Indiana was screwed....
- Thread starter Alphalion75
- Start date
Looked to me it would have been a direct hit on an extended upright.
How do you decide something like that on review?
How do you decide something like that on review?
Correct call, it would have hit the upright and not gone through.
?? It was fourth down. The thread is about the missed FG in overtime, not the long one at the end of regulation.
The gets placed in the same position it was in before the incomplete pass. Where was it placed on the previous snap?
and you know this how? the &%$(&5 kick was good, period. this fan base is the most childish of any on rivals. i hate this league, but indy deserved to keep playing!!!!!
Not being childish at all, if the ball post was extended higher and the ball hits it square it doesn't go in. The college rule is that if the ball goes over the upright as the official sees it then it isn't good because it isn't in between the uprights. It's not reviewable and there most likely wouldn't have been a camera angle to overturn the call. Plus FYI, they weren't big 10 officials, so the league has nothing to do with it.
So basically by NCAA rules the kick was no good. No one is being childish here.
From under towards the center which makes it look more toward the center when it is above post than what it is. From the end zone with the ball coming towards the camera it looked like it was over the post but towards the outside. i.e. partially over the post but towards the outside. The REF is looking up the post and makes a judgement on if it is in or not.....
never said the z's were bt. was referring to the obsession with many here who gloat when a bt team loses. the shot from under the goalposts clearly showed it was good if the uprights were extended up. indy deserved to play on. that's the chidishness i refer to.
Wrong.
The college rule is exactly the opposite of what you state. If it goes over the post, it's supposed to be good.
The rule is clear. Above the upright, not reviewable. Thus, iu did not get screwed. It's the rule. Should the rule be changed? No, because it is difficult to judge the trajectory when the ball is above the upright.
Regardless of which side of the debate you are on, I am ENJOYING. THE. OUTRAGE.
over a game that doesn't matter.
Regardless of which side of the debate you are on, I am ENJOYING. THE. OUTRAGE.
over a game that doesn't matter.
Last edited:
Looks to me like if it did hit the upright (which I'm not convinced it would have) it would have hit the inside of the upright and still been good.
No, you're wrong.
Here's an explanation and discussion.
http://en.allexperts.com/q/College-Football-2792/2011/11/field-goal-attempt-top.htm
Under NCAA rules for a Field Goal to be good, the ball must travel between the uprights and over the cross bar of the goal post. The key is "between" the uprights or the upright extended. Said another way: the ball must travel inside the upright, not over the upright or outside of it, but over the crossbar, between the uprights The Uprights. Therefore the entire ball must be between the uprights. To answer your question, all of the ball has to be clear of the post and inside the uprights [or between them].
When the kick is high and above the upright pole, the upward plane of the upright pole is extended straight up as if the pole itself was at that height. Therefore the ball must travel inside the upright and upright pole extended. This is different from the NFL rule. I believe the NFL rule requires part of the ball to travel on the inside edge off the upright. So under NCAA rules if the scrimmage kicked ball travels over the upright it is not a field goal, but under NFL rules it would be a field goal if part of the ball was inside the upright plane.
The shot looking up is misleading because the camera is to the right and behind the goal post. Look at the pics from the endzone in the tweet linked above. It's 2 shots in sequence and you can see the ball would have hit straight on or just to the outside of an extended goal post.
Obsession? Let's see, the Official's call agrees with the NCAA Rule as verified by the most legitimate angles shown - the ball did not travel fully inside the inward-edges of the uprights, specifically it straddled the right upright as it traveled across the plane made by the upright bars - the kick was called "no good" appropriately according to NCAA Rules, period. And you want to call others obsessed and childish? LMFAO.
The end zone shot isn't straight on with the upright either. Nor can you tell the position of the ball at the exact time it crossed the goalposts.
Lots of our own people didn't come to our support. Still don't.I really hate to see a Big Ten team lose like this
So far so good.
Yeah but the angle isn't as extreme as the shot from underneath and behind the goalpost. It's pretty clear the ball was pretty much directly above the 1 post as the 2 shots in sequence reveal.
I'd say that anyone that uses the word "clearly" to argue their point (on either side of this debate) needs to revisit the definition of the word "clearly". It was a 50/50 call, and there was no good angle to give a definitive view of what happened. Thus, even with review, the call on the field would (or at least "should") have stood.
I thought that the rule is " the entire ball must inside of the goal post "......if that is correct.....then the officials made the correct call. In other words....if the ball straddles the top of the goal post....but is not inside of it.....then the attempt is no good ?
That is the NCAA Rule which states entire ball must be inside the inner edges of the uprights if traveling higher than the top of the uprights.
Similar threads
