Backward Pass. What really happened.

[PalmBeachSooner]

I can't say for sure the officials blew the call. What I can say is that they blew their mechanic for a backward pass. If the referee and/or linesman on that side thought it was a backward pass then the mechanic is for either or both of the officials to punch their fist backward to indicate to each other that they have a backward pass. Neither of the officials did this which means they both should have ruled an incomplete pass because neither ruled a backward pass during the pass play.

The second issue is that the referee in his explanation stated that the pass was made from the 12 yard line and struck the ground at the 12 yard line, therefore it was by rule a backward pass. That's true but it is not relevant were it struck the ground because AD touched it before it struck the ground. Therefore, the judgement should have been basedon where the ball was when it touched AD. Since the ball was in the air at that point you can not conclusively determine where it was in relation to a yard line.

My point is, that if the officials had exercised the proper mechanic they would have ruled an incomplete pass since neither indiciated they had a backward pass. An incomplete pass ruling in that case would most likely have been upheld.

Having said that it didn't affect the outcome of the game but it really calls into question what the hell the officials are thinking and doing.

[TopDawg]

it really calls into question what the hell the officials are thinking and doing.

I don't think so. All year the answer to both of those questions has been "nothing."

[JohnnyMack]

Dear God,

Please make me a bird, so I can fly, far, far away.

Dear God,

Please make me a bird, so I can fly, far, far away.

Dear God,

Please make me a bird, so I can fly, far, far away.

[Sooner Born Sooner Bred]

Dear God,

Please make me a bird, so I can fly, far, far away.

Dear God,

Please make me a bird, so I can fly, far, far away.

Dear God,

Please make me a bird, so I can fly, far, far away.Jenny?

[Sooner_Bob]

Dear God,

Please make me a bird, so I can fly, far, far away.

Dear God,

Please make me a bird, so I can fly, far, far away.

Dear God,

Please make me a bird, so I can fly, far, far away.


Who are you . . . the complaining police!!!!?????? :twinkies:

[JohnnyMack]

Jenny?

I think I just ruined your roommates robe.

[Big Red Ron]

My tickets were on the 10 yard line. That pass went forward by almost a yard and AD hit it backwards. They missed the call and ut got a cheap TD. That's it.

[Vaevictis]

My tickets were on the 10 yard line. That pass went forward by almost a yard and AD hit it backwards. They missed the call and ut got a cheap TD. That's it.

That's about where I was, and that's what I saw also.

And as I've said before, the geometry as described by the officials is impossible based upon what I saw. PT passed the ball. It hit AD from behind, then bounced backwards.

It's impossible for a ball to be passed laterally by PT from the 12, bounce backwards off of AD, and land at the 12 yard line. If it bounced backwards off of AD, and landed parallel to PT, then by simple geometry, AD had to be forward of PT.

And since I know I'm going to hear it, I'm not saying that cost us the game. I'm simply stating that that particular call was blown.

It's frustrating because it seems to me that these officials never took math or science past 3rd grade or something. It's geometrically impossible for that to have been a lateral, and that pass interference call by the refs in the Oregon game... it's impossible for a ball to suddenly change its motion vector mid-flight without some outside force acting on it.

I'm really just wondering what the **** is up with these officials. I don't like to be a conspiracy theorist, but the only other option is that these guys are ****ing retards.

[Pepper]

With instant replay in effect, the fans should be able to criticize plays like this whether they cost the game or not. The officials blew this call almost any way you want to look at it. And the other fumble which was reviewed- the announcer said that it was not a fumble while watching the slow motion replay. The arguments I have seen that say these plays were called correctly have not convinced me. The instant replay official should have the same equipment and live feed as the announcers.

[TUSooner]

With instant replay in effect, the fans should be able to criticize plays like this whether they cost the game or not. The officials blew this call almost any way you want to look at it. And the other fumble which was reviewed- the announcer said that it was not a fumble while watching the slow motion replay. The arguments I have seen that say these plays were called correctly have not convinced me. The instant replay official should have the same equipment and live feed as the announcers.

