Would it have been reviewed? Don't know. No one does really. But it certainly could have been. And by rule the result would have been the same. Iowa ball, 1st and 10 at the spot where the kick was caught after waving a specific type of fair catch signal.
F*CK IOWA
- Thread starter FallOf81
- Start date
I'm not sure what "waving teammates" is. But if on a similar play you put your hand over your head to wave to your mom in the stands, it's going to be hard to argue why that's not a fair catch signal.
OK, new scenario for iahawks: What if all of those Minnesota players wouldn't have let up and obliterated CDJ when he caught the ball on the bounce? Would that have been a penalty since it was an invalid fair catch that led to the dead ball? Would every hok fan be up in arms about CBJ getting mugged? What if they did, indeed, obliterate him and no penalty was called?
Let's hear your spin on that one.
Should be as comical as all the other spins you and all the other hok fans have put on it as all explanations have gone continuously in freakin' circles.
I'll wait for your reply...
Let's hear your spin on that one.
Should be as comical as all the other spins you and all the other hok fans have put on it as all explanations have gone continuously in freakin' circles.
I'll wait for your reply...
DeJean just saw a kid wave at him when fielding the punt so he waved back. This will be kirks next excuse.
I can pretend to be one. Here let me try
"Iowa got screwed! Yes, I agree Cooper was waving his arm. After understanding the rule, yes, I agree it should had been called an invalid fair catch. Yes, I agree the proper call was ultimately made by the officials. But it's still not fair!!! The MN coaches didn't react like someone would if they thought Cooper was being deceiving. The MN players didn't stop when Cooper was waving. And that waving motion is how he normally runs! So because it didn't impact the play, the touchdown should stand! I don't care what the rules say. Officials should only change the ruling if it directly impacted the play, even if changing the ruling is the correct call based on the rule. Can't you understand this? The proper call was made in the end, but Iowa was screwed!"
His wave with the left arm was more similar to the WI wave from years ago that's more of a 'no, get away' type that goes with plthe poison call although it may have barely gotten above the shoulder.
In that case, that's a perfectly legitimate fair catch signal, or invalid fair catch signal. There are certain things that have definitions and you don't get to do them for other reasons.
If a quarterback takes a snap, and has the greatest o-line ever and has time to kneel down and tie his shoe before getting back up to pass the ball, the play is still over when the knee goes down, even if he didn't mean to "kneel the ball".
Yes, this is actually a specific example they give in the approved rulings example section. They say that a player is waving his teammates away from the ball and then picks up the ball and attempts to advance it. The approved ruling from the NCAA is that the ball is dead at the spot of recovery.
Don’t jinx it! I can’t read the same guy saying he’s done talking about it for the 42nd time!
HOLD THE PHONE.
I was told by @NoCreativity that the on field view proved he didn't wave his left arm.
Maybe it was another one of the thousands of people filming with ther phones.
Shocking.
Didn't he step out of bounds as well?
EDIT: Stepped out of bounds as soon as he caught the ball
EDIT: Rules guys -- Can he catch the ball with one foot out of bounds? I am not sure to be honest
Last edited:
That is the yardage marks, because of the low angle they look solidish, the bright solid white that the ref is on is the OOB line.
Ah. My bad. That's why I am not a replay official. Thank you for that clarification.
One can only hope. I will do my part to make sure it never dies
KidSilverhair
Well-Known Member
That’s not out of bounds, those are the yard markers along the sideline that kinda look like out of bounds from this angle.
No judgment, I get it, I thought the same thing the first time I saw this.
EDIT: and I see someone else already explained it
KidSilverhair
Well-Known Member
Also somebody needs to tell “Footballism” that nobody is claiming it was a fair catch signal. It was an invalid signal, that’s the whole damn point.