Iowa got screwed

I'd understand it being a bad call if he wasn't exaggeratingly waving his arm. Not fair to some defenders who probably read that as a fair catch. If he makes no signal, for all we know, he gets blasted.
 
Subjectively, it sucks. But objectively, it was the right call. There are certain specific signals you are allowed to do while fielding a punt, and he did more what is allowed.
 
I get the call. There is a penalty for a punt returner signaling an illegal fair catch. What this means is that you can’t raise the arm as a “sort of but nor quite fair catch signal”. In real time downfield coverage guys have to make quick decisions on whether the arm motion of a returner has in fact signaled a fair catch. If so, they have to hold up. If not, they have to make a play. I think the Iowa returner made enough movement with the arm to make it confusing whether or not he was faircatching. Thus, I get the call.
 
The better question is: Is there nothing better to do in Iowa other than watching a crappy football game between two crappy teams?
 
johncu said:
Subjectively, it sucks. But objectively, it was the right call. There are certain specific signals you are allowed to do while fielding a punt, and he did more what is allowed.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I think it’s the right call. I’ve seen less called (player shielding eyes called a fair catch signal).
 
My thoughts, he did wave strangely because he kept the right arm stiff. He was doing the get away wave with the left but I think the last wave was high enough that it was confusing. That is what the refs decided on replay.

But Minn didn’t act like it was as a fair catch and the refs didn’t blow it dead so I still think it was a bad call.
 
Walton said:
My thoughts, he did wave strangely because he kept the right arm stiff. He was doing the get away wave with the left but I think the last wave was high enough that it was confusing. That is what the refs decided on replay.

But Minn didn’t act like it was as a fair catch and the refs didn’t blow it dead so I still think it was a bad call.
Click to expand...
This. If you have to go back and review it because no one on the field recognized it, then it wasn’t a fair catch.
 
I think it was the right call.

And you can’t advance a ball after a valid or invalid fair catch signal, even if it hits the ground.
 
The point of the rule, as I understand it, is so the opponent is not faked out thinking you're fair catching when you're not. However, all the Minnesota defenders seemed to be playing as if the ball was live and there was no fair catch. So I think the refs should've used some discretion and not been legalistic about it. If there was no fairness issue it shouldn't have been penalized.

I also don't like that apparently no ref threw a flag at the time and it was only reviewed after the fact. That is suggestive of a crooked ref that didn't like the play's outcome.

Regardless, it wasn't an invalid fair catch sginal. The rule is this:
Invalid Signal
ARTICLE 3 An invalid signal is any waving signal by a player of Team B:
a That does not meet the requirements of Article 2 (above); or
b That is given after a scrimmage kick is caught beyond the neutral zone,
strikes the ground or touches another player beyond the neutral zone (AR
6-5-3-III-V); or
c That is given after a free kick is caught, strikes the ground or touches
another player [Exception: Rule 6-4-1-f ]
Click to expand...

The returner didn't "wave". He rotated his left arm in a circle like 1 or 1.5 times below his head. That's not a wave. A wave is moving your hand or arm back and forth.

At the end of the day though, I've always been of the view that if your loss comes down to one play you didn't deserve the win that much.
 
NCAA rules state the reviewing official must be convinced beyond all doubt. This call clearly did not meet that criteria. The player would have had to make a clear fair catch signal, meaning waving hand over his head. The alternate "other such signal" is subjective and once the officials on the field failed to call it that, the replay offical was wrong in overturning. He flat out did not follow his own rule book and made a subjective call. That's not what video replay review is for.
 
justafan said:
The point of the rule, as I understand it, is so the opponent is not faked out thinking you're fair catching when you're not. However, all the Minnesota defenders seemed to be playing as if the ball was live and there was no fair catch. So I think the refs should've used some discretion and not been legalistic about it. If there was no fairness issue it shouldn't have been penalized.

I also don't like that apparently no ref threw a flag at the time and it was only reviewed after the fact. That is suggestive of a crooked ref that didn't like the play's outcome.

Regardless, it wasn't an invalid fair catch sginal. The rule is this:


The returner didn't "wave". He rotated his left arm in a circle like 1 or 1.5 times below his head. That's not a wave. A wave is moving your hand or arm back and forth.

At the end of the day though, I've always been of the view that if your loss comes down to one play you didn't deserve the win that much.
Click to expand...

There’s a lot wrong with this post, but I’ll just point out one. There shouldn’t be a flag thrown for an invalid fair catch signal. It’s not a foul, and there’s no penalty.
 
LagrangeJacket said:
There shouldn’t be a flag thrown for an invalid fair catch signal. It’s not a foul, and there’s no penalty.
Click to expand...
Ah OK. I read that for an invalid fair catch signal, the ball is dead once the player touches the ball. So why was there no whistle?
 
Walton said:
My thoughts, he did wave strangely because he kept the right arm stiff. He was doing the get away wave with the left but I think the last wave was high enough that it was confusing. That is what the refs decided on replay.

But Minn didn’t act like it was as a fair catch and the refs didn’t blow it dead so I still think it was a bad call.
Click to expand...

I think 37 slowed down at the wave and then sped back up after the returner went for the ball. Same with 1. I think it is why the refs went with the invalid signal as a call.
 
WracerX said:
I think 37 slowed down at the wave and then sped back up after the returner went for the ball. Same with 1. I think it is why the refs went with the invalid signal as a call.
Click to expand...
The refs made no such call. It was the video replay guy that made it up. Screwed Iowa, made Minnesota happy. It will get some coverage next weekend, maybe the rules committee will clarify the rule, but other than that this play is going to die on the vine in a week. Replay guy had the power & he decided he wanted his 15 mins of fame.
 
justafan said:
Ah OK. I read that for an invalid fair catch signal, the ball is dead once the player touches the ball. So why was there no whistle?
Click to expand...
Because it was called on review.

Similar to how there’s no whistle on the field when a fumble is called on the field, but the replay official says the runner was down.
 
Liberty said:
The refs made no such call. It was the video replay guy that made it up. Screwed Iowa, made Minnesota happy. It will get some coverage next weekend, maybe the rules committee will clarify the rule, but other than that this play is going to die on the vine in a week. Replay guy had the power & he decided he wanted his 15 mins of fame.
Click to expand...

When I say refs, I mean anyone on the officiating crew.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top