The Manual Johnson "touchdown"

[SoonersEnFuego]

or incomplete pass. What the hell was that? Am I wearing crimson colored glasses or was that not a touchdown? Manuel caught it with feet in, went to the ground, rolled over and the tech defender ripped it out after he went to the ground.

And then they reviewed for a full 2 to 3 seconds...
What the hell...
Video request please, TIA

[bri]

It certainly seemed that way to me, but I'm a homer. Looking at it objectively, there's no clear angle that verifies that Manuel controlled the ball all the way to the ground before sand aggy took it away.

[OUHOMER]

I thought it was a TD, and yes I am a homer. I thought he had control of it long enough with one foot down.

[BoomerSoonerTexasscks]

I agree, as an objective fan there wasn't evidence that he controlled it going to the ground and the call on the field was incomplete. I don't think there was anyway to overturn the call on the field. For the sake of argument, suppose we had the same play reversed, Tech made the catch in the end zone and OU was the one ripping the ball away. If they had called it a TD we would be sitting here saying we got screwed again by replay. I think the right call was made...then again I still think the right call was made in the 02 NC game, clear pass interference in the end zone, so you can take my opinion for what its worth

[usmc-sooner]

the guy sitting behind me was listening to the game on the radio, he said Tech's play by play guy, said it was a TD.

[OKLA21FAN]

the only issue i had was the initial explainiation for the review.

first it was 'the receiver's foot was out of bounds. when that was refruted, then the explanation was that the receiver did not have control of the ball.

to me, the first judgment of a catch or no catch is 'control of the ball', THEN determine of a foot is inbounds.

they seemed to do this one bass akwards.

[Rock Hard Corn Frog]

Unlike a number of other times replay has been involved in Lubbock I actually thought it was the correct call. Johnson did have the foot down but he lost control of the ball on the way to the ground. The only reason the ball didn't hit the ground was it was then in the TT defender's hands.

My beef with the officials against TT is the same one I usually have re:intentional grounding. In order to throw the ball away the QB has to be outside the pocket. In TT's offense the pocket is about 15 yards wide. I counted at least 3 passes thrown away where Harrell didn't actually reach where the tackles line up.

[Jeopardude]

Three things irk me on this.

1) The refs first huddled THEN made the call. The one in position did not do his job and make a call.

2) It explicitly states in the rules if it appears both players have possession, the offensive player gets the benefit of the doubt. It should've been ruled complete.

3) The review was the quickest I've ever seen.

It's not as bad or glaring as two years ago, but still it was a bad call.

[BoomerGirl34]

Is the "Manual Johnson" better than the automatic johnson?

(I kid, I kid.....) ;)

[stoopified]

I have crimson lenses as well (genetic gift) but I can say completely without biasis that was a TD.Leach think he has a gripe with officials?He don't know what injustice is.On top of that no one call in any UT-TT game would've changed the outcome.The OU-TT calls are sriminal because they stole the game.Don't even get me statrted on UO.

[Theskipster]

Here are the applicable rules to use in this discussion



Catch, Interception, Recovery
ARTICLE 7. A catch is an act of firmly establishing player possession of a
live ball in flight.
a. A catch of an opponent’s fumble or pass is an interception.
b. Securing player possession of a live ball after it strikes the ground is
“recovering it.’’
c. To catch, intercept or recover a ball, a player who leaves his feet to
make a catch, interception or recovery must have the ball firmly in his
possession when he first returns to the ground inbounds with any part of
his body or is so held that the dead-ball provisions of Rule 4-1-3-p apply
(A.R. 2-2-7-I-V and A.R. 7-3-6-IV).
1. If one foot first lands inbounds and the receiver has possession
and control of the ball, it is a catch or interception even though a
subsequent step or fall takes the receiver out of bounds.
2. Loss of ball simultaneous to returning to the ground is not a catch,
interception or recovery.
d. A catch by any kneeling or prone inbounds player is a completion or
interception (Rules 7-3-1 and 2 and 7-3-6 and 7).
e. When in question, the catch, recovery or interception is not completed.


Unfortunately for the homer in me, Since Johnson didn't have possession when he hit the ground, I don't think that was a touchdown.

