Penn St vs Indiana...What??

Lincoln100

Defensive Coordinator
Jun 16, 2010
7,416
4,138
113
I think the ball was out of bounds before hitting the pylon.
It was, but those pining for it being the right call are saying that the ball actually broke the plane of the goal line but somehow then came back behind the pylon, struck the ground, and then struck the pylon. It doesn't make sense.
 
Nov 29, 2014
2,877
2,503
113
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.
The air right above the endzone line is also a TD. Thats called breaking the plane. The nose of the ball enters the air of the plane before the back of the ball touches any out of bound grass. There is no air of the plane for a sideline boundary.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bigboxes

Crazyhole

Junior
Jun 4, 2004
1,991
2,839
113
It was, but those pining for it being the right call are saying that the ball actually broke the plane of the goal line but somehow then came back behind the pylon, struck the ground, and then struck the pylon. It doesn't make sense.
He hit the inside corner of the pylon. It is literally and geometrically impossible for the ball to have not crossed the plane before it exited the field.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ThereIsNoPlace

Herbert Husker

Redshirt Freshman
Jan 26, 2018
604
1,159
93
It was, but those pining for it being the right call are saying that the ball actually broke the plane of the goal line but somehow then came back behind the pylon, struck the ground, and then struck the pylon. It doesn't make sense.
The middle of the ball is fatter than the nose of the ball.

The sequence went as follows:
1) Nose of the ball crossed over the goal line. Touchdown. Nothing after this matters.

2) Middle, fatter part of the ball touched the ground out of bounds.

3) Nose of the ball hit the pylon.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Crazyhole

red scowl

Senior
May 19, 2018
2,414
1,788
113
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.
You are making it more difficult than it is. Watch the replay again. The ball appears to be on or very near the plane of the endzone before the ball hits the ground or pylon. You're trying too hard and are wrong.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Herbert Husker

Lincoln100

Defensive Coordinator
Jun 16, 2010
7,416
4,138
113
The air right above the endzone line is also a TD. Thats called breaking the plane. The nose of the ball enters the air of the plane before the back of the ball touches any out of bound grass. There is no air of the plane for a sideline boundary.
Had it done that, it would have hit some point of the inside of the pylon, which it did not do.
 

Lincoln100

Defensive Coordinator
Jun 16, 2010
7,416
4,138
113
You are making it more difficult than it is. Watch the replay again. The ball appears to be on or very near the plane of the endzone before the ball hits the ground or pylon. You're trying too hard and are wrong.
I've watched it a number of times. Making it more difficult? It's a perfect explanation of how it could not have broken the plane of the goal line. Tell me how the explanation isn't correct. If you can't, then my argument stands.
 

Lincoln100

Defensive Coordinator
Jun 16, 2010
7,416
4,138
113
The middle of the ball is fatter than the nose of the ball.

The sequence went as follows:
1) Nose of the ball crossed over the goal line. Touchdown. Nothing after this matters.

2) Middle, fatter part of the ball touched the ground out of bounds.

3) Nose of the ball hit the pylon.
it hit the front of the pylon, not any point of the interior of the pylon. Therefore, it could not have crossed the plane of the goal.
 
Nov 29, 2014
2,877
2,503
113
Had it done that, it would have hit some point of the inside of the pylon, which it did not do.
There is air inside the pylon over the endzone line (the plane) that the nose of the ball is occupying before any other contact of a surface of the ball.
 

Lincoln100

Defensive Coordinator
Jun 16, 2010
7,416
4,138
113
He hit the inside corner of the pylon. It is literally and geometrically impossible for the ball to have not crossed the plane before it exited the field.
He did not hit the inside of the pylon, that's the point.
 

Herbert Husker

Redshirt Freshman
Jan 26, 2018
604
1,159
93
Had it done that, it would have hit some point of the inside of the pylon, which it did not do.
No, he was not only moving forward, he was moving from right to left. Not only that, the ball was angled in his hands such that the nose was pointing toward the FG post.

The nose of the ball broke the plane because of the angle it was pointing. Then after that, as his momentum brought the ball toward the sideline, the back/middle of the ball hit the ground out of bounds. Then as he continued to move toward the sideline, the ball hit the pylon.
 