Let the announcers run the replays! They know everything anyway,
BRILLIANT!!
:D :D

[jccouger]

On ADs fumble. Was that even a fumble? I thought the ground couldnt cause a fumble, or is that just the NFL?

[Pepper]

It's obvious the announcers have better equipment (and possibly a better understanding of the rules) than the officials. That's what I'm saying.

[Big John]

On ADs fumble. Was that even a fumble? I thought the ground couldn't cause a fumble, or is that just the NFL?
I've heard people say that since the ball didn't actually touch the ground, and that it was Peterson's hand holding the ball that touched the ground forcing the ball to come free that it was a fumble. I'm not sure about that, because whatever touched the ground, the ground still caused the fumble. According to my calculations, the refs are just biased toward OU, but I'm not a doctor.

[TopDawg]

I don't like to be a conspiracy theorist, but the only other option is that these guys are ****ing retards.

Then don't be a conspiracy theorist. I think the other option explains things just fine.

[goingoneight]

My tickets were on the 10 yard line. That pass went forward by almost a yard and AD hit it backwards. They missed the call and ut got a cheap TD. That's it.

And we still lost by 18 points... not exactly a key call IMHO. It just buried us. :(

[oufan199]

And we still lost by 18 points... not exactly a key call IMHO. It just buried us. :(
My thoughts also, just not in those exact words. OK, so we lose 21-10 instead of 28-10. If you had OU and were getting 12, my condolences.

[Pepper]

There was lots of time left. Being down by 11, you can afford to use up more of the clock to drive down the field without going into obvious passing situations. Being down by 18 there was more desperation which led to more turnovers. Who knows how close the final score would have been if the right call was made.

[Vaevictis]

Then don't be a conspiracy theorist. I think the other option explains things just fine.

Really, I'm on the line on this one.

The level of stupidity with some of these calls rises to, "How they manage to feed themselves? Or remember to put their underwear on before their pants? Or even blow the whistle?"

It's just obscene.

[Gearhart28]

It's impossible for a ball to be passed laterally by PT from the 12, bounce backwards off of AD, and land at the 12 yard line. If it bounced backwards off of AD, and landed parallel to PT, then by simple geometry, AD had to be forward of PT.




The ball didn't land at the 12, it landed at about the 9.

The ground cant cause a fumble when a player is down. If AP would've kept himself up by using the ball and held on to it, he wouldn't have been called down and could've gained more yards. That's why it was called a fumble.

Recent events aren't a conspiracy against OU by the refs, (although could you blame them?) but just a lot of whining by a fanbase with a poor understanding of the rules.

(I'm not refering to the UO game, that was just **** poor)

[soonerhubs]

I'm not gonna rehash, but to say that blown calls wouldn't have affected the outcome is wrong. Especially a "fumble" recovered for a touch down, and a momentum changing pass being called back because the ref thought he saw offensive pass interference. These officials need to think before they make such poor calls. That is all.

[Vaevictis]

The ball didn't land at the 12, it landed at about the 9.

I'm going by what the refs on the field said.

Having been at the game, I don't have the benefit of replay, but what they SAID was (paraphrased), "The ball was thrown at the twelve, and landed at the twelve. That is a lateral by rule, TD Texas."

Based on what they said, the call was impossible.

(And I'll be happy to look at a highish-resolution replay if you've got one, but what I've seen so far is like 300x200 stuff on youtube, which is impossible to tell anything with)

[Dances with Possums]

Saw this posted on the Sooner Scoop. It was really a close call.


http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b19/jeffnee/lateral_ou.gif

[Gearhart28]

It was a really bad pass regardless.

[GreaterState]

I'm going by what the refs on the field said.

Having been at the game, I don't have the benefit of replay, but what they SAID was (paraphrased), "The ball was thrown at the twelve, and landed at the twelve. That is a lateral by rule, TD Texas."

Based on what they said, the call was impossible.

Based on what they said, the call was correct by rule. Contrary to many opinions on this board (and others, no doubt) a pass that is not definitely a forward pass is ruled a backward pass. That includes passes that theoretically go parallel to the goal line.

Though I'll give you that the rulebook adds ambiguity later in the rule, and that's not making things clearer.