[SoonerMom2]

I have crimson lenses as well (genetic gift) but I can say completely without biasis that was a TD.Leach think he has a gripe with officials?He don't know what injustice is.On top of that no one call in any UT-TT game would've changed the outcome.The OU-TT calls are sriminal because they stole the game.Don't even get me statrted on UO.

Exactly!

To those that want to say it is not a touchdown, you obviously did not follow up and hear all the game play announcers say it was a touchdown, Kirk Herbstredt say it was a touchdown, and the list goes on. The ruling on the field was he was out of bounds. The replay booth took seconds and according to the ABC/ESPN people the guy in the replay booth only viewed one angle. His foot was clearly down so I have my doubts in the short amount of time of replay that the guy even did that.

Ruling on the field -- out of bounds (his foot was down), control of the ball (he had control in the end zone and possession goes to the receiver just like this person said) which equates to touchdown. What happens after when the TT guy ripped it out of his hands is not reviewable.

Leach got his $10,000 officiating crew from Austin after ranting about Austin officials when they did not affect the outcome of the game. Leach is a hypocrite for starters and a cheater as his O-line was not only holding but tackling to keep our defense from getting to the quarterback just like Baylor. Same officiating crew at both games when the O-lines were allowed to do anything they wanted including holding on to jerseys. Also when OU is driving or kick returns, a penalty comes up. When Tech runs the ball back and there is a block in the back -- NOTHING. In the Baylor game, there was a defensive player in the backfield before the snap and it took forever to call as we were driving for a touchdown.

Leach knew full well in 2005 they didn't win the game but it was okay then because they were the Lubbock crew. I have no respect for Leach for his comments or the Big 12 for assigning Bible to an important game. Bible should never be allowed near an OU game again. He got us at Colorado this year too.

And those that say we should have won anyway. You trying running a punt or kick back and have it called back every time or continually get held and see how you react. The air gets sucked out of a team after awhile but in Lubbock the team never quit and they kept fighting back.

[aurorasooner]

2. Loss of ball simultaneous to returning to the ground is not a catch,
interception or recovery. Just my non-professional interpretation is. That "The Ground" in this particular case is the one foot in the end-zone and not both players laying on the ground out-of-bounds. If, infact, MJ had possession of the ball with that one foot in the end-zone, then it's a done deal---TD, and everything that occurs subsequent is irrelevant, since that one foot on the ground is (or should be) considered "returning to the ground". I think the refs and most certainly the replay official blew it by concentrating on the what occured OB, and not concentrating on if MJ had possession with that one foot down on the ground in the EZ. I would've thought the same thing, no matter if was an OU player making the catch, a Texass player, or a Slippery Rock player.

[Theskipster]

Exactly!

And those that say we should have won anyway. You trying running a punt or kick back and have it called back every time or continually get held and see how you react. The air gets sucked out of a team after awhile but in Lubbock the team never quit and they kept fighting back.

If you were complaining about phantom calls that really hurt us, you would have a point. But we shouldn't cry because we got called for the penalties we committed and the other team didn't.

[SoonerGM]

If you were complaining about phantom calls that really hurt us, you would have a point. But we shouldn't cry because we got called for the penalties we committed and the other team didn't.

i think her main point was that our defense got mugged out there and nobody cared, including some of our fans...

[OUMedMan]

Incomplete pass.

Consider the results of several other scenarios.

1) In the field of play, the receiver goes up and catches the ball. On the way down, however, the defender wrestles the ball away from the receiver and they both fall on the ground, when the defender having clear possession of the ball. Ruling: interception.

2) Now consider the result of the receiver catching the ball in the endzone, with one foot clearly planted in the endzone. As he falls to the ground he loses control of the ball. Ruling: incompletion: the receiver, has to maintain control of the ball. It's not sufficient to just have contact with the ball while his foot is inbounds.

3) So what happened on Saturday night? The receiver caught the ball with his foot clearly in bounds. However, on the way down he lost control of the ball (actually had it taken away by the defender). It would have been an interception, except the defender landed out of bounds. Ruling: incomplete pass.

Say what you want about the officiating for the rest of the game, but on this particular play the refs got it perfect. In fact, the NCAA would do well to use this particular video clip as an example of the correct way to call that particular situation.

[Curly Bill]

The mechanics of the call were terrible...but it was the right call. You have to control the ball upon hitting the ground, and I don't mean his foot touching down, I mean when he actually landed on the ground with his entire body.