The_Man_Behind_The_Man

Redshirt Freshman
Nov 28, 2016
676
710
93
Only in the minds of husker fans. Hell, loosing Cincinette and Rutgers may have been a blessing. Time to stop making excuses. Get er done.
Little loosey goosey with the word ‘losing’.

Dem Cincinette Beercats sho woulda kicked our butts twice on Saturday. Woo wee! 10-4 good buddy!
 

beaglehusker

Assistant Head Coach
Sep 29, 2006
10,224
3,993
113
Only in the minds of husker fans. Hell, loosing Cincinette and Rutgers may have been a blessing. Time to stop making excuses. Get er done.
It's a tough start to the schedule, not an excuse, it's the truth.
 

Lincoln100

Defensive Coordinator
Jun 16, 2010
7,416
4,138
113

That image is just before ball hits OB. Nose of the ball appears to be above the plane. Ball is angled.
This is your proof? That image shows the ball out of bounds, and more importantly, the picture is taken at an angle from behind the ball, so it definitely can appear like it broke the plane without doing so. It also appears that the nose of the ball has not passed the front of the pylon, which is flush with the front of the goal line. I guess it makes sense if the review is simply looking at the angle, but it's lazy and incorrect.
 

Herbert Husker

Redshirt Freshman
Jan 26, 2018
604
1,159
93
This is your proof? That image shows the ball out of bounds, and more importantly, the picture is taken at an angle from behind the ball, so it definitely can appear like it broke the plane without doing so. It also appears that the nose of the ball has not passed the front of the pylon, which is flush with the front of the goal line. I guess it makes sense if the review is simply looking at the angle, but it's lazy and incorrect.
The ball has not hit OB yet. And even factoring in the angle, the nose still appears to have broke the plane. If not, as the ball continues to inch forward it does. You lost this one, kiddo.
 

Lincoln100

Defensive Coordinator
Jun 16, 2010
7,416
4,138
113
The ball has not hit OB yet. And even factoring in the angle, the nose still appears to have broke the plane. If not, as the ball continues to inch forward it does. You lost this one, kiddo.
Ha! Repeating a fallible observation doesn't make it any less fallible. As the ball continues to inch forward, it only ever makes contact with the front side of the pylon, which, if your observations are correct, could not have happened. The most forward part of the ball first hit the pylon, after it was out of bounds and had hit the ground, and then hit only on the front side of the pylon. It's that simple. I cannot use the word "pylon" any more, and if you can't follow, or don't want to follow, the physics, I don't care. It's a little strange how contrived your explanation needs to be to try to prove the opposite of what our eyes and replay shows us. Good day.
 

Herbert Husker

Redshirt Freshman
Jan 26, 2018
604
1,159
93
The most forward part of the ball first hit the pylon
This is where you’re wrong. The ball is pointing forward toward the right. The nose of the ball is AHEAD of the pylon as the fatter, middle part of the ball hits the front of the pylon.

The only question is this: Did the forward-right pointing nose of the ball break the plane before the leftward-pointing backside of the ball touched the ground out of bounds. The images indicate yes to me, but it’s very close.

The fact that you can’t grasp the geometry behind the fact that the nose of the ball is ahead of the pylon when the center of the ball hits the front of the pylon is the real face palm.
 

Mr.Scary13

Senior
Dec 7, 2014
2,040
1,734
113
The rule is a joke to begin with. I personally don't care if the ball hit the pylon or not, that should never be a TD. The kids body and knee was literally 2 to 3 yards short of the goal line. Rule should be changed to spot the yardage at the knee and not the ball. Make the players actually get in the end zone for a score.
 

rcnut223

Sophomore
Apr 22, 2004
1,005
194
63
My understanding is ...once the play was ruled a touch down on the field. With that you have to have clear evidence to overturn that ruling.
 

