Iowa Punt Return Called Back

I have no doubt those acc scumbags are going to make the gump/UT refs look like NFL worthy professionals in a SB. I STILL can't believe they're allowed within 1,000 miles of BHG.

 

That's what I heard as well. Here's the rule. Of a, b or c, the only applicable criteria is "a". So basically any arm movement that doesn't meet the criteria of Article 2 can be called invalid, subject to the discretion of the official. Pretty poorly constructed set of rules.

 

Good work on the actual rule. Well, technically, ANY MOVEMENT outside of waving your arm above your head is "invalid" And, in my mind, if it's invalid then it's okay for the punting team to tackle him.
Really, really had to R. E. A. C. H. a LONG way to make that call.

Yeah, add about six more bad calls = Swindle at the Swamp

 

Thanks for your response. I do disagree on whether intention is involved. The rule states the following:

The rule goes on to describe valid and invalid signals. However, it still remains that in either case, there must be an intention to signal a fair catch.

Just as the referees have the obligation to interpret who is actually waving their arms that might be considered a signal, they also have the obligation to assess whether the situation looks at all like intention.

If DeJean was still standing in his original spot flat-footed and waving his arms, I would agree with you wholeheartedly God. But he was running furiously towards the sidelines, where the ball was going to bounce long before he got there. Once the ball bounces there could be no fair catch (as I understand), so it seems incongruous that he was signaling for a fair catch for a ball he had no chance to get to in the air. It seems much more obvious that he was warning all of his fellow teammates to not get hit by a bouncing punt By the way that happened in one of the other games I saw, where the guy didn’t even realize he was too close to the bouncing ball and hit his leg and the other team recovered.

Thanks for the reference to the Bama game. I was jumping back-and-forth between games and didn’t see that one.

 

For a valid fair catch signal, yes intent is in there I agree. I should have been more clear I meant that for invalid signals, it does not mention intent at all. As pasted above, "An invalid signal is any waving signal by a player of Team B: a. That does not meet the requirements of Article 2 (above);" where Article 2 is what defines a valid signal. Intent doesn't factor in to an invalid signal IMO. To me the question comes down to whether DeJean is making a waving signal with his left arm. Since the motion is often used and accepted for valid fair catch signals when done above the head, I think it qualifies here for an invalid signal.

I looked for a video clip that shows it, but couldn't find one off the bat, sorry. Here's an article that does describe the call. While I think the Iowa call is defensible because the circular motion DeJean makes with his left arm is the same as often used for a valid fair catch signal, this one I wouldn't defend. The "signal" the other returner made was the equivalent to the "safe" call motion in baseball, i.e it's much less arguably a waving motion. But it does show anyone call a fair catch and stop the play.

Alabama vs. Tennessee score: Storming back in second half, Tide appear to be legit SEC title contenders

"Alabama kicked off after scoring its first touchdown of the second half and it appeared as if Tennessee had a decent return. However, officials ruled that one of Tennessee's returners -- not the one that touched the ball -- called for a fair catch. As a result, the ball was spotted at Tennessee's 4-yard line. Tennessee subsequently went three-and-out and gave Alabama favorable field position to later kick a field goal."

 

It’s a terrible call when every single ref on the field understood that he did not call for a fair catch, but it’s called anyway because this was the time to arbitrarily interpret it that way.

 

Hogwash call. I have no dog in it but that was a terrible way to crush a team and fan base. Wouldn’t it have been 100 times better to allow the play as it stood? A few folks would be mad but easily explained away. This was the opposite. No one believes the explanation. Not even Minn.

 

If they are following the rules So close then why didn't the Refs follow the other rule and whistle the ball dead at the point of recovery? If it's a dead ball due to an Invalid fair catch signal then why did the refs let the play continue?

 

Yer kidding, right? MN took control of the game late and were in great position to win. Their coaches seemingly took advantage of an opportunity within the rules of the game and won.

 

i already explained it. Based on every effin ruling in prior games in the same situation. It is very clearly NOT in any way intended to signal a fair catch or deceive the kicking team. The replay official and head referee jobbed Iowa.

