OSU's missed Field Goal

[ISUAlum2002]

Funny that it got to the point where it was horrific and Rhoads had his blow up on the side lines. Since then the games have seemded to have been well officiated. No more made up penalties and no more calling penalties on ISU then letting the other team do the exact same thing the next drive without a flag.

I think the officiating crews got a talking to at some point.

I think so too. I'm betting our athletic department quietly stirred up the Big 12 offices (you know, unlike Pinkel's very public whining about the officiating back in 2006). The officiating blunders were obvious early in the season and had a hint of bias. Even with as little as ISU means to this conference, the higher ups likely realize that they can't have games appearing to have predetermined outcomes or it will undermine the integrity of the game.....and dollars would stop rolling in.

 

[ISUAlum2002]

I wouldn't say absolutely, but the point of the ball did touch the ground, so I can't argue that they got it wrong. I think he had control, and the ball touching was incidental to that, but after being called incomplete on the field, they certainly couldn't overturn it.

Its a call that earlier in the season would have gotten overturned. They were overturning calls on us left and right with no clear evidence to the contrary of what was called on the field.

As soon as I saw the replay on the big board and saw the nose of the ball hit the turf, I figured for sure it was coming back.

 

[Madclone1]

Anyone still think ALL Big 12 refs are out to get us?

I'll answer that . . . after all the the complaints about their crummy officiating . . THEY LEARNED TO STAY OUT OF THE WAY . . . and let the teams play like the game is intended.

So they learned their lesson.

Thanks for defending the lawyers on the field. As if they need it.

 

[theyork]

my thought exactly! it only took 10 years to get payback on that, but I'd say it was worth it

ironically, both this miss and our infamous miss benefited alabama. or...is that ironic? guess it doesn't matter.

 

[uro cy]

By the rule and replay, it didn't look good. But with all the technology these days, you think there would be a better way to determine if these kicks are good, or make taller goal posts at least.

Same with the the 1st down chain gang, at some point there should be a quicker and more accurate way...

 

[kilroy]

This was also a big espn game and so Im sure they had there A crews on tap especially for the #2 team with a National championship riding on it. Just better crews I think, BUT it is amazing how bad officiating can ruin a season.

 

[Tredici]

ESPN shows a bad angle... There is a little difference in perspective (parallax) when they show the kick from an angle. From the straight on angle, it definitely looks no good. The referees were standing right under it, so I assume they made the correct call.

 

[Spam]

Yes, just saw the replay. The call was not as bad as I first thought. I would have felt just a bit bad for OSU had we won because of an unfair FG. But in the end, I think the call was correct

 

[acqflisu]

Good call, great game.

Rules: Officials Get 4th-Quarter Missed Field-Goal Call Right as OSU Falls | Bleacher Report

 

[ThurgoodMarshal]

Refs called it no good, so it's no good. No need to tarnish the cyclone victory.

 

[Cycsk]

Refs called it no good, so it's no good. No need to tarnish the cyclone victory.

Last night while I watched the ESPN replay, I spent time on the OrangePower site and they weren't claiming that it was good. In fact, it was on the OrangePower site where I found the rule about a kick going right above a post is no good and not reviewable.

 

[Tre4ISU]

Reynolds' TD was absolutely incomplete.

How so? It was one of those you couldn't have overturned either way. I thought it was a TD. He had the ball, it did hit the ground but it didn't jiggle at all as he followed through. It came out after he would have been called down.

 

[TedKumsher]

How so? It was one of those you couldn't have overturned either way. I thought it was a TD. He had the ball, it did hit the ground but it didn't jiggle at all as he followed through. It came out after he would have been called down.

I believe that a catch is not complete until you finish falling to the ground and still have control of the ball.

I believe that a catch is not complete if the ball touches the ground before the pass is complete.

Therefore, even with control, the pass was not complete because it touched the ground before the pass was fully completed.

That's why you can jump and catch a ball with full control, but get the ball knocked out of your hands before (or shortly after) coming down on the ground, and it's ruled incomplete (otherwise it would be a fumble). Same with just simply falling down and losing control when you hit the ground.

 

[driegner]

I believe that a catch is not complete until you finish falling to the ground and still have control of the ball.

I believe that a catch is not complete if the ball touches the ground before the pass is complete.

Therefore, even with control, the pass was not complete because it touched the ground before the pass was fully completed.

That's why you can jump and catch a ball with full control, but get the ball knocked out of your hands before (or shortly after) coming down on the ground, and it's ruled incomplete (otherwise it would be a fumble). Same with just simply falling down and losing control when you hit the ground.

Isn't this an NFL rule? Any rules gurus know the story here?

 

[Stormin]

Looked like it would've hit the upright. Whether it went in or not who knows. I kept waiting for a review of the field goal where the officials reversed the call.

Then the correct call was made. Bleacher Report discussed the issue.

Rules: Officials Get 4th-Quarter Missed Field-Goal Call Right as OSU Falls | Bleacher Report

But as painful and disagreeable as it may be for OSU, the on-field and replay officials both got the call right.

When Sharp kicked his high, tailing attempt, the ball appeared to pass directly over the uprights.

NCAA football rule 8-4-1-a specifies what constitutes a valid field goal:

"A field goal shall be scored for the kicking team if a drop kick or place kick passes over the crossbar between the uprights of the receiving team's goal before it touches a player of the kicking team or the ground."


Simple. A field goal is good if it passes over the crossbar and between the uprights.

But what if it passes over the uprights themselves?

Rule 8-4-1-b elaborates on how to treat peculiar situations in which a ball does the unexpected: "The crossbar and uprights are treated as a line."

In other words, extend a line straight up from the innermost point of each crossbar. The area between the line encompasses the space a ball must pass through for it to be considered good.

What does football have to say about an object touching or passing through a line? Visit rule 2-12 and you'll notice a common theme among all boundary lines: they are "out of bounds," with the key word "out."

Whereas the goal line is a planar boundary, 8-4-1-b explicitly states the crossbar and uprights are not to be considered a scoring plane.

Even with Sharp's kick sailing high above the uprights, the officials could correctly tell the attempt was wide.

As for the replay booth and its decision not to review the play, the officials also got this call correct. Per rule 12-3-b, "If the ball is higher than the top of the uprights as it crosses the end line, the play may not be reviewed."

Slam dunk.

 

[cyrocksmypants]

I don't understand why everyone thought the kick was good. As soon as he kicked it live, I saw it was no good. I didn't even need a replay, which they showed over and over with still not one single shot making me think it was good. Then again, I already knew the rule that the entire ball had to be inside the goalpost, so that could have been a big difference. Thank you college course Gaming and Officiating!