Happy for Mike Riley and Nebraska

[WestCoastWildcat]

What a crazy game!

I am happy for Mike Riley, a quality coach and good guy.

Maybe it is just karma for MSU to lose after the miracle win against Michigan.

 

[BFDCat]

It's not karma when the refs f**k you over. I don't care that much about who wins that game, but when the refs determine the outcome on such an obviously bad call it irritates me.

 

[pymvpymv]

I agree just glad the karma didn't hit us.

although I always thought the storyline for MSU win was a little unfair. A miracle finish for sure but they probably deserved the win.

 

[pymvpymv]

What call did u think was bad?

 

[beetlemania74]

What call did u think was bad?

Were you watching the game? How was it not obvious?

 

[Seattle_Cat]

What call did u think was bad?

That the receiver was forced out of bounds on that final scoring play.

 

[BFDCat]

That WR was NOT pushed out of bounds, should have been a penalty on the Huskers for going OOB and then being the first to touch the ball.

 

[DrillCat]

Last Neb TD should not have counted. WR clearly stepped out on his own, only to return to catch that TD pass.
Zebras clearly gave this game to Neb and MSU should have won.
But then again, if UM can have that expired FG to take us to OT, anything is possible with Zeb crew.

 

[pymvpymv]

Were you watching the game? How was it not obvious?

I was beetle. Went to the John for that replay. It was an honest question.

 

[WestCoastWildcat]

It's not karma when the refs f**k you over. I don't care that much about who wins that game, but when the refs determine the outcome on such an obviously bad call it irritates me.

I guess the booth refs could not review whether or not the Nebby receiver was pushed out of bounds or not. Don't understand that point. Surprised MSU couldn't maintain control of the game to the end. You have to give Armstrong (and maybe the refs) credit for making plays at the end when it counted.

 

[BFDCat]

No doubt Nebraska played a hell of a game. MSU shouldn't have let them hang around. The refs just shouldn't impact a game like that or like the Duke game last week.

 

[villox]

It was only 2nd down and there were 17 seconds left. Who knows what would have happened had they overturned the TD. This is not a clear cut example of refs handing Nebraska the game even if that particular call was controversial.

 

[VirginiaWildcat]

MSU has nobody to blame but themselves. That had the game completely under control and just threw it away. Their defense on that last possession was pitiful...

 

[mikewebb68]

And, if you say the TV replay, you only saw it from the point he was out of bounds already. So we actually didn't see where there was contact to force him out or not-- he was already out and being boxed out by the defender by that point. So tough to tell from TV at all if it was a bad call.

 

[lunker35]

MSU has nobody to blame but themselves. That had the game completely under control and just threw it away. Their defense on that last possession was pitiful...

Actually they can blame the refs, because they completely missed the player going way out of bounds. That's inexcusable. The officiating we have seen this year across the board is horrendous.

 

[BFDCat]

The replay I saw showed him in bounds, running out and then back in. All without any pushing, the defensive player was facing the other way. It seemed pretty clear to me.

 

[beetlemania74]

I was beetle. Went to the John for that replay. It was an honest question.

OK, sorry for the sarcasm. I'm actually happy to see Nebraska win, as it makes the B1G look "less bad" in a way. Nebraska at 3-7 would be added to the list of bad Big Ten Team this year. The Huskers, Maryland, Rutgers, Indiana, Minnesota and Illinois all may not qualify for a bowl game, which would be embarrassing for the conference.

 

[Wrestlerneverdiesasacatfan]

MSU was not that good

 

[VirginiaWildcat]

Actually they can blame the refs, because they completely missed the player going way out of bounds. That's inexcusable. The officiating we have seen this year across the board is horrendous.

They can't blame the refs for giving up the two huge pass plays prior to that one. Or the awful previous offensive possession. Or the stupid penalty during that possession that cost them from running off an additional 20 seconds...

 

[chariots]

It was only 2nd down and there were 17 seconds left. Who knows what would have happened had they overturned the TD. This is not a clear cut example of refs handing Nebraska the game even if that particular call was controversial.

