Receiving team did not signal for a fair catch. So I am not sure that the Kick Catch Interference would apply. I always thought that after 10 yards the kick was fair game. If the receiving team had signaled a fair catch and it was touched before hitting the ground then KCI would apply. But OSU obviously did not do so. And the OSU player was making no attempt to catch the ball and it travelled the necessary 10 yards.
Officiating question
- Thread starter Cyrok
- Start date
Receiving team did not signal for a fair catch. So I am not sure that the Kick Catch Interference would apply. I always thought that after 10 yards the kick was fair game. If the receiving team had signaled a fair catch and it was touched before hitting the ground then KCI would apply. But OSU obviously did not do so. And the OSU player was making no attempt to catch the ball and it travelled the necessary 10 yards.
Like I said . . call it like it is and forget the "overrun" theory. I would say a TOUCHDOWN play SHOULD be reviewable as other critical calls WITHOUT worrying about "overrun." A missed call is a missed call on BIG plays.
Correct, it can only be interference if a fair catch is signaled. Kickoffs are free balls unless the fair catch is signaled. The kickoff team has just as much right to the ball as the receiving team.
From what I have read, the kickoff is a LIVE ball after 10 yards. It is different than a punt.
The ball didn't have to touch the ground first because no Fair Catch signal was given. We can go for the ball after the ball goes 10 yards. It is fair game according to what I have read. The officials had it right on the onside kick. It wasn't a lucky break given by the officials. OSU did not get screwed.
Another link which discusses and says Reeves is allowed to catch the ball in the air after it travels 10 yards. It is fair game.
http://coachhuey.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=federation&thread=1878&page=1
The ball didn't have to touch the ground first because no Fair Catch signal was given. We can go for the ball after the ball goes 10 yards. It is fair game according to what I have read. The officials had it right on the onside kick. It wasn't a lucky break given by the officials. OSU did not get screwed.
Another link which discusses and says Reeves is allowed to catch the ball in the air after it travels 10 yards. It is fair game.
http://coachhuey.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=federation&thread=1878&page=1
Last edited:
It doesn't take the bounce that we usually see on an on-side kick, but it does seem like he is hitting it against the ground so that it pops up (like when you slap a basketball on the ground and it pops up so you can start dribbling it). Perhaps this counts as "the ball hitting the ground."
At any rate, it was nice not to be the loser from a questionable call.
Since I just watched the replay and I see this thread, I'm going to bring up another call. When Barnett fumbled at the 5 yard line or so, the OSU player who recovered didn't appear to have control of the ball while still in-bounds. He was practically laying on the sideline when he wrapped the ball up. I can't believe that call wasn't overturned.
The ball doesn't need to hit the ground so the call on the field was correct and not questionable. Once it goes 10 yds, in the air OR bouncing it is live for either team.
Because I think some fans are looking through cardinal-colored glasses. The OSU guy was clearly in bounds when he possessed it, then slid out of bounds. The ref's call was the correct one.
Unless the receiver of the kicking team calls fair catch - then the kicking team would have to lay off and let him catch the ball (assuming it didn't touch the ground).
His shoulder rolled onto the sideline while still gathering the ball. Incorrect call. If they're going to give him possession prior to going out of bounds, then Money's catch/no-catch should have been called a catch with possession and being down before the ball was pulled loose from his hands.
Wrong. There was an entire strip of green between the sideline and his shoulder pad when he possessed the ball. It was the right call and it's sad that some ISU fans still cannot ever admit the refs got a close call right when it goes against ISU, even after the biggest upset win in program history.
Meh, I'm not going to make that big of a deal about it as I thought we got the benefit of a couple of calls throughout the game. But its always neat to see jdogg come in and defend all officials calls no matter what. Probably even thought the off-sides on the on-side kick and the incomplete pass calls against Baylor were correct.
I seldom defend the refs, but after it was slowed down that was fairly easily the right call. I just don't understand what you are seeing. He has possession and you can still see green what more do you need. Its where he starts his slide not where he ends up. IF he has possession he has possession. I complained about the call until the slowed it down the very first time. Then it was obvious. Very very good call by the ref.
Just glad it didn't leave a mark. The refs were very good in that game. Was clear we had the A crew. The money catch I'd have to go back and look at, but this one was a very good call, plain and simple.
The question is whether he had full possession before his shoulder touched the sideline. Not enough evidence to overturn the ruling on the field IMO. Call stands.
On the onside kick recovered by Reeves. No Fair Catch was signaled so Reeves had the right to the ball after it went 10 yards and it did not have to hit the ground first. Correct call by officials.
I'd rather "defend" the ref than be one of about two dozen posters that ***** every single time a call goes against our team, followed up with "there must be a conspiracy in the Big 12 office against ISU." You tell me which is the more ridiculous attitude to have. Oh, and by the way, if it was you officiating instead of these refs you would be missing a hell of a lot more calls than they do.
I would much rather defend the officials for making botched calls that are in our favor. We do not get much opportunity to do that. The ratio of botched calls that go against us instead of for us is about 10:1 it seems.
I have a question on one of Oklahoma State's punts. Since I'm too lazy to look up the rule, can the player downing the punt be in the endzone as long as the ball does not cross the goal line? It looks to me like the player is touching in the endzone while throwing the ball out which I thought would be a touchback.
In college, yes -- the player can be in the endzone and touch the ball, as long as the ball doesn't cross the goal line. In the NFL, however, neither ball nor player can be across the goal line.
I am not sure about that. It would be nice to see the actual rule stating that. If that is the case then WHY do players always seem to not want to step on the line or in the endzone when they try to throw back the ball? If what you are saying is true it would make no difference where their feet and body are located.