You can dispute whether the pass was actually a forward pass, but a sideways pass (and you are saying that's what they said) is a live ball same as if he threw it straight backwards.

[Vaevictis]

Based on what they said, the call was correct by rule. Contrary to many opinions on this board (and others, no doubt) a pass that is not definitely a forward pass is ruled a backward pass. That includes passes that theoretically go parallel to the goal line.

No, based on what they said, the call was incorrect by rule and middle/high school geometry.

They said, specifically, that the ball was passed from the 12 yard line and that it landed at the 12 yard line. The ball clearly bounced backwards off of AD.

Simple application of geometry shows that a ball can't bounce backwards off of someone who is parallel to the release point and still land parallel to the release point. It's just not possible. The only way it is possible is if AD forward of the release point.

Based upon the graphic Dances with Possums put up, I'm willing to concede that it could go either way. But based upon what I heard from the refs at the game, there's no way.

[GreaterState]

The ball clearly bounced backwards off of AD.

You are saying this part -- not the refs. That's my point.

Anyway, even if they did say it bounced off a player, it doesn't matter one bit where the ball lands. What matters is when it's touched. Looks like they misspoke in any case by even talking about where it "lands" unless they meant the point of contact.

Oh, and I'm just basing my "what they said" on what you said they said. I don't have my recording of this game anymore.

[Vaevictis]

You are saying this part -- not the refs. That's my point.

Fine then, if you really want to get into that level of pedantry, then their incompetence still knows no bounds, because it's impossible for anyone with eyes to have missed the fact that AD touched it.

Any which way, the ruling as described by the refs on the field on the field is bunk.

[GreaterState]

Fine then, if you really want to get into that level of pedantry, then their incompetence still knows no bounds, because it's impossible for anyone with eyes to have missed the fact that AD touched it.

I'm not trying to be a pedant, it's just that if the refs think the ball was parallel from PT to Peterson (regardless of what comes out of their mouths), there's a lot of people weighing in on this who still don't realize that's a live ball.



"By the letter of the law, it has to be a forward pass, and going from the 12 to the 12, it's not a backward pass, but it's not a forward pass," Oklahoma offensive coordinator Kevin Wilson said. "I'd like to have that one back."

* That SoonerScoop graphic is about as useful as the YouTube video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XkTo4Te_bRQ), since it's cobbled-together pieces of a shot that (like every football shot since the beginning of television) actually is in motion from the snap, instead of looking like a static camera.


Any which way, the ruling as described by the refs on the field on the field is bunk.

Based on your quote, I don't disagree.

[Gearhart28]

Fine then, if you really want to get into that level of pedantry, then their incompetence still knows no bounds, because it's impossible for anyone with eyes to have missed the fact that AD touched it.

Any which way, the ruling as described by the refs on the field on the field is bunk.

What's your point? As you tell it, the ruling they described isn't what actually happened anyway. In the last frame of that gif you can see the ball in the air at about the 11 and a half yardline traveling backward. It didn't "bounce backward off of peterson and land at the 12" regardless of what you think the refs said.


You lost, plain and simple. Out-hustled, out-played, out-manned, out-coached. Let it go.

Iowa State is on saturday right?

[Octavian]

What's your point?.... Let it go.

What's your point?

You're a guest on a Sooner message board at 1AM still talking about it.

We're getting tired of hearing "let it go" from opposing fanbases and sportswriters after watching our team get jobbed repeatedly by incomepetent officials.

[Vaevictis]

What's your point?

My point is, I would like to have some accountability on the part of the refs. Everyone else in the game has accountability.

Players get suspended. They get thrown off of the team. Their scholarships get yanked. Coaches get fired. They get fined. They get scholarships *reduced*. Bowl games are prohibited. Television appearances get prohibited. Sometimes, even home games get prohibited.

Exactly how do refs get held responsible? By being suspended for a game, but not necessarily their next one, just some random one in the future where they probably already had the weekend off anyway? Please.

How do conferences that are known to deliberately have their refs pull for the home team get held responsible?

As far as letting it go goes: No. It's not going to happen. My bitching isn't even about that call. It's not even about that game. The officiating has been absolutely atrocious, and nobody is getting held responsible. Until that changes, I ain't letting it go. No way. No how.

[Sooner Born Sooner Bred]

Maybe we need math nerds as replay officials. Who knew? ;)

[Rock Hard Corn Frog]

First of all it is impossible for a ball to go exactly parallel to where it is thrown. It might be so close as to be indistinguishable and it would just have to be called a sideways pass but it has to go a little forward or a little back.

If you go by where the pass was released to where it was touched by AD it was a foot. maybe a 1 1/2 feet forward. If the rule is simply from the release point then it is a bad call. If the call is based on where PT was standing then it isn't so bad.

I'm honestly not so bothered by the call as some. Maybe it was because compared to TT last year or Oregon it was an OK call, or the fact that I think at that point we were going to lose whether it was 21-10 or 28-10. That score just meant that those who didn't watch the game thought Texas dominated the game.

It was an ill conceived pass and it was executed poorly (yes I know QBs routinely check down to RB, and it worked against UAB). If the pass had lead AD like it should have it wouldn't have been in the officials hands and when I saw the play the first time I thought it was a lateral.

Compared to the BS PI called on Finley this call was a good one.

[TopDawg]

Dang, these new longhorns are just as thick as the old ones.

[CU Sooner]

Yeah, the call didn't cost us the game this time but I think it was the call that buried us. I mean after getting screwed in 2 of the previous 6 games by officials all this does is mentally deflate the psyche. At some point and time some of these kids have to think that no matter what they do the men in stripes will not let them win. Before that call it was only an 11 point deficit, big, but not impossible. After that call you just had to think there is nothing we can do to win. PI on JJ, no PI on Sweed, numerous mismarking of the ball, and finally the lateral. These officials need some accountability. I am waitng for Bob to blow-up here pretty soon, this is getting ridiculous. I've seen better officiating in sandlot ball.
Having said all that, we came out flat to open the second half and that cost us the game.

[GrapevineSooner]

If the pass had lead AD like it should have it wouldn't have been in the officials hands.

Excellent point.

[BermudaSooner]

It sure seems to look like PT releases the ball at the 11.5 yard line to me.

I'm more ****ed at the PI call on Finley and non-call on Sweed. Either one of those plays gets called the other way, and this is a much different ball game.

[MiccoMacey]

Simple application of geometry shows that a ball can't bounce backwards off of someone who is parallel to the release point and still land parallel to the release point. It's just not possible. The only way it is possible is if AD forward of the release point.

Wrong. You're assuming that the landing point is parallel to the release point. If it bounces off something that is isn't completely flat in relationship to the arc of the pass, it would be deflected in the direction of the angle of what it hit. If AD's hand is turned forward, it bounces forward...if his hand turns backwards, it bounces backwards.



Contrary to many opinions on this board (and others, no doubt) a pass that is not definitely a forward pass is ruled a backward pass.

Wrong-o, chicken lips. Read the rule again (or more than likely for the first time). It is exactly the opposite of what you stated. Unless it is conclusively a backward pass, it is given the benefit of the doubt as a forward pass.

[Luthor]

I can't say for sure the officials blew the call. What I can say is that they blew their mechanic for a backward pass. If the referee and/or linesman on that side thought it was a backward pass then the mechanic is for either or both of the officials to punch their fist backward to indicate to each other that they have a backward pass. Neither of the officials did this which means they both should have ruled an incomplete pass because neither ruled a backward pass during the pass play.

The second issue is that the referee in his explanation stated that the pass was made from the 12 yard line and struck the ground at the 12 yard line, therefore it was by rule a backward pass. That's true but it is not relevant were it struck the ground because AD touched it before it struck the ground. Therefore, the judgement should have been basedon where the ball was when it touched AD. Since the ball was in the air at that point you can not conclusively determine where it was in relation to a yard line.

My point is, that if the officials had exercised the proper mechanic they would have ruled an incomplete pass since neither indiciated they had a backward pass. An incomplete pass ruling in that case would most likely have been upheld.

Having said that it didn't affect the outcome of the game but it really calls into question what the hell the officials are thinking and doing.


As I've never officiated football I didn't know there is a mechanic for a lateral pass. Sounds like something similar to basebgall umpires signaling infield fly or a balk during a play (I umpired baseball for 12 years) in order to initiate the correct action to follow in the event some additional ruling must be made as a result.
If what you say is true then the officials near the play made a no-call that resulted in a call. I didn't know you could do that either.

[redhawk49]

http://www.tulsaworld.com/Multimedia/2006/oucall/oucall.htm

Grassy Knoll??

[stoopified]

As I've never officiated football I didn't know there is a mechanic for a lateral pass. Sounds like something similar to basebgall umpires signaling infield fly or a balk during a play (I umpired baseball for 12 years) in order to initiate the correct action to follow in the event some additional ruling must be made as a result.
If what you say is true then the officials near the play made a no-call that resulted in a call. I didn't know you could do that either.You can but ONLY if it screws the SOONERS.

[redhawk49]

http://www.tulsaworld.com/Multimedia/2006/oucall/oucall.htm

[sooner518]

so did the replay official not see that the ball hit AD? Still confused how that wasn't overturned.

[Vaevictis]

Wrong. You're assuming that the landing point is parallel to the release point.

I'm assuming that because that is what the officials said happened. I must have said multiple times in this thread: the officials said, "The ball was released at the 12 yard line and landed at the 12 yard line. By rule, that is a lateral." If it was released at the 12 and landed at the 12, then the landing point IS parallel to the release point.

You cannot have a ball bounce backwards off of something that is parallel to the release point (AD) and still first hit the ground parallel to the release point. It's just not geometrically possible.

Frankly, based on the replay, I'm not saying that the end result of the call is wrong. What I *am* saying is that the explanation as given by the refs was impossible. That's a problem because it calls into question their competence and neutrality. And if it wasn't mere misstatement on their part, if it was really their reasoning, then that's a HUGE problem, because it straight up means that they've got issues with either competence or neutrality.

[Vaevictis]

Maybe we need math nerds as replay officials. Who knew? ;)

Or at least one in the booth. There are a lot of things a physics geek could tell the replay official that those ****ing retards seem to be missing.

Things that immediately come to mind include:
1. A ball cannot be in two places at once. If some guy has the ball outside of the pile, then nobody in the pile has it.
2. If a ball is in motion, it's not going to change direction unless some outside force causes it to change direction. Even if the point of contact happens between frames so you can't see it happening, if the ball changed vectors between frames, then some force obviously acted upon it between frames.
3. A ball cannot bounce backwards off of something parallel to the release point and land parallel to the release point. Either the ball didn't land parallel, or the bounce point was forward of the release/landing point.

OTOH, it doesn't take a physics geek to know that sort of thing. Just someone who's lived a little and isn't a total ****ing retard.

[Harry Beanbag]

http://www.tulsaworld.com/Multimedia/2006/oucall/oucall.htm


Sounds like a whistle blew after the ball hit the ground...

[TopDawg]

Vaevictis, I agree with your sentiment, but "parallel" is the wrong word to use because you're talking about points and points cannot be parallel. The lines that go through those points can be parallel, but they can also be perpendicular.


You cannot have a ball bounce backwards off of something that is parallel to the release point (AD) and still first hit the ground parallel to the release point. It's just not geometrically possible.

Because of the use of the word parallel, this is technically incorrect. No matter where Thompson is standing or where the ball hits Peterson or where the ball lands, if you draw a straight line (parallel to the goalline) through those points, each of those lines will be parallel to the others.

However, it is true that you cannot have something (the ball) hit something on the same line (Peterson) that it was thrown from (Thompson's release point) and bounce to either side (forward or backward) and still land on the same line. Unless the wind or other factors are involved. And that's exactly what the refs said happened. And exactly why they are dumb.

[TopDawg]

This brings up another question. If the game is being played in incredibly windy conditions and the QB throws a high fade route from the goalline and it crosses at least one yard into the endzone during flight but is caught in the wind and blown backwards to the 4 yard line, is that a forward pass or a lateral? The ball was thrown forward but landed behind him without being touched.

