Tuck rule explained...

[HFCS]

we have had way to many calls overturned this year, just freaking bullshiz. The calls for the "most" part have been correct on the field, then overturned in booth with 0 video evidence. Woody's Td overturned? are you serious, they placed the ball where his *** landed. how in the world did they determine that? then overturn it? RG3s fumble.. really, not a fumble, was called a fumble, we have no tuck rule, yet found enough money in his pocket to change the call?

1. the media should have open access to this type of crap.
2. the replay officials should also have to adhere to a press conference and made to watch the tape in public and explain why the f they reveresed the call.

There is no good reason to oppose these two suggestions. If they're opposed by someone, that person wishes to rig games.

These officials have already traveled around the country, they video has been taken. Take a few minutes to show the video and have the guy point out what he saw.

As it is, all replay has become is a tool to screw people. ISU would probably be somewhere around +28 to +35 this year in points on the board if replay was not allowed and the correct calls were made (which they have mostly been on reviewed plays).

 

[atlantacyclone]

Well, if you're in the replay booth and think that you're impartial when a play can be called either way, are you going to side with a Big 12 Heisman contender who needs stats or ISU?

 

[Boxerdaddy]

we have had way to many calls overturned this year, just freaking bullshiz. The calls for the "most" part have been correct on the field, then overturned in booth with 0 video evidence. Woody's Td overturned? are you serious, they placed the ball where his *** landed. how in the world did they determine that? then overturn it? RG3s fumble.. really, not a fumble, was called a fumble, we have no tuck rule, yet found enough money in his pocket to change the call?

1. the media should have open access to this type of crap.
2. the replay officials should also have to adhere to a press conference and made to watch the tape in public and explain why the f they reveresed the call.

I like this idea.

 

[KidSilverhair]

I am also stunned and amazed by how many replay reversals have gone against Iowa State this season. Particularly when, to pretty much any disinterested observer, there's no way you could find video evidence to overturn the call on the field.

Exhibit 1 - UConn's "touchdown." Obvious knee down with the ball clearly short of the goal line, called down on the field. Go to replay ... reversed and called a touchdown.

Exhibit 2 - Woody's touchdown. Spinning onto the ground, his rump hits the field as the ball is clearly directly above the goal line. Called a touchdown on the field. Go to replay ... reversed and spotted short of the end zone.

Exhibit 3 - RG III's "incomplete pass." Called a fumble on the field, recovered by Iowa State. Go to replay ... called in incomplete pass. Now, there is more gray area on this call. I'm willing to accept the officials might call that a pass and not a fumble. But if they do ... IT'S INTENTIONAL GROUNDING. It's one or the other, a fumble or a penalty. What it's not is an incomplete pass and next down at the previous spot.

Exhibit 5 - Money's "no-catch" against Texas. Ruled a completion plus pass interference on the field. Go to replay ... ruled the catch was not good. At least we got the PI call ... but if you had the penalty anyway, why even review the play?

This is an extraordinary run of terrible luck for the Cyclones. I've been an official (baseball umpire, mostly), and I'm extremely reluctant to put evil motives on the actions of the officials. But to have this many calls reversed ... when the evidence is simply NOT THERE ... is absolutely ridiculous.

 

[Doc]

we have had way to many calls overturned this year, just freaking bullshiz. The calls for the "most" part have been correct on the field, then overturned in booth with 0 video evidence. Woody's Td overturned? are you serious, they placed the ball where his *** landed. how in the world did they determine that? then overturn it? RG3s fumble.. really, not a fumble, was called a fumble, we have no tuck rule, yet found enough money in his pocket to change the call?

1. the media should have open access to this type of crap.
2. the replay officials should also have to adhere to a press conference and made to watch the tape in public and explain why the f they reveresed the call.

And then just pay the replay officials an extra $20,000 for the extra stress.

 

[Madclone1]

I am also stunned and amazed by how many replay reversals have gone against Iowa State this season. Particularly when, to pretty much any disinterested observer, there's no way you could find video evidence to overturn the call on the field.

Exhibit 1 - UConn's "touchdown." Obvious knee down with the ball clearly short of the goal line, called down on the field. Go to replay ... reversed and called a touchdown.