I wanted it to be a TD so bad, and I don't like the rule that you have to control the ball even after crashing to the gound, but it is the rule and as such it was not a TD. :(

[OKC-SLC]

Medman is right. The rules posted above support this.

The only issue I have with officials (Big 12 in particular) is that they don't have the courage to make an actual call in live action. Rather, they make calls after discussing it and then replay fails to deliver adequate info. to overturn it.

That's not what happened in this instance, but it's my general opinion about replay. It's a crutch.

[SoonerGM]

here is my question. did any part of his body touch down out of bound before he lost the ball. if so then i say its a TD. if not, then the refs got it right.

the rule is dumb though. if a runner breaks the plane of the endzone, its touchdown. if he loses the ball afterwards its irrelevant. in my opinion the rule for a catch in the endzone should be if the foot touches with possession of the ball, its TD. at least then the rules would be consistant.

[swardboy]

Just my non-professional interpretation is. That "The Ground" in this particular case is the one foot in the end-zone and not both players laying on the ground out-of-bounds. If, infact, MJ had possession of the ball with that one foot in the end-zone, then it's a done deal---TD, and everything that occurs subsequent is irrelevant, since that one foot on the ground is (or should be) considered "returning to the ground". I think the refs and most certainly the replay official blew it by concentrating on the what occured OB, and not concentrating on if MJ had possession with that one foot down on the ground in the EZ. I would've thought the same thing, no matter if was an OU player making the catch, a Texass player, or a Slippery Rock player.

PRECISELY! In the endzone the foot down with ball control ends the play, unlike the rest of the field of play. Falling bodies and defender antics trying to strip the ball are of NO consequence. The play was over when Manuel's foot touched the ground INBOUNDS. OR it should have been........

[OklahomaTuba]

It wasn't a TD. Get over it.

[OKLA21FAN]

It wasn't a TD. Get over it.
and UO recovered the onside kick :pop:

[MextheBulldog]

For a catch, you must demonstrate holding onto the ball until you hit the ground. It was darn close, but not close enough

[MextheBulldog]

What i'm more curious about is the play calling. We ran that fade pattern in the end zone three times and it barely worked once. What happened to the human nightmare mismatch, Mr. Gresham?

[Easting]

If I were Kevin Wilson for a day, I'd have ran the ball with my 3 stud running backs at least 90% of the time if my starting QB goes out. Stack the box on us, we'll run you over anyway.

:twinkies:

[MI Sooner]

2) Now consider the result of the receiver catching the ball in the endzone, with one foot clearly planted in the endzone. As he falls to the ground he loses control of the ball. Ruling: incompletion: the receiver, has to maintain control of the ball. It's not sufficient to just have contact with the ball while his foot is inbounds.


You have to control the ball upon hitting the ground, and I don't mean his foot touching down, I mean when he actually landed on the ground with his entire body.

I want to know how to rule on this hypothetical:

A receiver catches the ball in the end-zone, posesses it for three steps, trips, falls down, and loses the ball? Are you telling me it's not a catch because he eventually fell down and lost the ball when he hit the ground?

I think the rule is written to cover cases in which a diving receiver possesses the ball with his hands, drags a toe while in mid-air, and then hits the ground and loses the ball... No catch. But Manual Johnson caught the ball, came down on one foot, and then fell over and lost a wrestling match with the defender for the ball. It wasn't one simultaneous event.

It seems like a difficult thing to distinguish in writing, but in practice, a literal interpretation of the rule makes no sense. The time that passes between possession and hitting the ground should matter, but I don't know how to make it so.

[MI Sooner]

People need to define "returning to the ground" for me. Let's say I jump staight up to make a catch, and land on both feet the the five yard line. I stand there reflecting upon my accomplishment for, say, five seconds while the slow as hell defense comes to tackle me. When the 250 lb linebacker pastes my *** and I hit the ground, I lose possession of the ball.

Are you telling me it's an incomplete pass? Did it take me six seconds from when I jumped to "return to the ground?"

To me, a jump is different than a dive. A jumping receiver returns to the ground when his feet land. A diving receiver returns to the ground when his body lands. Again, this may be impossible to codify, but it just doesn't make sense to say a who jumps didn't make a catch if he subsequently gets knocked to the ground and loses the ball. Manual Johnson jumped, possessed the ball in midair, put his foot down (I think he still had possession but don't know), then fell to the ground with the defender, who ripped the ball away.

