B1G: Call Was Correct
- Thread starter St. Anger
- Start date
They said contact was confirmed and the severity of it was a judgment call.
If I were a Michigan State fan I would be upset, too. The contact was pretty minimal, and the no-call essentially cost them a shot at the playoffs.
With that said, had the call happened in the first quarter rather than the final play of the game, few would even be talking about it.
With that said, had the call happened in the first quarter rather than the final play of the game, few would even be talking about it.
Yah well, none of us are MSU fans so i say im glad it was the right call and again i already knew it was when the replay booth CONFIRMED it was tue correct call to start with. We won and thats all us Husker fans should care about, Truethfully if any Husker fans disagree it was a bad call, id have to ask myself if by chance you wasn't pulling for MSU to win the game instead of our Huskers.
I think the article states the "mechanics of the call" were correct. The ruling on the field was that there was enough contact and the booth confirmed there was indeed contact but they can't rule if it was enough or not to push him out of bounds as that is not reviewable. So once the official on the field made the call that receiver was contacted by the D back then the play was done, all the receiver has to do is reestablish himself back in the field of play. All the booth can review is if there indeed was contact and they said yes there was - no degree of contact is reviewed.
Did I get that right rrt?
So whether the play was correct or not is debatable because it is solely a judgement call. In my mind as an old coach there is no way one could say No contact is allowed because that is just not likely to happen. D backs are generally taught as this one was doing, to keep the near hand low and against the receiver to feel for him. You always hope your D back is close enough to have contact with the WR, if they aren't then you might be in trouble!
Did I get that right rrt?
So whether the play was correct or not is debatable because it is solely a judgement call. In my mind as an old coach there is no way one could say No contact is allowed because that is just not likely to happen. D backs are generally taught as this one was doing, to keep the near hand low and against the receiver to feel for him. You always hope your D back is close enough to have contact with the WR, if they aren't then you might be in trouble!
First let me be clear...I feel Nebraska deserved to win the game and stated so here last night. They battled back from two double digit deficits and kept fighting. MSU gave up 500 yards and didn't make enough plays to win.
The call may have been correct by the letter of the law, but certainly not by the spirit of the rule. I'm a little surprised as many people here agree that it was a good call. Last night, most here thought it was kinda shaky. Even coach Riley said as much. Now 24 hours later and after the BIG's official declaration some have been swayed. Interesting. It's not like they can reverse it and take away your W. Anyway here's a different take.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/rogergroves/2015/11/08/how-good-lawyering-would-have-saved-a-michigan-state-win-over-Nebraska/
The call may have been correct by the letter of the law, but certainly not by the spirit of the rule. I'm a little surprised as many people here agree that it was a good call. Last night, most here thought it was kinda shaky. Even coach Riley said as much. Now 24 hours later and after the BIG's official declaration some have been swayed. Interesting. It's not like they can reverse it and take away your W. Anyway here's a different take.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/rogergroves/2015/11/08/how-good-lawyering-would-have-saved-a-michigan-state-win-over-Nebraska/
The guy with the best view was the field judge. He was looking right at Reilly and the defender, long before the ball was caught, and he threw his hat before Reilly caught the ball. He was the only one to adequately see what happened to give a ruling.
The overhead camera angles do not clearly show what the defender did with his left arm. The ground level camera shows the defender with his left arm extended when Reilly is already out of bounds. The defender's left arm is touching Reilly's left arm.
The defender was running diagonally towards the sideline, and after Reilly got around him, the defender was out of bounds. I've believed that he was as he should, tried to run him out of bounds.
No other official threw a flag. The field judge, ref, and two other officials had a conference and the guy with the best view called it a TD.
We are lacking a good camera angle to say the field judge is 100% right, but the camera angles available do not prove he was wrong. Every camera angle shows he was looking their way the entire time. The camera angle from behind does not get Reilly and the defender into the camera view until they are already out of bounds.