Raptor10

Newbie
Apr 28, 2020
20
24
3
The rule is a joke to begin with. I personally don't care if the ball hit the pylon or not, that should never be a TD. The kids body and knee was literally 2 to 3 yards short of the goal line. Rule should be changed to spot the yardage at the knee and not the ball. Make the players actually get in the end zone for a score.
Why at the knee. If that's how you want the ball spotted let's go to the tip of his toe. Or even better lets allow the spot be where the dline pushes the player 20 yards back b4 tackling him. That's why its the spot of the ball
 

John_J_Rambo

Blackshirt
Jan 10, 2020
3,401
6,211
113
The rule is a joke to begin with. I personally don't care if the ball hit the pylon or not, that should never be a TD. The kids body and knee was literally 2 to 3 yards short of the goal line. Rule should be changed to spot the yardage at the knee and not the ball. Make the players actually get in the end zone for a score.
This post is quite dumb.
 

orclover

Walk On
Dec 1, 2014
312
145
43
I'm not a bit ashamed to admit that I'm a jealous bitch. When I see crappy programs playing well and threatening huge upsets it just pisses me off. Oh well.
I think 20 years is enough time for a program to go from great to crappy. The rest of college football has caught up, our current coach is doing what every other coach is now doing, and although we recruit better than many teams we also have terrible attrition and ridiculous expectations. The only thing that makes us better is the fact we have a bunch of old loyal fans...old white people don't win you championships sadly.
 

Lincoln100

Defensive Coordinator
Jun 16, 2010
7,416
4,138
113
This is where you’re wrong. The ball is pointing forward toward the right. The nose of the ball is AHEAD of the pylon as the fatter, middle part of the ball hits the front of the pylon.

The only question is this: Did the forward-right pointing nose of the ball break the plane before the leftward-pointing backside of the ball touched the ground out of bounds. The images indicate yes to me, but it’s very close.

The fact that you can’t grasp the geometry behind the fact that the nose of the ball is ahead of the pylon when the center of the ball hits the front of the pylon is the real face palm.
Sigh. Here goes. If the forward-right pointing nose of the ball broke the plane before the leftward- pointing backside of the ball touched the ground out of bounds, then the leading and forward-most part of the football would not have struck the pylon (you made me use the word again) the way that it did. There is absolutely nothing that is controversial about this. Your theory is an impossibility. The part of the ball that first hits the pylon is the forward-most part of the ball. It has to be, because only the front part of the pylon was hit. Your argument could work if the interior corner was hit first, but it clearly was not hit first, or at all. The football hits the ground out of bounds and then hits the front of the pylon, which is flush with the goal line. That means it did not break the plane before being out of bounds. That is the only possible conclusion.
 

Raptor10

Newbie
Apr 28, 2020
20
24
3
Right or wrong the call on the field was a successful try. By video review what they have to look at. They had to go with the call on the field "stands" not "confirmed" meaning they didn't have enough to over turn the call on the field. If it was the other way would have had the same review call
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: schuele

DooBi

Newbie
Sep 18, 2006
10
3
3
Sigh. Here goes. If the forward-right pointing nose of the ball broke the plane before the leftward- pointing backside of the ball touched the ground out of bounds, then the leading and forward-most part of the football would not have struck the pylon (you made me use the word again) the way that it did. There is absolutely nothing that is controversial about this. Your theory is an impossibility. The part of the ball that first hits the pylon is the forward-most part of the ball. It has to be, because only the front part of the pylon was hit. Your argument could work if the interior corner was hit first, but it clearly was not hit first, or at all. The football hits the ground out of bounds and then hits the front of the pylon, which is flush with the goal line. That means it did not break the plane before being out of bounds. That is the only possible conclusion.
I dont think you are correct. The tip of the ball is not what struck the pylon. The fatter part in the middle of the ball is what strikes the pylon. You can see it on the picture you posted.
 

Lincoln100

Defensive Coordinator
Jun 16, 2010
7,416
4,138
113
uh huh. That's what I said and that's the point (no pun intended). The forward most part of the ball is not the forward-right pointing nose, as a handful of posters keep trying to argue, otherwise it (or an area thereabout) would have made contact with the pylon first. The first part of the ball to make contact is the fatter part that is out of bounds, because it is the forward most part of the ball. The point of the ball could not have crossed the goal line.
 

schuele

Athletic Director
Apr 17, 2005
13,974
9,425
113
FS1 must have shown this play from five different camera angles, and none of them gave a definitive answer. The sideline camera, because it was not placed on the goal line, gave an angle that suggested the point of the ball might have broken the plane, and none of the other cameras conclusively refuted that. For that reason, as others have stated, the officials let the call stand. I think the call also would have also stood if they had originally ruled him short.
 
Last edited: