|
Post by AztecWilliam on Feb 9, 2016 11:31:51 GMT -8
Forgetting for the moment what happened on the actual play (looks to me like it was down by the barest of margins)... What the hell is the MWC doing releasing a statement on one bang-bang play? What exactly is the rationale (agenda?) there? Said it before and I'll say it again, there were a lot of calls way more questionable than that throughout the game. Let's start with Noodles out in the middle of the court time after time. He looked like he was ready to jump ball at center court one time. Then, some of those foul calls in the first half... Where is the MWC statement on those? Exactly! A really stupid move by the conference. (Not the same as declaring that there were NINE blown calls in the Fresno St. FB game last year.) Somebody in the MWC office needs to get a clue. AzWm
|
|
|
Post by AztecBill on Feb 9, 2016 11:40:43 GMT -8
If the rule is to have both feet established when you have the ball then it was the correct call. That is not the rule. That part of the rule is covered under a section called "position of a player". If any part of the player is in contact with the floor, where he is touching determines where he is. If he is in the air, where he left the floor determines it (except for a throw-in). I didn't understand "except for throw-in". It means if a player jumps before or after the half court line. You can jump from the front court, catch the ball in the air, and land in the back court during a throw-in. In live action, that is a violation. The term "establish position" is not in the rules pertaining to position of the player or for a throw-in. It is only used to determine a charge/block call.
|
|
|
Post by TheSanDiegan on Feb 9, 2016 11:42:29 GMT -8
Has anyone else seen the frame where his show reacts to hitting the floor? There are numerous frames that you can stop action and it seems to show his foot is down. That is why looking at the video in slow motion gives the optical illusion of his foot being down first. Without seeing the shoe flex when it hits the floor, you can not judge the issue.
|
|
|
Post by Montezumas Revenge 88 on Feb 9, 2016 11:43:00 GMT -8
@theshow Should make a sign that reads, "We got both feet down."
|
|
|
Post by TheSanDiegan on Feb 9, 2016 11:47:19 GMT -8
@theshow Should make a sign that reads, "We got one foot down." # 105ToesDown
|
|
|
Post by sdcoug on Feb 9, 2016 12:02:25 GMT -8
If the rule is to have both feet established when you have the ball then it was the correct call. It's not. 1 foot.
|
|
|
Post by sdcoug on Feb 9, 2016 12:11:57 GMT -8
Forgetting for the moment what happened on the actual play (looks to me like it was down by the barest of margins)... What the hell is the MWC doing releasing a statement on one bang-bang play? What exactly is the rationale (agenda?) there? Said it before and I'll say it again, there were a lot of calls way more questionable than that throughout the game. Let's start with Noodles out in the middle of the court time after time. He looked like he was ready to jump ball at center court one time. Then, some of those foul calls in the first half... Where is the MWC statement on those? Exactly! A really stupid move by the conference. (Not the same as declaring that there were NINE blown calls in the Fresno St. FB game last year.) Somebody in the MWC office needs to get a clue. AzWm Please explain? "Really stupid"? NM was going to send the tape & ask for clarification. They were going to get clarification on the call, which wouldn't differ from what the MW office released. NM would comment on the clarification they received, as would the office. Most conferences comment on all would be game changing calls.
We (AM) complained about the refs in the FSU FB game for days after the game, which I'm sure bugged FSU fans like NM complaining bugged us. We sent film for review; the MW responded, which means it all came up again. We (AM) felt justified for our complaints as a result, which I'm sure NM fans do now as well.
The league ruled on both; both became news. Everyone knows that no one play dictates any game, but a play in the final seconds has a more conclusive impact.
The only debate is whether it's better to get in front of the news or wait for NM to send the film/ask the question. It's definitely debatable, but the two situations are very much related. I do think their response could have been a little more supportive of the call (e.g. only in slow motion could you tell....).
|
|
|
Post by sdcoug on Feb 9, 2016 12:13:33 GMT -8
Has anyone else seen the frame where his show reacts to hitting the floor? There are numerous frames that you can stop action and it seems to show his foot is down. That is why looking at the video in slow motion gives the optical illusion of his foot being down first. Without seeing the shoe flex when it hits the floor, you can not judge the issue. I'm sure the MWC has seen every frame in slow mo as well, and they came to a different conclusion. I'm sure if they could they would have found in favor of the refs, but they didn't. We're not seeing any special film they're not privy to.
|
|
|
Post by Montezumas Revenge 88 on Feb 9, 2016 12:14:52 GMT -8
If the rule is to have both feet established when you have the ball then it was the correct call. It's not. 1 foot. Edited*
|
|
|
Post by AztecBill on Feb 9, 2016 12:27:58 GMT -8
Has anyone else seen the frame where his show reacts to hitting the floor? There are numerous frames that you can stop action and it seems to show his foot is down. That is why looking at the video in slow motion gives the optical illusion of his foot being down first. Without seeing the shoe flex when it hits the floor, you can not judge the issue. I'm sure the MWC has seen every frame in slow mo as well, and they came to a different conclusion. I'm sure if they could they would have found in favor of the refs, but they didn't. We're not seeing any special film they're not privy to. Your faith in the MWC is touching. We don't need to rely on authority, we have the tape. Find a large HD monitor and watch when the shoe flexes. I will bet the MWC didn't see it. Looking at the video slow motion looks like his foot is down. That is because of the angle. Every frame looks like the foot is down but the following frame shows the foot still moving across the floor. It is not sliding on the floor, it is still in the air. Unless you see the flex, you don't have the information to make a conclusion.