Comparisons to what would have happened outside the endzone are inapt. So what if it would have been TTU's ball or an incompletion had the play happened on the 20 yard line. If you cross the plane of the endzone on a run and then fumble, well, that's treated differently too on the 20 yard line.

[OklahomaSooners]

MJ Caught the ball inbounds, that favors MJ even if the opposing player had his hands on it too! Now what most people are thinking that since the ball comes out before he hits the ground ,that its incomplete. Well it isn't incomplete because he was out of bounds when it does come out.
Ruling by the replay should have been, (Touchdown OU).

[SoonerMom2]

i think her main point was that our defense got mugged out there and nobody cared, including some of our fans...

Thank you! In watching the replay last night it was more mugging then I thought by Tech. Obviously Blevins and the rest of the so-called media along with some folks on here cannot take off their anti-OU when we lose glasses. I am not going to blame our defense when I see what they had to put up with from no calls by Bible's crew. Call it like you see it and the answer is Bible's crew is biased against OU. If we had Bradford in the game, we would have stood a better chance of overcoming the officiating but in the first half our defense was on the field almost the whole time.

If some of you don't think that Leach took advantage of having the Bible crew out there then I have swampland for sale in AZ. And for those who love Mike Leach, get a life. He thought having homer officiating in 2005 was just dandy but having it at UT is the biggest travesty ever. Hypocrite comes to mind.

Ripping the coaches like I have seen on here is ridiculous and the same with the defense. Hard to believe some of the posters sat through the dark days of Captain Kangaroo and John Blake. We are playing for a right to go to the Big 12 championship which a lot of teams would love to be doing. We have a very young team with very few seniors graduating. We have a bright future next year and a chance now to play for the Big 12 Champsionship and get a very nice Bowl appearance. As for those posters who want to compare to Switzer, the rules have changed on how many players you can have along with recruiting. Apples and oranges. As for Blevins, he is probably one of the worst sports anchors I have ever witnessed and I have seen some bad ones. As for the touchdown -- I will go with ESPN's Kirk Herbstredt -- it was a touchdown.

My more than two cents!

[bri]

Three things irk me on this.

1) The refs first huddled THEN made the call. The one in position did not do his job and make a call.

I actually prefer that they huddle and try to get it right. It's when an official doesn't think he had a clear view of a play but makes a call on his own without consulting with the rest of the crew that I get steamed.

[picasso]

it was a catch. he had two hands on it and the Tech player had one. it also was not torn away from him until they both hit the turf.
I'm a homer but even a person without crimson glasses would think that looked like a catch all the way.

[MichiganSooner]

Incomplete pass.

Consider the results of several other scenarios.

1) In the field of play, the receiver goes up and catches the ball. On the way down, however, the defender wrestles the ball away from the receiver and they both fall on the ground, when the defender having clear possession of the ball. Ruling: interception.

2) Now consider the result of the receiver catching the ball in the endzone, with one foot clearly planted in the endzone. As he falls to the ground he loses control of the ball. Ruling: incompletion: the receiver, has to maintain control of the ball. It's not sufficient to just have contact with the ball while his foot is inbounds.

3) So what happened on Saturday night? The receiver caught the ball with his foot clearly in bounds. However, on the way down he lost control of the ball (actually had it taken away by the defender). It would have been an interception, except the defender landed out of bounds. Ruling: incomplete pass.

Say what you want about the officiating for the rest of the game, but on this particular play the refs got it perfect. In fact, the NCAA would do well to use this particular video clip as an example of the correct way to call that particular situation.

According to Kevin Wilson's comment published in the Tulsa World on Monday, this explanation from OUMedMan is correct and the officials call was correct.

[Curly Bill]

If some of you don't think that Leach took advantage of having the Bible crew out there then I have swampland for sale in AZ.


So did Leach gameplan based on the officiating crew, was his strategy based on the officiating crew, did he gear his practices last week to the officiating crew? You can't be serious? LMAO at some of the ridiculous stuff you've come up with about this.

[Curly Bill]

...and if you're talking about them not calling holding, I invite you to watch any college football game where they call holding like they should.