So the field judge didn't feel Reilly went out of bounds on his own. Replay officials confirmed there was contact. No other choice but to call it a touchdown. Even if the rules allowed the replay official to overturn the field judge's "judgment", IMO, there was no conclusive evidence to overturn that decision. I also felt that seconds after the play occurred, it was irresponsible for Griese to call it a bad call, simply because the defender was looking back.
I'd love to debate this writer. There is not sufficient evidence to say Reilly was barely touched as he claimed. To make that claim without sufficient video evidence from the end zone side is irresponsible.
I won't argue with the Forbes writer about money/investment issues. But as a veteran investigator who has had to dissect dozens of videos involving physical actions of a human being his conclusions are not based on what video is available. He is making a lot of assumptions.
I read this article earlier and it made me laugh when I saw it was on Forbes. But maybe I shouldn't let that cloud my judgement, as they have a good reputation and shouldn't be excluded from sports articles. But something just didn't seem right with the way the article was written.
That was when I discovered it was an opinion article written by Roger Groves, a 1974 graduate from Michigan State University. It seems like Forbes may be a little closer to Bleacher Report than a true sporting magazine.
I got a chuckle from Roger Groves Forbes Bio:
"...I played piano for Magic Johnson's wedding..."
I didn't know that....haha yeah I would say that makes him a tad bit bias. But major props opening for Stevie Wonder.
The call WAS shaky Rob...not disputing that. Our point is it was a judgement call...dozens of judgement calls made during any CFB game. Some are right...some are wrong. Was a judgement call on what could have been an NU TD earlier in the game when an MSU defender held our receivers arm down when the ball was about to be caught too. The review was correct. And yes...had it happened to NU I would be upset too. Be mad at Dantonio. He had the foot on the throat and let up.
To that question I'd say, how was BR who was behind and to the left of the defender, able to make a play on the ball when the defender was in a better position for it based on its flight, and able to go all the way around to the right of the defender?
At the same time, why did the defender continue to move towards the sideline and out of bounds, when he was initially in better position to catch that ball? I'd have to look at it again, to see if BR in any way cause him to continue out of bounds.
That ball was not going out of bounds. There was no reason for the defender to go out of bounds if he was going for the ball, unless he is trying to use his body to back BR out of bounds, and his momentum carrived hIm out. I'll have to warch it again to see iF the arguement can be made that BR somehow pushed him. By the results of the play and BR's actions, it is pretty obvious that BR adusted to the flight of the ball, and returned to the field. Was that "immediately?" In the judgment of the official who was right there, apparently it was.
Disagree with no shot at the playoffs for MSU. Mich State still controls destiny for B10 Champ game with winning out. Beat Iowa in B10 Champ game and they will be considered for the playoff.
Why did defender keep going out of bounds?...ummm that's easy. He's not a positive player at this point. 3rd string coming into the season. Anyway great play by Reilly and big win for you guys.
How I generally view it, a good call is better than a no call, a no call is better than a bad call.
I'd have to watch the replay again, but this is what I remember watching it on tv. Play starts, camera switches to Brandon Reilly and MSU defender. The official has his hat off, signaling the receiver went out of bounds. Reilly catches the ball and the official signals a TD. At that point, the official has already decided Reilly was forced out of bounds, returned "immediately, and the reception was legal. A "no-call" option is impossible as a ruling has to be made.
Was it a "good call" or a "bad call"? I still don't know what power the replay officials have in affecting this particular ruling. Based on the announcers discussion, it sounded like the replay officials could not rule on being "forced" out of bounds. As for "returning immediately", I don't know the replay officials' power to rule.
So, it turns into statements of the obvious (not necessarily obvious right or obvious wrong). The field official saw forced out of bounds, saw immediate return to field of play, saw legal reception, and signaled TD. The play was reviewed and was not overturned. The game is officially over and in the books.
In the end, I don't know if it was a good call or a bad call, but it's in the books.
It was a judgement call and that official had a better view than anyone. He saw the MSU DB pressing him with his left arm, Nebraska receiver runs out of bounds, he drops the hat. Correct call