Exhibit 2 - Woody's touchdown. Spinning onto the ground, his rump hits the field as the ball is clearly directly above the goal line. Called a touchdown on the field. Go to replay ... reversed and spotted short of the end zone.

Exhibit 3 - RG III's "incomplete pass." Called a fumble on the field, recovered by Iowa State. Go to replay ... called in incomplete pass. Now, there is more gray area on this call. I'm willing to accept the officials might call that a pass and not a fumble. But if they do ... IT'S INTENTIONAL GROUNDING. It's one or the other, a fumble or a penalty. What it's not is an incomplete pass and next down at the previous spot.

Exhibit 5 - Money's "no-catch" against Texas. Ruled a completion plus pass interference on the field. Go to replay ... ruled the catch was not good. At least we got the PI call ... but if you had the penalty anyway, why even review the play?

This is an extraordinary run of terrible luck for the Cyclones. I've been an official (baseball umpire, mostly), and I'm extremely reluctant to put evil motives on the actions of the officials. But to have this many calls reversed ... when the evidence is simply NOT THERE ... is absolutely ridiculous.

I wonder how many of these "officials" have money in Las Vegas? Surrogates betting money for them? This pattern is just too coincidental for me.

 

[mt85]

There is no tuck rule in college --- so there is no point to bringing it up.

Like it or not, his arm was coming forward and the ball slipped out. Intent doesn't matter. It's an incomplete pass.

Iowa State probably would have gotten ****ed on a replay had the roles been reversed. It would have been ruled a fumble had Jantz done it. Because the Big 12 by-laws include a section on ******* Iowa State.

Calling you an idiot would be an insult to all the stupid people.

 

[Senolcyc]

Calling you an idiot would be an insult to all the stupid people.

 

[cyclone21]

If it was in fact an "incomplete pass" (it wasn't), It was intentional grounding.

ISU didn't get either, and we did get a TD on us the next play.

I was one of the people yelling at my tv screen and complaining this morning about this exact point. I definitely think we have been screwed by the officials this year, but on this particular fumble/incomplete pass/intentional grounding issue that has come up twice this year (called a fumble on the field, recovered by ISU, reviewed, then called an incomplete pass but no intentional grounding), I wonder if the replay officials aren't somewhat handtied.

My recollection is that replay cannot be used for penalties. Assuming, for sake of argument, that the replay official correctly finds that the quarterback was throwing and not fumbling, the the correct call would be incomplete pass and a penalty of intentional grounding. But if no flag was thrown on the field for intentional grounding (which it could not have been if ruled a fumble on the field), then the replay official cannot add a penalty.

Am I wrong about this? Because if this is in fact the rule that replay cannot be used for penalties, then they need to make an exception to the rule because the rule is forcing the replay officials to change the course of the game in a big way. The rule needs to be changed so that if a fumble is ruled incomplete, the replay official can add on an intentional grounding penalty if appropriate. A team should not be unjustly enriched just because of a loophole in the rule that results from an incorrect call on the field.

 

[1100011CS]

I was one of the people yelling at my tv screen and complaining this morning about this exact point. I definitely think we have been screwed by the officials this year, but on this particular fumble/incomplete pass/intentional grounding issue that has come up twice this year (called a fumble on the field, recovered by ISU, reviewed, then called an incomplete pass but no intentional grounding), I wonder if the replay officials aren't somewhat handtied.

My recollection is that replay cannot be used for penalties. Assuming, for sake of argument, that the replay official correctly finds that the quarterback was throwing and not fumbling, the the correct call would be incomplete pass and a penalty of intentional grounding. But if no flag was thrown on the field for intentional grounding (which it could not have been if ruled a fumble on the field), then the replay official cannot add a penalty.

Am I wrong about this? Because if this is in fact the rule that replay cannot be used for penalties, then they need to make an exception to the rule because the rule is forcing the replay officials to change the course of the game in a big way. The rule needs to be changed so that if a fumble is ruled incomplete, the replay official can add on an intentional grounding penalty if appropriate. A team should not be unjustly enriched just because of a loophole in the rule that results from an incorrect call on the field.

Another question: why isn't spiking the ball to stop the clock considered intentional grounding?