[MiccoMacey]

3) So what happened on Saturday night? The receiver caught the ball with his foot clearly in bounds. However, on the way down he lost control of the ball (actually had it taken away by the defender). It would have been an interception, except the defender landed out of bounds. Ruling: incomplete pass...

You and Curly Bill could not be more wrong.

The moment his foot touches the ground, if he has possession, it is a catch.

I take you to last week's Texas game against OSU where he "dragged" his toe barely inside the back goal line and then the rest of his foot landed out of bounds as he kept coming down. The official ruling that was given was that it was a TD because regardless of what happened after, he initially had possession when his toe touched the ground. The fact that the rest of his foot came down out of bounds was irrelevant.

He alone had possession the moment his toe touched the ground. He did not "bobble" it until after he had already touched down.

I am not saying this cost us the game. It didn't. But you are completely wrong on your analysis.

[Boomer.....]

http://4fxearth.net/phpBB2/smilies_mod/upload/1beb8b2ae6d61633f35d740313c6c610.gif

[KingBarry]

The mechanics of the call were terrible...but it was the right call. You have to control the ball upon hitting the ground, and I don't mean his foot touching down, I mean when he actually landed on the ground with his entire body.

I wanted it to be a TD so bad, and I don't like the rule that you have to control the ball even after crashing to the gound, but it is the rule and as such it was not a TD. :(

Are you sure you are reading that rule right?

So, take a clearer example. A player 15 yards inside the sideline jumps up untouched and catches the ball, clearly tucking it away before coming down. He lands on both his feet, but his momentum causes him to immediately fall to the turf. The impact knocks the ball loose, where it is recovered by the opposing team.

In this scenario -- the right call would be incomplete pass? I don't think so. I think it would be complete pass, and then dead ball when the players body hit the turf.

I don't think I've seen it called the way you are explaining. If you are right, that's really interesting......

[Curly Bill]

Are you sure you are reading that rule right?

So, take a clearer example. A player 15 yards inside the sideline jumps up untouched and catches the ball, clearly tucking it away before coming down. He lands on both his feet, but his momentum causes him to immediately fall to the turf. The impact knocks the ball loose, where it is recovered by the opposing team.

In this scenario -- the right call would be incomplete pass? I don't think so. I think it would be complete pass, and then dead ball when the players body hit the turf.

I don't think I've seen it called the way you are explaining. If you are right, that's really interesting......

Not the first time I've seen it called that way. I wasn't surprised that they reviewed it though, nor was I surprised that the review took so short a time. The way I've seen it called previously is exactly what they did this time too.

[Curly Bill]

The moment his foot touches the ground, if he has possession, it is a catch.


Not according to the rules. I too think it should be a catch as soon as his foot hits the ground and he has control of the ball, but I don't make the rules.

[Curly Bill]

http://4fxearth.net/phpBB2/smilies_mod/upload/1beb8b2ae6d61633f35d740313c6c610.gif

Exactly, so I am saying goodbye to this thread; It's been nice knowing ya. That being said: refute my position away, I won't be coming back to defend it. :)

[SleestakSooner]

whatever the rules state, it looked to me that the ball was controlled by Johnson. I didn't see the ball even wiggle in his grasp until his elbow hit the ground out of bounds. It was AFTER the ground caused him to lose grasp of the ball that the defender ripped the ball away with one hand.

If you have two hands firmly holding the football and have a foot down in the endzone that is a freaking touchdown folks. If it isn't "according to the rules" then the ****ing rules need to be changed. I for one don't give a free pass to the refs on this one because "we would have lost the game anyhow" or for any other reason. The refs blew the initial call and of course the replay officials did not have enough evidence to overturn it.

I say get rid of replay, stop wasting our time and go back to firing refs that get calls wrong too often.

[OKLA21FAN]

this thread is worthless without video :pop:

[FaninAma]

Exactly, so I am saying goodbye to this thread; It's been nice knowing ya. That being said: refute my position away, I won't be coming back to defend it. :)

You and tht idiot Tech fan( that was on the board yesterday) are the only two who have vigorously supported your silly interpretation of the rules. You cannot logicaly defend your position because if the rule was interpretted the way you state it should be interpreted then every coach in the nation would instruct their defensive players to cold **** runners and receivers who crossed the goal line with the ball........... if breaking the plane of the goal with possession is no longer the criteria for scoring a TD, not trying to knock the crap out of the ball carrier to try and jar the ball loose would be poor strategy.

