0-1 versus the Pylon

[HFCS]

Disagree completely. All calls were correct. There have been times I felt we got the short end on replay but last night everything was correct.

I'm not complaining about the whole game, overall I would agree it was one of the few games I don't even notice the officials because nothing went against us.

The replay of that 3rd down conversion was simply wrong. All views that weren't obscured showed the release of the ball and knee going down as easily too close to overturn. Replay official did not follow proper procedure, Sage and Blume said as much. It was obviously a blown replay review.

 

[BoxsterCy]

It happens alot actually. If you fumble the ball out of your own endzone. Its a touchback. The pylon is considered the endzone in bounds. Thus there ball. Proper call was made.

What I didn't get was how the Cyclone announcers didn't seem to know this. Everyone in the sports bar next to me knew how this was going to get ruled.

 

[SoapyCy]

I think his question is why doesn't the offensive team get the ball where he fumbled it. If you fumble OOB in the middle of the field the offense gets it back. It's not a dumb question. The other rules alternative could be only the fumbling player can pick up the fumble in the end zone otherwise teams would fumble into the end zone all the time. I Do Believe The NFL has that rule in the fourth quarter?

 

[cyclonespiker33]

I do agree that the refs performed well throughout the night. The only call I remember questioning was the pass interference on Tribune, but I'm biased.

 

[HFCS]

What I didn't get was how the Cyclone announcers didn't seem to know this. Everyone in the sports bar next to me knew how this was going to get overturned.

It's thinking about the pylon as part of the ground vs thinking about it as some sort of pole.

The reason the call still seems odd even though they got it right was that the ball touched the front and outside of pylon. If it were a soccer upright the ball would have gone out of bounds, if it were a field goal pole it would not have scored but been wide right...but that type of thought is irrelevant since it's an extension of the ground.

 

[cyclonespiker33]

It's thinking about the pylon as part of the ground vs thinking about it as some sort of pole.

The reason the call still seems odd even though they got it right was that the ball touched the front and outside of pylon. If it were a soccer upright the ball would have gone out of bounds, if it were a field goal pole it would not have scored but been wide right...but that type of thought is irrelevant since it's an extension of the ground.

But that is even more confusing. Is it the ground out of bounds or is it the ground in the endzone? If it is out of bounds and the ball touches the outside of the pylon first, then the ball was never in the endzone and how can it be a touchback?

 

[Stormin]

I do agree that the refs performed well throughout the night. The only call I remember questioning was the pass interference on Tribune, but I'm biased.

Terrible call on the pass interference. Refs could have called even more holding against UNI OL. And there was a chop block made on Gabe Luna that absolutely should have been called. Lucky he didn't get seriously injured.

IMO, the refs were so-so. We have had much worse.

 

[cyclonespiker33]

Terrible call on the pass interference. Refs could have called even more holding against UNI OL. And there was a chop block made on Gabe Luna that absolutely should have been called. Lucky he didn't get seriously injured.

IMO, the refs were so-so. We have had much worse.

Oh yeah, I never actually saw the chop block but I remember it being talked about.

 

[CyclonesForever]

I remember the play happening in the Oklahoma State vs Texas A&M game back in 2011. OSU pretty much did exactly what we did and it was called a touchback

 

[cyfanatic13]

To all those complaining about the rule, what other alternative is there? Bundrage clearly lost control of it. If you put the ball at the 1 or something you'll see players start throwing the ball at the pylon while they're diving.

 

[stevefrench]

The wierd part of this rule is if you fumble the ball at say the 50 and it rolls out two yards ahead to the 48 the ball is spotted back at the 50 because u can't advance field position on a fumble. But if you fumble at the 2 and the ball barely clips the pylon (such as last night) it's a touchback and the advancement of the ball is allowed.

And that was definitely the most isu way to fumble. What did we leave on the field, like 14 points last night? Gotta clean that up against iowa

 

[chuckd4735]

What I didn't get was how the Cyclone announcers didn't seem to know this. Everyone in the sports bar next to me knew how this was going to get ruled.

What are you talking about? Sage and Bret knew exactly what the rule was and said multiple times during the review that it was going to be a touch back and the ball was going to be UNI's. The only question they had initially was if his hand touched out of bounds before the fumble occurred. Sage even mentioned multiple times how he didnt like the rule of the ball going over to the other team when you fumble through the endzone.