[Harry Beanbag]

This brings up another question. If the game is being played in incredibly windy conditions and the QB throws a high fade route from the goalline and it crosses at least one yard into the endzone during flight but is caught in the wind and blown backwards to the 4 yard line, is that a forward pass or a lateral? The ball was thrown forward but landed behind him without being touched.


I don't know what the ruling would be on that, but the coach who calls fade routes into hurricane force winds should be shot.

I have had tee shots roll backwards in the fairway due to the wind. That sucks.

[TopDawg]

I don't know what the ruling would be on that, but the coach who calls fade routes into hurricane force winds should be shot.

I was wondering who would be first to chime in with this observation. Congratulations!

[aurorasooner]

the bottom line is the officials feelings have been hurt by the fact that college football fans now have the proof that some of these guys either can't leave their team allegiances at the stadium gate or can't use common sense anymore in officiating because of the fear of video footage will prove their call(s) wrong (down to the inch). the reason I post this is a post I just read over at officiating.com
I don't technically disagree but when adding in the "when in doubt" clause I'll stick with my post as is. I know for a fact that there is not anyone on the 3 boards that I work with that is going to call a cross field pass that "appears" to be thrown from the 10 yd line, that "appears" to bounce on the 10 yd line, 20 yds across the field, a backward pass.
the point being, that what kind of idiot official is not going to call anything that close to a forward pass not a forward pass, (and there's absolutely no question in my mind that's PT's pass was forward, and not sideways or backward) especially one in the replay booth. I've looked at the pictures and the video and these 2 guys up in the replay booth on that PT to AD pass are either idiots, spineless, or had a bone to pick. perhaps the best thing to do is 1) make these replay officials accountable by having a press conference after the game (if the press requests it)just like the head coach has to do) 2) just drop instant replay.

[soonerboy_odanorth]

I have what I'll call a "magic ball" theory that explains this....

And from the .avi I took from my camera phone you can clearly see a puff of smoke from the Ferris wheel... (though the image is a little grainy)...

[Big John]

The problem is that with the replay rules, the officials always let the play finish then put the pressure on the replay booth to overturn the call.
-Like a pass that is incomplete and could possibly be backward, the officials let the defender pick it up and score, then rely upon the replay booth the make the correct call (Texas game where the ball hits Peterson's hand)
-If a player has the ball come out of his hand, even if the fumble was caused by the ground the ref will let the defender fall on it and make the other official make the call whether it was caused by the ground (Texas game when Peterson had the ball come loose)
-If a player dives for the end zone, but his momentum stops and his knee possibly touches the ground, the ref will not blow the whistle allowing the player to surge forward to the goaline and rely upon the replay booth to make the call (Tech touchdown)
-If a player catches a pass on fourth down and appears close to a first down the ref will not concentrate his hardest and rely upon the replay official to confirm whether the spot was correct (Tech first down)
-If a player touches the ball before it goes 10 yards, the official will let the play continue and get the official to make the call whether it went 10 yards (Oregon onside kick)
-If a player(AP) from the return team recovers a ball squirting through another players legs, gets up and holds the ball in the air while another player (Reggie Smith) points him out to the official digging through the pile of players, the field official will pretend he sees the ball in an Oregon player's possession sense the other Oregon players are signaling that they have the ball which means they must not be lying (or maybe that just happens when OU is playing)
Some ideas on why OU is getting screwed on calls in the last couple of years
1. One thing that I have heard is that the replay equipment is not as bueno as the replay you would see on ABC when they replay it, which is crazy that the officials would not have as good or better equipment than the fans.
2. Another idea is that the replay equipment is fine, and that the replay officials are incompetent. I heard the replay official from the Oregon game had already reffed for twenty-something years, which means he is one old sonofagun and probably has eyesight problems that comes with old age. Obviously incompetent individuals shouldn't be hired in the first place.
3. A different idea where the replay equipment is fine is that the replay dudes just need to grow some balls and have enough courage to overturn an incorrect call.
4. A final idea is that there is corruption and biased within the system. Why it may seem like a crazy idea, I don't think that it can be ignored because OU has not just been screwed multiple times within a single game once, but 3 times in less than a year.
And in conclusion...
While I'm not sure what the problem is, it may be a combination of the problems listed above. But the fact is there is a problem and it needs to be fixed. People need to stop telling us to quit bitching about us getting screwed, because I believe this country was founded upon the believe that if you are getting screwed, you have every right to bitch about it. The communists running the NCAA need to stop denying there is a problem and try to fix it. You have to keep in mind that these are the same people who say that we can't have a playoff because it would mess up the players class schedules. Screw that, most of those guys are going to school to play football and not playing football while going to school. EX:AD These are also the same guys who are trying to shorten games to fit television schedules despite it not being in the best interest of the coaches and the fans attending the games (who are getting to see slightly less football for the same price).
Please insert your problems and/or agreements with this post below.:)