So if a refs mistake changes the probability of winning by 80% it doesn't matter to you, it has to be 100%?

 

[VirginiaWildcat]

So if a refs mistake changes the probability of winning by 80% it doesn't matter to you, it has to be 100%?

His point was that it's not exactly "handing the game" to them.

 

[mikewebb68]

The replay I saw showed him in bounds, running out and then back in. All without any pushing, the defensive player was facing the other way. It seemed pretty clear to me.

So you saw a TV replay that showed the entire route of that WR? I didn't see such a replay on TV. And a force out does not have to be a push...

 

[chariots]

And my point is that it is darn close to handing the game to them. Its a call you have to get right. There were consequences when even with the help of review refs last week couldn't get it right.

 

[mikewebb68]

And never mind that there should have been a PI in the end zone called on the pass to Alonzo Moore that wasn't called. So even if you thought that call was bad, it evened out. MSU has no one to blame but themselves; they dropped a certain INT the play prior, and he DB just kind of gave up on the play in question after boxing the WR out instead of continuing to defend as he should have.

OK, while typing this just saw a better replay on BTN, of most (but not all) of the route. The MSU DB clearly boxed the WR out with contact; whether that contact was enough for a "force out" is questionable. It was clearly a call that could have gone either way, nowhere near the bad call(s) from the Duke-Miami game last week. And BTN clarified that the call only could have been reversed upon review if there was NO contact, which was clearly not the case....

 

[Alaskawildkat]

And never mind that there should have been a PI in the end zone called on the pass to Alonzo Moore that wasn't called. So even if you thought that call was bad, it evened out. MSU has no one to blame but themselves; they dropped a certain INT the play prior, and he DB just kind of gave up on the play in question after boxing the WR out instead of continuing to defend as he should have.

OK, while typing this just saw a better replay on BTN, of most (but not all) of the route. The MSU DB clearly boxed the WR out with contact; whether that contact was enough for a "force out" is questionable. It was clearly a call that could have gone either way, nowhere near the bad call(s) from the Duke-Miami game last week. And BTN clarified that the call only could have been reversed upon review if there was NO contact, which was clearly not the case....

Thanks for explaining that. I heard exactly the same thing on BTN and was still confused about the logic behind the "no contact, no review rule" but now it makes sense.

 

[FeliSilvestris]

The replay I saw showed him in bounds, running out and then back in. All without any pushing, the defensive player was facing the other way. It seemed pretty clear to me.

Yes, it was an AWFUL call. But it is even more incredible that they did NOT reverse it.

Whether in this game (or in others) other bad calls hurt Nebby is another story. Perhaps it was poetic justice.

Nevertheless, THIS VIDEO clearly shows that the receiver WAS NEVER forced out of bound.

Horrible call and INEXCUSABLE, SHAMELESS non-reversal.

 

[villox]

Yes, it was an AWFUL call. But it is even more incredible that they did NOT reverse it.

Whether in this game (or in others) other bad calls hurt Nebby is another story. Perhaps it was poetic justice.

Nevertheless, THIS VIDEO clearly shows that the receiver WAS NEVER forced out of bound.

Horrible call and INEXCUSABLE, SHAMELESS non-reversal.

Oh really? Inexcusable? How about the fact that it's a non-reviewable call? He can review whether the player was touched at all (which he WAS) but he cannot review whether the contact was enough to force him out:

45. Receiver forced out of bounds

First and 10 on the A-20. A10 throws a pass to A80 at the A-40 near the sideline. A80 comes from out of bounds and catches the ball, then runs to the 50 where he is tackled. The Side Judge rules that A80 was blocked out of bounds by B37 and legally touched the ball. Replays show there clearly was no contact between A80 and B37. Ruling: Reviewable play. Reverse to foul for illegal touching. A 2-10 on A-20, reset game clock (Rules 12-3-2-b and 12-3-3-h). In this situation the replay official cannot rule on the severity of the contact, but if there is indisputable video evidence that there was no contact then the play is reviewable.

