Indiana just got hosed
- Thread starter PennStateNate
- Start date
So if you kick it right down the middle, 10 feet above the uprights, then it's no good? If that's the case then most extra points are no good.
The uprights go up "forever". So if it goes right over the upright it is the referees call, basically it would have hit the upright and bounce away and not through.
I thought it went directly over the upright, and was therefore the right call. Game over.
Odd replays. The first from behind the goalpost it looked just wide. The second from underneath looked closer and maybe just in but tough to tell since it was above the post. With the review capability they have in tennis where the computer can tell in seconds if the ball was in or out- I can't believe they don't have something similar in football. 
Ball looked like it was directly above upright, not fully inside it. Saw nothing wrong with the officials call especially given that they have the best angle looking straight up the upright as ball passes.
Saw the same replays and disagree that the ball was "between" the uprights, let alone clearly between them.
I didn't see it but I hope it was good. I rejoice when any BigTen team other than us loses. My joy is magnified if they lose because of a bad call.
"Hosed"..
That's rich.
We have been getting hosed on a regular basis since we sold out to this conference.
Let them enjoy how it feels.
Kicks above the uprights are good. Even if the ball crosses directly above the infinite upright, the call is supposed to be that the kick is good - Indiana was the victim of a bad call, and especially because of the strange, nonsensical rule that says that kicks above the uprights are not reviewable.
Both refs under the goalposts had dates at Scores at 730...no good, game over....what's the problem!
That's the NFL rule the college rule is over the upright is not in between the uprights so it is not good.
The kick was not good - the ball has to be completely and clearly between the uprights. Ball in this case appeared to straddle the right upright as it went past the uprights.
It is no good because the ball wasn't "clearly" between the uprights. I thought it looked like it was directly over the upright which leads me to believe had the goal posts been extended upwards another 25 feet or so the most likely outcome would have been a 2011 Illinois like finish to the game (if you need me to explain you are not as big a PSU fan as you might think).
Regardless, I have a suggestion ... kick the ball through the middle and remove all doubt.
Last edited:
Clearly? Clearly it was not clearly!
Perhaps down-the-road goal posts could include some kind of laser light that could be turned on and extended vertically and could give officials a guidance on these types of kicks.
This kick was close very close but unless the camera is looking straight up from the official's position under the upright there is no definitive view that could / would change the call on the field of play.
The ball was above the goal post not in side the two post.IF the ball was lower it would have hit the goalpost.
Based on college rules, it looked out.
But the real problem was the Indiana play calling in OT.
At the 25, the defense has to respect both the run and the pass.
You have a RB who has run for lots of yards, try one run and see if he breaks it for 10+ yards.
The first play was a pass and the check down only netted two yards and put the ball on the right hash mark.
Then the reverse gained two more and kept the ball at the right hash marks. Plus, a reverse to the narrow side restricts the play.
Then the close to grounding call was an incomplete and the ball is still on the right hash.
Tough angle and a missed field goal.
I guess Kevin Wilson should know his players and especially the kicker better than I do, but a consideration on 3-6 could have been to run the ball to the center of the field and set up a much easier FG and go to the second OT.
But the real problem was the Indiana play calling in OT.
At the 25, the defense has to respect both the run and the pass.
You have a RB who has run for lots of yards, try one run and see if he breaks it for 10+ yards.
The first play was a pass and the check down only netted two yards and put the ball on the right hash mark.
Then the reverse gained two more and kept the ball at the right hash marks. Plus, a reverse to the narrow side restricts the play.
Then the close to grounding call was an incomplete and the ball is still on the right hash.
Tough angle and a missed field goal.
I guess Kevin Wilson should know his players and especially the kicker better than I do, but a consideration on 3-6 could have been to run the ball to the center of the field and set up a much easier FG and go to the second OT.
When the game was in the line, the play calling was questionable at best. It's debatable, but it wasn't great, especially considering the game their RB was having tonight.
It can be questionable, even when it does work. I actually liked the reverse call, as another poster said into the boundary restricted their space. I would have liked them to have try at least one run tho their RB to see how that would have done. I also would have liked a pass play on 3rd down that had a quick throw or a check to more protection. The sack made it a much tougher kick.
It's football and we are fans so we naturally second guess.
But the play calling worked the rest of the game, it just didn't work in OT. Maybe they didn't execute like they should have.
Similar threads