BTW, I wonder where that idiot Tech fan wondered off to today? Maybe he is the one responsible for administering Bobby Knight his antipsychotic meds which I'm sure is a full time job.

[Harry Beanbag]

It was a touchdown, but I was even more upset at the pass interference non-call against Kelly in the endzone after that. I was watching the game with a Texas, Colorado, and A&M fan and they couldn't believe both of those calls plus all the holding that Tech was getting away with. **** poor, borderline criminally inept officiating is beginning to degrade my love of college football.

Oh, I guess this is where I'm supposed to say we should never have been down by that many points for the officials to impact the game so it's our own fault. :rolleyes:

[madillsoonerfan5353]

or incomplete pass. What the hell was that? Am I wearing crimson colored glasses or was that not a touchdown? Manuel caught it with feet in, went to the ground, rolled over and the tech defender ripped it out after he went to the ground.

And then they reviewed for a full 2 to 3 seconds...
What the hell...
Video request please, TIA


Hosed again in Lubbock by the zebras!!!! That's it!!! Screw it beat the hell out of the chokes from Stoolwater, and then on to the Gayhawks of Kansas!

BOOMER

[The Maestro]

Another thought...I thought of the Butch Johnson TD catch for Dallas in Super Bowl 12 against Denver. Bang, bang play but possession at any point in the end zone is a touchdown...but very close and hard to interpret this one.

[SoonersEnFuego]

... but possession at any point in the end zone is a touchdown...

Kinda what I thought.

[UTgolfer]

1. If one foot first lands inbounds and the receiver has possession
and control of the ball, it is a catch or interception even though a
subsequent step or fall takes the receiver out of bounds.
2. Loss of ball simultaneous to returning to the ground is not a catch,
interception or recovery.

What part of #2 are you guys not understanding? By rule it wasn't a catch! Even Kevin Wilson acknowledged it wasn't a TD for god sakes!

[The Maestro]

1. If one foot first lands inbounds and the receiver has possession
and control of the ball, it is a catch or interception even though a
subsequent step or fall takes the receiver out of bounds.
2. Loss of ball simultaneous to returning to the ground is not a catch,
interception or recovery.

What part of #2 are you guys not understanding? By rule it wasn't a catch! Even Kevin Wilson acknowledged it wasn't a TD for god sakes!

Hey, could you get the clubs off my cart and clean 'em for me, sonny. Here's two bucks for the effort.

Go wash your orange balls, Spackler.

[Salt City Sooner]

According to Kevin Wilson's comment published in the Tulsa World on Monday, this explanation from OUMedMan is correct and the officials call was correct.
I looked all over the TW website so I wouldn't have to bug you for it but do you have the link to KW's comments?

[kjcba8101]

Incomplete pass. Its time to call a spade a spade.

[The Maestro]

Its time to call a spade a spade.

Hell, let me go first then!

http://www.nndb.com/people/704/000022638/spade-pubshot-med.jpg

SPADE!

[OklahomaSooners]

MJ Caught the ball inbounds, that favors MJ even if the opposing player had his hands on it too! Now what most people are thinking that since the ball comes out before he hits the ground ,that its incomplete. Well it isn't incomplete because he was out of bounds when it does come out.
Ruling by the replay should have been, (Touchdown OU).

Now, when are you guys or gals gonna get it? Its not that it cost OU the game or that it didn't cost OU the game. Its that it did change the game, How? I don't know, whether good or bad I just don't know! We will never know now!!! The point is , Its the same ole story when it comes to the referee's, Mainly the replay booth. If they can't get it right, they need to put someone in there that will take the time NEEDED to make the right call no matter who is on the field playing at the time. I do think it took some of the wind out of our sails and if it had been a touchdown as I believe it was, then OU would have had more time to score again and tie the game!
So the way I see it, the game was adversly affected by the referee's or replay Officials. Just my 2 cents worth that don't matter to anyone but myself I guess! BOOMER SOONER

[UTgolfer]

Hey, could you get the clubs off my cart and clean 'em for me, sonny. Here's two bucks for the effort.

Go wash your orange balls, Spackler.



Got to hand it to you Maestro, your knowledge of the facts truly humbles me.

[FaninAma]

Got to hand it to you Maestro, your knowledge of the facts truly humbles me.

