Game Thread: CFP SEMIFINAL: Clemson (13-0) vs Ohio State (13-0) 8pm ET ESPN

[michaeljordan_fan]

 

[dtgold88]

Sorry Suckeye, no matter how much crying you do the rule is the rule and it is not a fumble. It’s time you and your fellow fans suck it up and stop complaining about the refs. Take your own advice, suck it up and move on.

how many steps. Does multiple choice help you?

A) 3-4
B) 5-9
C) 10+ will do it

 

[michaeljordan_fan]

.

 

[michaeljordan_fan]

 

[dtgold88]

You're wasting your time, he's an idiot.

you've been arguing for pages and pages, even providing evidence proving yourself wrong. Kind of means you are wasting your time and an idiot, huh?

 

[WizardHawk]

No disagreement. But worse than typical bad calls are bad calls made after a review to reverse what quite likely was the right call.

We were talking about this while they were reviewing it, but before all the modern rule changes on what is or is not a catch, everyone knew what a catch was. The rule as written has way too much room for interpretation. That's the problem, not the outcome of that process. IMO it should have been ruled a catch and a strip/fumble. He possessed it and didn't lose it because he didn't control it, it got knocked out of his hand.

But this is the new normal in football. It won't be the last time. If that WR doesn't fall down and at least knocks the ball away from the defender if not catching it and at some point reach the endzone, few are talking much about that call. If that TD stood we don't know for sure the game ends with an OSU win as everything after that moment is now different. Every play is different. It's too easy to get caught up as fans in the thought that's an auto win, but it just isn't.

 

[michaeljordan_fan]

 

[Across The Field]

you've been arguing for pages and pages, even providing evidence proving yourself wrong. Kind of means you are wasting your time and an idiot, huh?

There's a reason he's only able to post tired gifs in place of actual posts that prove him wrong at this point.

 

[Across The Field]

We were talking about this while they were reviewing it, but before all the modern rule changes on what is or is not a catch, everyone knew what a catch was. The rule as written has way too much room for interpretation. That's the problem, not the outcome of that process. IMO it should have been ruled a catch and a strip/fumble. He possessed it and didn't lose it because he didn't control it, it got knocked out of his hand.

But this is the new normal in football. It won't be the last time. If that WR doesn't fall down and at least knocks the ball away from the defender if not catching it and at some point reach the endzone, few are talking much about that call. If that TD stood we don't know for sure the game ends with an OSU win as everything after that moment is now different. Every play is different. It's too easy to get caught up as fans in the thought that's an auto win, but it just isn't.

Very well-put.

 

[dtgold88]

You an always spot the irrational in a sports discussion. They avoid answering direct questions, dance/deflect/distort, and when all else fails it's irrelevant GIF?MEME time.

well done I guess?

Sleep well.

 

[michaeljordan_fan]

 

[Across The Field]

You an always spot the irrational in a sports discussion. They avoid answering direct questions, dance/deflect/distort, and when all else fails it's irrelevant GIF?MEME time.

well done I guess?

Sleep well.

OSU and WVU tip off at noon tomorrow. At least we don't have to watch the damn Browns.

 

[michaeljordan_fan]

.

 

[rjshull]

How was step 3 not completed? Because the 4 steps he took weren't towards downfield? Does this mean a WR can catch a ball and run back towards the QB for 10-20 yards and then get stripped and it's not a catch?

Again, as I said before, if that play took place in the end zone, it would've been (rightly) called a TD. He did everything that constitutes a catch in the college game. Players make catches on the sidelines with one foot in bounds every single game. He had his feet in bounds on 4 different steps, and taking these steps absolutely constitutes a football play. It is a fumble by the very definition.

Wrong cupcake, the play wasn’t over 10 yards, it was barely over a yard, if even that much. The receiver never attempted to tuck the ball, he did not defend against the receiver. Defending against the DB is actually part of the rule, you cannot argue against something that is actually clearly stated in the rule, no interpretation needed on what i.e. includes. He did not make another football move, he did not tuck it, he did not drag the DB, he did not cross the goal line. The DB knocked the ball out of his hands before a move could be made.

 

[michaeljordan_fan]

 

[dtgold88]

Very well-put.

Missed his comment until you posted it but agree.

 

[Across The Field]

Wrong cupcake, the play wasn’t over 10 yards, it was barely over a yard, if even that much. The receiver never attempted to tuck the ball, he did not defend against the receiver. Defending against the DB is actually part of the rule, you cannot argue against something that is actually clearly stated in the rule, no interpretation needed on what i.e. includes. He did not make another football move, he did not tuck it, he did not drag the DB, he did not cross the goal line. The DB knocked the ball out of his hands before a move could be made.

So, if a WR makes a catch on the sideline with one foot in bounds with both hands securing the ball, it isn't a catch because he hasn't brought it into his body? I've seen more examples of this being incorrect than I can even count.

Ball was caught, ball was secured in two hands, ball was not bobbled, and 4 subsequent steps were taken. It's a fumble.

 

[dtgold88]

OSU and WVU tip off at noon tomorrow. At least we don't have to watch the damn Browns.

I'll be switching back and forth. Hope the second game is on. Kid from the area (Solon) plays for Duquesne.

 

[michaeljordan_fan]

.

 

[rjshull]

Since MJ fan wont answer maybe you can explain how taking 3-4 steps is not ADVANCING the ball and thus completing step 3.

How many steps does he need to take to ADVANCE the ball?

The rule is clear, it does not say how many steps are required for step 3, but warding off the defender is. He did not make a football move. The rule gives 2 examples, which includes the one in question. There is no interpretation needed, step 3 was not completed.

Don’t get me wrong, I do not like the rule, but the rule is the rule no matter how convoluted is.