 

I can confidently say this entire forum (at least the vocal part of it) would have focused on the missed tackles, and every reference to the win would mention that it was a win gifted by referees and not by Napier's coaching or deep understanding of the rules.

Even on the day that UF pulls into the series lead, 20+ GC posters would bring up the "unfair catch" rule ...

edit spelling

 

Here’s another weird one where the replay overturned the correct call on the field because of the weird wording of the rule. Bare with me, it was in another sport.

Last year in one of our baseball games, a runner slid into third safely. The third baseman kind of lost his footing and fell into the baserunner pushing him off the bag. Third baseman kept the tag on. Third base umpire ruled the runner safe. The opposing coach asked for a review. Upon review, the call was overturned and the runner was called out. The reasoning given for the overturned call by the announcers was that the initial call allowed for umpires discretion by rule. The review team is not afforded the same luxury, and by rule had to call the runner out because he was tagged while off the bag, even though he was obviously pushed off by the third baseman. Iirc, this was a pivotal moment in the game in either the regionals or supers, so also a very important time of year.

This seems like a similar situation where the crew on the field made the correct call based on their discretion. Review team calls it by rule, period, no discretion.

In situations like these where both the calls on the field and in review are technically correct, it would be nice to see the “call stands” decision made. I guess that would actually be the wrong call by the review crew though if there was clear evidence.

Sometimes it just sucks.

 

Ferentz publicly criticized the call and said he’d accept a fine. He asked that the fine be donated to a children’s hospital.

The ref is not new to controversy. In 2016 he incorrectly extended a game one play and allowed the trailing team to score and win. “O’Dey, his crew and the two Big 12 replay officials received two-game suspensions for not knowing the rule or not enforcing it.”

 

I think the key here is the invalid signal is a waving signal. It is not merely waving the arms. It must signal some intent.

 

Thank you for making an argument that actually addresses the rule as its written. But I'll offer this counter-argument:

IMO the arm circles with his left arm were clearly an intentional signal to his teammates to stay away from the ball. I don't think anyone would argue that's a natural arm motion you make while running, otherwise I'd agree with you. The exact intent of his signal is not relevant as to whether its an invalid signal, "any waving signal" falls into the invalid signal rule if its not a valid fair catch signal.

At the end of the day, I think the fundamental issue comes down to the spirit of the rule vs the letter of the rule. This play IMO matches the letter of the rule for an invalid fair catch signal, but maybe not the spirit of it. Throw in the call changed the outcome of the game and it just feelt wrong (I get it, even I thought it felt wrong until I looked up the rule). The problem is if you endorse refs making up their own interpretations of the spirit of each rule, that opens up even more opportunity for ref inconsistency, which is bad. I'd rather refs consistently follow the letter of the rules (and update those rules as needed), even if it feels wrong in a play like this.

 

Those who refuse to learn from history are bound to repeat history.

 

I looked up the Greenway offsides call.
I didn't realize that was against us. I do remember that game- and remember a lot of bad calls on both sides.
Most favored us, but some went against us. It was so bad. Iowa def got the short end- let me be clear.
A great example of incompetence- extreme in this case. Terrible incompetence.

But the difference between this and the 03 Swindle was corruption.
The ACC refs knew what they were doing, and the bad calls all went in one direction.

I bring this up because it looks like the conditions are ripe for a Swindle 2.
ACC refs coming to the Swamp, with an ACC playoff spot on the line. (It was a BCS bowl trip on the line in 03.)
We are just good enough to challenge FSU on a good day for us.
Will the ACC refs allow it? I doubt it.

 

Good example. Sounds like the "zero tolerance" policies of some schools.
Student "A" is getting the crap beat out of him by several other students.
Student "A" defends himself and punches one of the others and gets away.
Student "A" gets suspended for "fighting".

As you said - sometimes it just sucks. Or, as a friend of mine says: "sometimes life hands you a big "crap sandwich" and you just have to take a big bite." (Cleaned up for the board).

 

Some dumbass in the review booth has a smug smile on his face right now, knowing he made a mark on a nationally televised football game. Some people just need to have their presence felt.

 

Not in the Dolphins game last night. TV official was pretty outspoken about errors.