I would like a link to Wilson's comments if you are going to use them to support your arguement.

[swardboy]

Is the "Manual Johnson" better than the automatic johnson?

(I kid, I kid.....) ;)


Personally, I think this thread should have ended on message #9.....classic!

[MI Sooner]

2. Loss of ball simultaneous to returning to the ground is not a catch,
interception or recovery.

Simultaneous = at the same time

So, if Johnson lost the ball at the same time he returned to the ground, it would not be a catch. I'll look up the rule again, but I believe it defines "return to the ground" as the first point at which any part of a players body touches the ground. Johnson lost the ball AFTER his foot hit the ground, from what I could tell. That would mean it didn't happen simultaneously.

Now, maybe there's another applicable Article, or maybe I don't understand what "return to the ground" means.

[MI Sooner]

In fact, since paragraph one says a subsequent fall doesn't render a previous catch an incompletion, then I'd say that if you agree that Manual Johnson had possession when his foot hit the ground, you have to say it was a catch.

[aurorasooner]

I tell you what, this looks like a catch. I've watched it back in slo-mo on the DVR and the you-tube link is below. It's about the 8 minute 6 sec mark in the You-tube. The Official on the sideline closest to the play is not sure, but that azzhole ref way in the middle of the field is running over like crazy signaling incomplete, then he signals OB. I don't know who that guy is, but HitH he thinks he saw it so clearly when the ref right on top of the play didn't, I don't know. It sure looks like MJ has possession and gets a foot down before they both hit the ground. You're just blind if you can't see that's a catch, possession, one foot down for a TD, then as they roll OB the tech defender strips it out, which shouldn't make any difference because it's already 6. Youtube OU Tech Highlights (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GM-liZfGL_Y)

[mustangsooner]

Unlike a number of other times replay has been involved in Lubbock I actually thought it was the correct call. Johnson did have the foot down but he lost control of the ball on the way to the ground. The only reason the ball didn't hit the ground was it was then in the TT defender's hands.

My beef with the officials against TT is the same one I usually have re:intentional grounding. In order to throw the ball away the QB has to be outside the pocket. In TT's offense the pocket is about 15 yards wide. I counted at least 3 passes thrown away where Harrell didn't actually reach where the tackles line up.

Doesn't matter if he lost control on the way to the ground. If he had control when his foot hit the ground (which he clearly did) it is a touchdown.

[SoonerMom2]

It was a touchdown, but I was even more upset at the pass interference non-call against Kelly in the endzone after that. I was watching the game with a Texas, Colorado, and A&M fan and they couldn't believe both of those calls plus all the holding that Tech was getting away with. **** poor, borderline criminally inept officiating is beginning to degrade my love of college football.

Oh, I guess this is where I'm supposed to say we should never have been down by that many points for the officials to impact the game so it's our own fault. :rolleyes:

Thank you, thank you! Nice to know there are some people on this board with common sense instead of those automatically attacking the team because they were not far enough ahead so louzy officiating wouldn't matter.

Will someone explain to me how a defensive lineman is supposed to put pressure on the quarterback when they are held, taken down, spun around, etc.?

What Bible and his crew did was give Tech the game gift wrapped. We were coming back and they made sure we couldn't tie the game or go ahead. The Big 12 has zero credibility after this! Do they really want Kansas to play in the BCS so much that they would send a crew they know hates OU to officiate the game? Tin foil hat firmly in place. The Big 12 got played by Leach IMHO and why the rant against Austin officiating so the the Big 12 sends him the Bible crew to show they (Austin crews) are not biased against Tech. Leach is a lawyer and would be inclined to do something like that. Have no respect for Leach the hypocrit either.

[AlbqSooner]

It sure looks like MJ has possession and gets a foot down before they both hit the ground.
Assuming that the rule was correctly quoted on page 2, ANY PART of the receivers body touches the ground while he has possesion it is a completion.

"c. To catch, intercept or recover a ball, a player who leaves his feet to
make a catch, interception or recovery must have the ball firmly in his
possession when he first returns to the ground inbounds with any part of
his body or is so held that the dead-ball provisions of Rule 4-1-3-p apply"

A foot is any part of a players body. If they meant to say a players torso, as has been argued here, they would have said that. Hence, once Johnson possessed the ball when his foot (part of his body) returned to the ground inbounds, it was a completion. A completion in the end zone is a TD.