 

[FeliSilvestris]

Oh really? Inexcusable? How about the fact that it's a non-reviewable call? He can review whether the player was touched at all (which he WAS) but he cannot review whether the contact was enough to force him out:

The only contact the video shows is AFTER the Nebby player has COME BACK in bounds. No contact prior to his getting out of bound. LOUSY LOUSY CALL.

 

[Mr. Stupor]

Actually they can blame the refs, because they completely missed the player going way out of bounds. That's inexcusable. The officiating we have seen this year across the board is horrendous.

Actually, the ref DIDN'T miss it. He saw it. He threw his hat down right away. He flat out blew the call. He determined that the receiver was forced out. But he was dead wrong.

Listening to DiNardo's explanation made my head want to explode. He kept saying that the review official could only review the fact of whether or not there was contact. But he never said whether or not the reviewable contact had to occur prior to the receiver going out of bounds! There is a logical inference to be made there (how could contact cause a player to go OB if it happens after the player already is OB?), but you never know.

Anyway, if you watch this play carefully, the receiver FIRST steps OB at the 12. There was clearly no contact until a couple steps later. This was a horseshit call, unless of course contact AFTER a guy has already stepped out can be deemed to have caused him to go OB, which would make no sense at all.

 

[Mr. Stupor]

Oh really? Inexcusable? How about the fact that it's a non-reviewable call? He can review whether the player was touched at all (which he WAS) but he cannot review whether the contact was enough to force him out:

45. Receiver forced out of bounds

First and 10 on the A-20. A10 throws a pass to A80 at the A-40 near the sideline. A80 comes from out of bounds and catches the ball, then runs to the 50 where he is tackled. The Side Judge rules that A80 was blocked out of bounds by B37 and legally touched the ball. Replays show there clearly was no contact between A80 and B37. Ruling: Reviewable play. Reverse to foul for illegal touching. A 2-10 on A-20, reset game clock (Rules 12-3-2-b and 12-3-3-h). In this situation the replay official cannot rule on the severity of the contact, but if there is indisputable video evidence that there was no contact then the play is reviewable.

Villox, you're making the same mistake DiNardo made. And apparently the rules do too. The question isn't whether there was contact. The question is whether the contact occurred before or after the guy had stepped out of bounds. There would have to have been contact prior to the 12 yard line. There wasn't.

 

[villox]

Villox, you're making the same mistake DiNardo made. And apparently the rules do too. The question isn't whether there was contact. The question is whether the contact occurred before or after the guy had stepped out of bounds. There would have to have been contact prior to the 12 yard line. There wasn't.

Please show me the indisputable video evidence that shows the DB made zero contact with the receiver prior to him stepping out of bounds. I'm not saying it doesn't exist, but none of the angles on the broadcast showed it. I'm also not saying I think the ref didn't get the call wrong, just that there wasn't enough video evidence to overturn it.

And I stand by the fact that Armstrong had two more chances after that call to get a first down or TD, and the way MSU's D was playing, it's certainly possible he would have.

 

[FeliSilvestris]

Please show me the indisputable video evidence that shows the DB made zero contact with the receiver prior to him stepping out of bounds.

The video VERY CLEARLY shows (about 0:44) te moment when he first steps out of bound. At that moment the defender is running parallel a good YARD to his right. ZERO contact prior to his stepping out of bound (with his left foot). See screenshot below and re-watch the video.

 

[villox]

The video VERY CLEARLY shows (about 0:44) te moment when he first steps out of bound. At that moment the defender is running parallel a good YARD to his right. ZERO contact prior to his stepping out of bound (with his left foot). See screenshot below and re-watch the video.

That's the same angle shown in the broadcast and it's not indisputable. The screenshot does not show zero contact. In the frame, there is no way to see whether the hands of the DB are in contact with the hands of the receiver.

Again, we need to see absolutely zero contact. It's irrelevant whether it was enough to force him out (for the purpose of review)

 

[FeliSilvestris]

That's the same angle shown in the broadcast and it's not indisputable. The screenshot does not show zero contact. In the frame, there is no way to see whether the hands of the DB are in contact with the hands of the receiver.