 

[Steve]

Another question: why isn't spiking the ball to stop the clock considered intentional grounding?

Because the QB is not intentionally throwing the ball away to avoid the immediate threat of a loss of yardage. The play by RGIII was also rightly also not called intentional grounding for this very reason.

Now the decision to overturn the fumble call still appears to be a bad one.

 

[zwclones51]

What the eff is up with our fan base wanting to send emails with every little thing that doesn't go our way. Yes I'm ****** at the officials. Two calls at the very least didn't go our way that should of but I don't see the need in bombarding people with emails.

 

[1Cy]

What the eff is up with our fan base wanting to send emails with every little thing that doesn't go our way. Yes I'm ****** at the officials. Two calls at the very least didn't go our way that should of but I don't see the need in bombarding people with emails.

i think its a way for them to express their dissatisfaction and frustration.

 

[HFCS]

Another question: why isn't spiking the ball to stop the clock considered intentional grounding?

I always thought it was because eligible receivers like several running backs and tight ends are all within several yards of where the qb will spike the ball.

Some on this board have stated intentional grounding is about being under pressure though.

 

[wright4cy]

Someone or ones need reeducated and or lose their job , too many terrible calls This game .

 

[Rhoadhoused]

I always thought it was because eligible receivers like several running backs and tight ends are all within several yards of where the qb will spike the ball.

Some on this board have stated intentional grounding is about being under pressure though.

The rule specifically says that intentional grounding is throwing the ball away where no receivers are/not past the line of scrimmage ect, to avoid a sack. The bolded part is the important part. Since you are not trying to avoid a sack it isn't intentional grounding.

 

[Hawkeye11en1]

I haven't seen the replay, but it certainly looked as though the ball came out at the very end of his throwing motion. He didn't appear to be bringing it back into his body. He was trying to stop the throw, yes, but it was still in his throwing motion, making it an incomplete pass.

 

[madcityCY]

I haven't seen the replay, but it certainly looked as though the ball came out at the very end of his throwing motion. He didn't appear to be bringing it back into his body. He was trying to stop the throw, yes, but it was still in his throwing motion, making it an incomplete pass.

Typically, when you're intending to throw outward to a target, the arm/ hand extends toward that target, and the ball follows in the general direction. When you pump fake, you tend to keep a crook in the elbow, which will keep the point of the ball pointed at the ground.

I've never intended to throw outward to a target, and have it hit at my feet. I have tried to pump fake, and had the ball hit the ground at my feet.

 

[Clonefan94]

Typically, when you're intending to throw outward to a target, the arm/ hand extends toward that target, and the ball follows in the general direction. When you pump fake, you tend to keep a crook in the elbow, which will keep the point of the ball pointed at the ground.

I've never intended to throw outward to a target, and have it hit at my feet. I have tried to pump fake, and had the ball hit the ground at my feet.

Exactly. We got screwed on that, no two ways about it. Anyone who says any different, is either lying to themselves and us or confusing pro rules with college. In the pros, that would have been an incomplete pass. In college, it's obvious, he was trying to hold on to the ball and not pass it, therefore it's a fumble. It is literally becoming a joke the amount of bad replay calls that go against us. Although, it wouldn't surprise me, after this to see the tuck rule get implemented in college football as well, just to cover their *****.

And to Hawkeye11en1, if you haven't seen a replay, you really should watch it. The issue, my main issue with the call, just like the Woody Touchdown, was that it was ruled one way on the field, then reversed. Once the play was called a fumble, there is no way, by looking at a replay, that you can see evidence that he was actually trying to throw the ball to anyone. That is the real issue here. Call it incomplete and not over turn it, I'm a little better with that call. The problem is, is the ability of these refs to make decisions based on insufficient evidence. Something that the rules state, they are not supposed to do. As I said earlier, the fact that it was called a fumble, I don't see how anyone can see anything in that replay that supports turning that into an incomplete pass, unless we go with the pro rules, which to not exist in college.

I'm actually glad the Mizzou game isn't on TV. I'm really not in the mood to see another game of crap officiating.
Although, if we don't get the breaks in this game, then I don't know what to say, does the Big XII have us confused with Mizzou. We are one of the few dying to hold this conference together.