|
|
eim86
Bench Warmer
Class of '10
Posts: 68
|
Post by eim86 on Feb 9, 2016 13:26:45 GMT -8
If the rule is to have both feet established when you have the ball then it was the correct call. It's not. 1 foot. Bad call that went our way then!
|
|
|
Post by MarshallU on Feb 9, 2016 13:42:09 GMT -8
I say when we travel to the funny named arena formerly known as The Pit, our first inbounds play should be the same play the Lobos failed on, but of course executed properly by us. Then we should promptly go in to our 1-3-1 defense after we score on them. That ought to get all the unstable wolf-howlers firmly on our side! now THAT is some funny stuff!!!!!
|
|
eim86
Bench Warmer
Class of '10
Posts: 68
|
Post by eim86 on Feb 9, 2016 13:46:05 GMT -8
If the rule is to have both feet established when you have the ball then it was the correct call. That is not the rule. That part of the rule is covered under a section called "position of a player". If any part of the player is in contact with the floor, where he is touching determines where he is. If he is in the air, where he left the floor determines it (except for a throw-in). I didn't understand "except for throw-in". It means if a player jumps before or after the half court line. You can jump from the front court, catch the ball in the air, and land in the back court during a throw-in. In live action, that is a violation. The term "establish position" is not in the rules pertaining to position of the player or for a throw-in. It is only used to determine a charge/block call. That's why I said 'if'. Since it's not it was a bad call and that's fine with me since we got the W
|
|
|
Post by K2Aztec73 on Feb 9, 2016 14:28:51 GMT -8
As Coach Fisher is so fond of saying: "Next play."
|
|
|
Post by sdmotohead on Feb 9, 2016 14:36:51 GMT -8
Hey, how about them Padres?
|
|
|
Post by AztecBill on Feb 9, 2016 15:05:08 GMT -8
That is not the rule. That part of the rule is covered under a section called "position of a player". If any part of the player is in contact with the floor, where he is touching determines where he is. If he is in the air, where he left the floor determines it (except for a throw-in). I didn't understand "except for throw-in". It means if a player jumps before or after the half court line. You can jump from the front court, catch the ball in the air, and land in the back court during a throw-in. In live action, that is a violation. The term "establish position" is not in the rules pertaining to position of the player or for a throw-in. It is only used to determine a charge/block call. That's why I said 'if'. Since it's not it was a bad call and that's fine with me since we got the W Did you see where the ball was when his shoe flexed? If not, you need more information to make that determination.
|
|
|
Post by K2Aztec73 on Feb 9, 2016 16:09:41 GMT -8
That's why I said 'if'. Since it's not it was a bad call and that's fine with me since we got the W Did you see where the ball was when his shoe flexed? If not, you need more information to make that determination. It took me a couple of run-throughs to see the exact shot you're talking about (I wish Youtube had the capability to advance frame-by-frame...). It does look like the ball is at (or at least very, very near... even at HD, it's not crystal clear) his hands when his shoe begins to flex from contact with the floor. If this were an "official review" (whether by NFL or NCAA standards), it would have to fall into the "The play stands as called" category, as there's no conclusive proof one way or the other. Pretty much a textbook "judgement call", where even in slo-mo, it's just about impossible to tell because you would need a close-up slo-mo of his foot on the ground synced to a close-up slo-mo of the ball and his hands, and even then it might be too close to call. If they'd called it the other way, it would be the same situation... even at the slow speed, zoomed in to that degree, it's impossible to be 100% certain, and that's what it would take to overturn a call. Play stands as called. Next play.
|
|
|
Post by AzTex on Feb 9, 2016 22:27:00 GMT -8
Did you see where the ball was when his shoe flexed? If not, you need more information to make that determination. It took me a couple of run-throughs to see the exact shot you're talking about (I wish Youtube had the capability to advance frame-by-frame...). It does look like the ball is at (or at least very, very near... even at HD, it's not crystal clear) his hands when his shoe begins to flex from contact with the floor. If this were an "official review" (whether by NFL or NCAA standards), it would have to fall into the "The play stands as called" category, as there's no conclusive proof one way or the other. Pretty much a textbook "judgement call", where even in slo-mo, it's just about impossible to tell because you would need a close-up slo-mo of his foot on the ground synced to a close-up slo-mo of the ball and his hands, and even then it might be too close to call. If they'd called it the other way, it would be the same situation... even at the slow speed, zoomed in to that degree, it's impossible to be 100% certain, and that's what it would take to overturn a call. Play stands as called. Next play. Watching the replay on my Tivo I do have the ability to advance the video frame-by-frame. Even with that I can't see for sure if his foot is down before his first touch of the ball. No question that, if the play could have been reviewed, the play would have stood as called. The conference stills owes the referee an apology for saying, or at least implying, that the official did not know the rule and did not apply the rule wrong. It was a simple judgement of whether the foot was down or not. No one will ever know absolutely.
|
|
|
Post by Azthetic on Feb 9, 2016 22:36:43 GMT -8
|
|