Again, we need to see absolutely zero contact. It's irrelevant whether it was enough to force him out (for the purpose of review)

By using the yard marks as a space reference, it is COMPLETELY CLEAR that the defender is running parallel at least a yard away to his right, when the receiver steps out of bound with his left foot. Pretty tough to make contact when you are a YARD away from the next runner, running parallel to him. The DB's arms are on his side in typical running fashion (but even if the DB had extended his left arm away from his body, -- WHY ON EARTH would he do that ? -- he may still have had difficulty touching, let alone pushing, the receiver).
HORRENDOUS CALL AND NON-REVERSAL.
SUSPENSIONS ARE WARRANTED!!

 

[villox]

By using the yard marks as a space reference, it is COMPLETELY CLEAR that the defender is running parallel at least a yard away to his right, when the receiver steps out of bound with his left foot. Pretty tough to make contact when you are a YARD away from the next runner, running parallel to him. The DB's arms are on his side in typical running fashion (but even if the DB had extended his left arm away from his body, -- WHY ON EARTH would he do that ? -- he may still have had difficulty touching, let alone pushing, the receiver).
HORRENDOUS CALL AND NON-REVERSAL.
SUSPENSIONS ARE WARRANTED!!

You can use as many caps as you want, but until you show actual video evidence of daylight between the two players PRIOR to him stepping out (who cares where we was at the exact moment? The question is whether there was contact PRIOR), you're wrong. If the DB so much as laid a finger on him at any point prior to him stepping out, it's not reversible.

 

[Mr. Stupor]

Please show me the indisputable video evidence that shows the DB made zero contact with the receiver prior to him stepping out of bounds. I'm not saying it doesn't exist, but none of the angles on the broadcast showed it. I'm also not saying I think the ref didn't get the call wrong, just that there wasn't enough video evidence to overturn it.

And I stand by the fact that Armstrong had two more chances after that call to get a first down or TD, and the way MSU's D was playing, it's certainly possible he would have.

You're asking for proof of a negative. Watch the tape. There was no touching before the 12. It happened after that. If you can't see it, I can't help you.

 

[FeliSilvestris]

You can use as many caps as you want, but until you show actual video evidence of daylight between the two players PRIOR to him stepping out (who cares where we was at the exact moment? The question is whether there was contact PRIOR), you're wrong. If the DB so much as laid a finger on him at any point prior to him stepping out, it's not reversible.

You are now implying that any contact during the play, before he stepped out of bound, would suffice, even if it happened tens of yards from the spot where he went out of bound. There may (or may not) have been some contact well before he stepped out of bound, say near the LOS, but I doubt that any competent official would view such contact as relevant for the purpose of this call. The relevant contact is that which may have forced the receiver out of bound (as opposed to other incidental contact that may or may not have occurred well before and away from the out-of-bound spot).

 

[villox]

You're asking for proof of a negative. Watch the tape. There was no touching before the 12. It happened after that. If you can't see it, I can't help you.

That's what the rule requires!! The ref ruled that the player was forced out. Therefore, you need indisputable proof that there was no contact. It's that simple.

I think the rule is stupid. I think every play should be reviewable including those based on judgement, like this one. But they're not.

 

[Mr. Stupor]

That's what the rule requires!! The ref ruled that the player was forced out. Therefore, you need indisputable proof that there was no contact. It's that simple.

I think the rule is stupid. I think every play should be reviewable including those based on judgement, like this one. But they're not.

So you are the rules? The video shows no contact before he stepped out. It's clear as a bell. There was contact later, but the receiver had already stepped out at that point. I can't help you if you can't see that.

 

[villox]

So you are the rules? The video shows no contact before he stepped out. It's clear as a bell. There was contact later, but the receiver had already stepped out at that point. I can't help you if you can't see that.

I have not seen such video. If you have such video I'd be glad to see it. All the video I've seen isn't very clear.