 

[cloneswereall]

But that is even more confusing. Is it the ground out of bounds or is it the ground in the endzone? If it is out of bounds and the ball touches the outside of the pylon first, then the ball was never in the endzone and how can it be a touchback?

The same way it would have been ruled a touchdown if it was still in his hands.

I agree that you could make that argument, but I think the letter of the rule states that pylon is considered the endzone, and when it hit the pylon it established that the ball was out of bounds in the endzone. It wasn't established that the ball was OB until that moment since it hadn't hit the ground yet, thus fumble out of the endzone.

 

[cloneswereall]

The wierd part of this rule is if you fumble the ball at say the 50 and it rolls out two yards ahead to the 48 the ball is spotted back at the 50 because u can't advance field position on a fumble. But if you fumble at the 2 and the ball barely clips the pylon (such as last night) it's a touchback and the advancement of the ball is allowed.

And that was definitely the most isu way to fumble. What did we leave on the field, like 14 points last night? Gotta clean that up against iowa

Isn't the advancement of the ball position dependent on if the ball moves forward on its own vs. if someone tries to pick it up, but it gets thrown forward?

 

[HFCS]

To all those complaining about the rule, what other alternative is there? Bundrage clearly lost control of it. If you put the ball at the 1 or something you'll see players start throwing the ball at the pylon while they're diving.

It's definitely not a touchdown and the pylon can't be a true 'post' to determine inside or outside. Football is a very imperfect and messy sport in dozens of ways. The act of spotting the ball alone makes nearly every play subjective compared to things like hockey, basketball, soccer, track, wrestling, etc... I'd say nearly every play in football involves at least some sort of subjectivity or arbitrary rule. It's why foreign people can't easily pick it up unless they move here and are surrounded by it.

 

[chuckd4735]

The wierd part of this rule is if you fumble the ball at say the 50 and it rolls out two yards ahead to the 48 the ball is spotted back at the 50 because u can't advance field position on a fumble. But if you fumble at the 2 and the ball barely clips the pylon (such as last night) it's a touchback and the advancement of the ball is allowed.

And that was definitely the most isu way to fumble. What did we leave on the field, like 14 points last night? Gotta clean that up against iowa

My count was 21 points left on the field. The first offensive possession had TD written all over with with the way Brown was running the ball. We then got vanilla with play-calling and stalled. That drive should of ended in a TD, IMO. 7 points there. The second missed FG was a long shot, but its a FG Netten should of made. 3 points there. The play where Netten made his field goal also should of been a TD, and we again got vanilla with play-calling on this drive. 4 points there. The QB fumble. 7 points there.

 

[HFCS]

My count was 21 points left on the field. The first offensive possession had TD written all over with with the way Brown was running the ball. We then got vanilla with play-calling and stalled. That drive should of ended in a TD, IMO. 7 points there. The second missed FG was a long shot, but its a FG Netten should of made. 3 points there. The play where Netten made his field goal also should of been a TD, and we again got vanilla with play-calling on this drive. 4 points there. The QB fumble. 7 points there.

On one hand I agree ISU left a ton of easy points on the field.

On the other hand the only reason we could have scored near 50 was our defense and special teams absolutely dominating the game. At no point did the offense ever look like a team that could score 30+ or the nearly 50 they could have been able to score if they had just finished in the red zone.

I'm pretty concerned about the offense, but I know there's the cliche about week 1 to week 2 and I'm hoping that's true. Would be a crime if we waste this WR corp this season with a dysfunctional O.

 

[agcy68]

My officiating question: can the replay official make an "illegal forward pass" call without a flag thrown on he play? (Per the review last night)

 

[NebraskaCyclone]

All things said, kudos to the team responding right after. It looked like common pending disaster was guaranteed in typical fashion, one moment ready to take total domination of the game and just like that everything flips, but that did not happen for a change.

 

[chuckd4735]

On one hand I agree ISU left a ton of easy points on the field.

On the other hand the only reason we could have scored near 50 was our defense and special teams absolutely dominating the game. At no point did the offense ever look like a team that could score 30+ or the nearly 50 they could have been able to score if they had just finished in the red zone.

I'm pretty concerned about the offense, but I know there's the cliche about week 1 to week 2 and I'm hoping that's true. Would be a crime if we waste this WR corp this season with a dysfunctional O.

I cant disagree, but even so, that first missed FG should of been easy for Netten with the wind at his back, and the QB fumble should of been an easy 7. In the very least, for as meh as the offense looked last night, they should of accounted for 34 points (with the other 7 coming on the punt return).