Penn St vs Indiana...What??

Nov 29, 2014
2,824
2,467
113
Ball looked like it was out of bounds actually. No way to overturn with limited camera angles though. Credit to IU's head coach for pulling the Osborne.
Unfortunately, an "Osborne" would be not completing the 2 pt try. I'm just the messenger.
 

BuckysBoys1

Redshirt Freshman
Mar 28, 2019
751
504
93
Looking in slow motion I saw it this way. As he was stretching the ball out the front tip crossed the goaline, then the back tip hit the out of bounds then the ball hit the pylon. So IMO touchdown.
 

schuele

Athletic Director
Apr 17, 2005
13,969
9,424
113
Looking in slow motion I saw it this way. As he was stretching the ball out the front tip crossed the goaline, then the back tip hit the out of bounds then the ball hit the pylon. So IMO touchdown.
Agree that it needed to stand as called on the field. Not 100% certain the plane was broken first, but not enough evidence to overturn it.

Penn State can chalk the loss up to being stupid enough to fall for the laydown defense when up by one point. Just eat the clock and IU never ties the game in the first place.
 

Crazyhole

Junior
Jun 4, 2004
1,987
2,828
113
Agree that it needed to stand as called on the field. Not 100% certain the plane was broken first, but not enough evidence to overturn it.

Penn State can chalk the loss up to being stupid enough to fall for the laydown defense when up by one point. Just eat the clock and IU never ties the game in the first place.
The pylon was tipped before the rubber bits started coming up from the turf, which were out of bounds, so it seems like an obvious call.
 

schuele

Athletic Director
Apr 17, 2005
13,969
9,424
113
The ball hit the ground, out of bounds, prior to contacting the pylon
That’s how I saw it too. But with the camera angles available, it looked like the nose of the ball broke the plane before the ball touched either the sideline or the pylon. That’s why I think letting the call stand was the right decision.
 

OctavianDillard

Walk On
Sep 12, 2020
119
223
43
The pylon was tipped before the rubber bits started coming up from the turf, which were out of bounds, so it seems like an obvious call.
It is an impossibility to say that the ball made contact with the pylon before touching the ground out of bounds
 

schuele

Athletic Director
Apr 17, 2005
13,969
9,424
113
That white line is part of the endzone. Any part of the ball just barely breaks that line. It's a 2 point play. Forget the pylon and the other nonsense. It was very close but the replay officials let it stand. And that was the right call.
This^^^

The camera angle isn't perfect, but at the moment the ball first appears to break the plane it hasn't touched anything else, and the QB isn't down. That's why the call stood.
 
  • Like
Reactions: litespeedhuskerfan

Lincoln100

Defensive Coordinator
Jun 16, 2010
7,412
4,133
113
That white line is part of the endzone. Any part of the ball just barely breaks that line. It's a 2 point play. Forget the pylon and the other nonsense. It was very close but the replay officials let it stand. And that was the right call.
You can't dismiss the pylon. If the front of the pylon is lined up with and flush with the front of the goal line, which I believe is the intent, then it is impossible for the football to have broken that line before hitting the ground because the ball hits only the front of the pylon and no part of the inside of the pylon. If the ball actually broke the line prior to hitting the ground, the ball necessarily would have hit the interior of the pylon. It did not. It is indisputable that it first hit out of bounds and then hit into only the front facing portion of the pylon, which was flush with the goal line. That could not happen if the nose of the ball broke the line prior to the ball hitting the ground. It was the wrong call.