knew the Iowa offense was coming onto the field, which is a penalty in itself . . .
I might be replying to the wrong thing here as it is kind of rapid fire, but I agree with him that it should have been called for invalid fair catch signal on the field. I'm not sure, but I don't think it should have been reviewable.
A+ As did the whole stadium. Never seen a stadium not have any hope in the position Iowa was in there. It was crazy and they were all right.
It's a scoring play so its reviewable... Once a review is triggered, all aspects of the play can be looked at... It was an invalid fair catch signal so the ball was marked dead at the spot...
I don't see why this is so hard to understand...
All aspects of a play can be looked at but only those that are listed as a reviewable play can be overturned. Invalid fair catch signal isn't listed as a reviewable play. Advancement of a fair catch is listed as a reviewable play and what the Big 10 Office said they used for review. The problem is that advancement of a fair catch is a 5 yard penalty and is not listed under the list of penalized plays that can be created while under review, same as holding, PI etc...
I have the same opinion as you for the final result, but I don't think this is right in the way you mean it. All aspects that are reviewable can be looked at. If it was literally all aspects, then they could go back and add on any penalty, which they can't do. In this case, advancement after a fair catch play is listed as reviewable, which is why they could look at it.
Sorry if I misunderstand you; just thought I'd clarify.
Not sure, link it again, I must have missed it.
Either the Big 10 Office or the replay official at the game got this wrong. Either way, there is a lot of gray area in all of these rules and how they are interpreted.
IOWA CITY, Iowa -- The NCAA Coordinator of Officials has overturned the University of Iowa’s appeal regarding a targeting personal foul on sophomore Karson Sharar during the first half of the Minnesota-Iowa football game on Oct. 21.
Sharar tackled Minnesota’s Quentin Redding on a kickoff return with 43 seconds remaining in the first half and was disqualified for the remainder of the contest.
After review, it was determined Sharar did not target with the crown of the helmet and he subsequently should not have been disqualified.
IOWA CITY, Iowa -- The NCAA Coordinator of Officials has overturned the University of Iowa’s appeal regarding a targeting personal foul on sophomore Karson Sharar during the first half of the Minnesota-Iowa football game on Oct. 21.
Sharar tackled Minnesota’s Quentin Redding on a kickoff return with 43 seconds remaining in the first half and was disqualified for the remainder of the contest.
After review, it was determined Sharar did not target with the crown of the helmet and he subsequently should not have been disqualified.
Targeting is more subjective than an invalid fair catch signal. Did Cooper DeJean wave his left arm, yes or no?
And after further review by the NCAA AND the Big 10 conference, they determined the "invalid fair catch" is indeed reviewable and the correct call was made. Keep crying
******* hell. This has been explained to you a hundred times already and you're still going.
The only things that can't be reviewed are penalties not on the list of reviewable penalties. This wasn't a penalty being reviewed, merely the accurate dead ball spot of the ball.
This has been covered numerous times and I believe you are just trolling. But I also believe there will be another bizarro hawk fan who comes along and doesn't read, so I'm repeating.
At least one official signaled a touchdown. So it's a scoring play. So it can be reviewed.
But even if that wasn't the case, the receiver made an invalid fair catch signal and advanced the ball. An invalid fair catch signal is a type of fair catch signal. All invalid fair catch signals are fair catch signals. Not all fair catch signals are invalid fair catch signals. Since there was an (invalid) fair catch signal and the runner advanced the ball, the play can be reviewed.
There was no penalty called on the field for the advancement of the ball after the fair catch (which is actually a delay of game penalty, 5-yards). That penalty isn't a reviewable penalty, so it wasn't added after review.
Because the (invalid) fair catch signal was given, the ball was dead at the spot of recovery. Play resumed from that spot, Iowa's ball 1st and 10.
Iowa's offense then proceeded to continue to insult the game of football. Minnesota intercepted, kneeled, and won the game.
Last edited:
KidSilverhair
Well-Known Member
“Advancement of a fair catch” isn’t the penalty that would apply there. It’s actually delay of game. Since that’s not a reviewable penalty, that penalty was not assessed, nor was it part of the review.
Where a play becomes dead is reviewable. That’s what was being looked at. An invalid fair catch signal is not a penalty, nor (technically) is advancing the ball after such a signal (except for the delay of game).
Look at it this way. We have reviews for where a ball carrier is down all the time - perhaps the officials missed a knee touching the ground or a foot on the sideline. So, after the play finishes, if there’s a question the replay official buzzes in and they take a look at it. If the runner’s knee was down 12 yards before the play was blown dead, they move the ball back to that point. And they’d do that even if they were first looking to see if the runner stepped out of bounds 4 yards before the play was blown dead.
That’s all this was Saturday. The officials had a question about an invalid fair catch signal, they decided to review it, they confirmed that signal on review, they placed the ball back at where it should have become dead. If they’d called it during live action, they’d have been correct in assessing a delay of game penalty; since they didn’t, and delay is not a reviewable penalty, they couldn’t add that on post-review.