nice shot at Nolf in one of those responses on the bottom...as if
Despite ALL the cries to the contrary (many using Nolf's comment, which is fairly ridiculous to use as evidence given his vantage point in regards to making the call), the Nolf-Hidlay call was an extremely difficult one, completely subjective and probably the right one if you review the video.
The problem is that 90% of the fans - and probably 50% of the people at FLO - don't understand when reaction time comes into play when calling a TD under NCAA rules. Most people think "hand touch = TD." Most people are wrong.
The "hand touch = TD" IS in fact a rule, once control is established beyond reaction time. The situation this normally occurs in is the rear standing position and this is the sequence that every fan is familiar with. But if you apply this standard to EVERY situation, you don't know the rules.
A current NCAA ref posted a more eloquent explanation of this than I can muster. Here it is:
"
Regarding the Hidlay TD, IMO it was not a TD. I talked with Tim Shiels (national ref coordinator for the NCAA) about this and he and I are in agreement on the reasoning. Everyone seems to be fixated on the fact that Nolf's hand touched the mat during the sequence. While this is true it has nothing to do with whether there was control or not. The only time the hand touch TD comes into play is from the rear standing position in neutral. In this case there was continuous action with both men on the mat. While Hidlay appeared to be in control he didn't demonstrate the control beyond reaction time. Hence no TD."
If people actually take the time to review the call - which is up on FLO, I have no idea why half of their people haven't drilled down on it - it is clear that reaction time IS relevant in making this call. There is no control exhibited, THEN Nolf's hand touches with Hidlay behind him (which is a TD IF it is maintained beyond reaction time) and immediately Nolf stands and Hidlay is in rear standing (which is a TD IF Nolf's hand would touch after he is in this position). Then time runs out. At worst it is a debatable call regarding reaction time. If someone's take is that reaction time standard is to be equal to a Formula 1 driver in a Grand Prix race, well then maybe, but that is not the standard that is generally used.
But the narrative will continue because most people don't have the desire to actually educate themselves about that particular situation nor the rules in general. And the above is most likely a waste of typing.
I'd like to see
@smalls103 comment on this - but I already know that he will just say that the rules are just too complicated and subjective and he is most likely correct in that assertion, but it is not really relative to the debate of whether the call was correct or not. Still love ya, Wille.