[SoonerMom2]

I would like a link to Wilson's comments if you are going to use them to support your arguement.

Only coach other that Bob Stoops that made any comments I can find is Brent Venerables talking about using defensive tackles to play defensive end rather then yank a redshirt from an inexperienced Freshman due to Davis being hurt.

I have looked at all the usual places and nothing from Kevin Wilson so I would like a link as well as I cannot imagine a coach saying that. Even Stoops is not supposed to talk about calls in a game.

[AlbqSooner]

One additional point now that I have reviewed the youtube video. Both the official who came from the middle of the field and the official on the sideline signaled Out of Bounds. The replay official is supposed to determine whether there is indisputable video evidence that the call MADE ON THE FIELD was incorrect. There was indisputable video evidence that THAT call was incorrect. We got jobbed.

[aurorasooner]

I hate the sh*&&y quality of YouTube. I wish someone that DVRed this in HiDef would post these same screen shots. MJ is not bobbling the ball either. He has possession when the foot hits. It's not until they roll OB that the Tech DB strips it. That replay official mailed it in. F'er more than likely didn't even look at it. If he would've taken his time, and reviewed all the angles, and was unbiased, he would've called it 6. Big 12 officials suck. http://img187.imageshack.us/img187/2473/x001qp6.jpg http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/4092/x002zx5.jpg http://img442.imageshack.us/img442/2305/x003rq6.jpg

[rubyspirit]

It was a touchdown. There's no way they can review it in less than 10 seconds and say it wasn't. Robbed ... once again.

With our history, we have to play flawless football. The other team is always an underdog and calls will go their way to "help" them win.


My 200th post! :)

[bluedogok]

Unfortunately, college refs seem to interpret the rule more like the NFL does, in that you have to maintain possession throughout the play even to the ground out of bounds for it to be called a reception. A simple catch and then drop doesn't seem to qualify anymore.

As far as Leach comments about the 2005 debacle, when asked last week he said the same comments he made about the Austin refs in Austin applied to the 2005 game. In effect, local refs shouldn't do a local game.

Anymore, I just expect every call to go against OU and EVERY replay decision to go against OU...that way it is a pleasant surprise whenever a call turns out to be in OU's favor. I have no faith in the officials or the system in place.

[aurorasooner]

Unfortunately, college refs seem to interpret the rule more like the NFL does, in that you have to maintain possession throughout the play even to the ground out of bounds for it to be called a reception.So lets say a runner heading for the pylon (just like Vince Young did just now on MNF), sticks the ball in the air across the pylon, then fumbles it after the ball has crossed the pylon and while he's still in the air....You don't think an NFL replay official is going to call that a TD---????? A TD is when a player has possession of the ball and is across the plane of the goal-line just the same as a receiver who has possession of a pass (and is not bobbling it) and in college comes down with one foot in the endzone. Anything that happens after that is immaterial and irrelevant. It's also like a player being chased (Leon Lett's fumble return for instance), once he crosses the goal line, even if he's in mid-air, it doesn't make any difference if the guy chasing him strips the ball out of his hands 1 inch after he crosses the goaline...He's still has possession in the endzone and the rest is irrelevant and BS.

[SoonerMom2]

Unfortunately, college refs seem to interpret the rule more like the NFL does, in that you have to maintain possession throughout the play even to the ground out of bounds for it to be called a reception. A simple catch and then drop doesn't seem to qualify anymore.

As far as Leach comments about the 2005 debacle, when asked last week he said the same comments he made about the Austin refs in Austin applied to the 2005 game. In effect, local refs shouldn't do a local game.

Anymore, I just expect every call to go against OU and EVERY replay decision to go against OU...that way it is a pleasant surprise whenever a call turns out to be in OU's favor. I have no faith in the officials or the system in place.

Leach didn't make those comments in 2005 when he said it made no difference where someone lived. He saw no bad calls in the game either. Did he change his mind about that too? Hypocrite label stays as far as I am concerned.l

[bluedogok]

The interpretation is for a pass reception, a running play is different criteria. I think the interpretation came from the infamous "tuck rule" playoff game between the Patriots and Raiders. That game resulted in several rules "clarified" in the post season.

I don't agree with the extreme that the NFL went to in defining to what extent a reception is, but that is how they call it since that game.