[Vaevictis]

Because of the use of the word parallel, this is technically incorrect. No matter where Thompson is standing or where the ball hits Peterson or where the ball lands, if you draw a straight line (parallel to the goalline) through those points, each of those lines will be parallel to the others.

I'm not talking parallel as in the yard lines, or parallel to the goal line, I'm talking the PT-AD line and PT-landing point lines.

The only way these two are parallel is if the line is PT-AD-Landing Point, in which case a ball bouncing backwards off of AD and landing at the 12 yard line implies that AD could not have, in fact, been on the same line. (or that it didn't land on the 12 yard line, or that PT wasn't on the 12 yard line -- any which way, the description by the refs can't be correct)

My wording was crap, I agree. Yours is much better.

[Kimberlyz4OU]

My head hurts. Is there going to be a quiz? :D

[Ash]

My head hurts. Is there going to be a quiz? :D

Hope you've brushed up on your rules book and trig.




;)

[Vaevictis]

Yes, I'm a geek. A nerd, too. You're on the innerwebs. You tend to run into them a lot here ;)

[Ash]

Meh. Guilt by association if nothing else, here.:twinkies:

[Kimberlyz4OU]

It's all good ;)

[Texas Golfer]

Unlike TT and Oregon where one single bogus call cost us the game, with UT, it was a series of bogus calls that hurt us.

[Indy Sooner]

http://www.tulsaworld.com/Multimedia/2006/oucall/oucall.htm

Grassy Knoll??

Lots of incompetency across college FB officiating and unfortunately many replay officials in a position to ensure accuracy are either cheating (Oregon and probably TTech) or are simply too dense to draw conclusions which are obvious to everyone else (e.g., TV announcers, TV viewers, etc.).

[birddog]

that sucks. just because the texass dude took it in the endzone and the whorn fans are freaking out, the ref throws his arms in the air. almost like he's doing the gesture for confusion as if to say, "hell if i know," with his arms raised.

[GreaterState]

Wrong-o, chicken lips. Read the rule again (or more than likely for the first time). It is exactly the opposite of what you stated. Unless it is conclusively a backward pass, it is given the benefit of the doubt as a forward pass.

Ya mean this rule?


ARTICLE 2. a. A forward pass is determined by the point where the ball
first strikes the ground, a player, an official or anything beyond the spot
of the pass. All other passes are backward passes. When in question, it
is a forward pass rather than a backward pass when thrown in or
behind the neutral zone.

I'll admit this could be a lot clearer, and you can bold the last sentence all you want, but the point of the baseline part I'm bolding here is that if it's not conclusively forward (beyond), then it's "backward." That includes "parallel to line of scrimmage." Long ago they just cleaned up the words "or lateral" by defining that as backward. Outside of the rule book, and in other NCAA docs, there's a lot of officials' tests and opinion and other clarification out there. Kevin Wilson gets it too. Seems like many don't.

[Sugalean]

Looks like a lateral everytime I see the play.

What everyone should be up in arms about is the call. You don't call that play that deep in your territory. Hitches, screens and reverses... no-no plays that deep in your territory for the reason you seen on that play...

[Crucifax Autumn]

That may be true, but to risk sounding like a whiner, the refs shouldn't make "that call" either...

Much like how in baseball a tie goes to the runner, in football if it's THAT close the refs oughtta follow the "When in question" part. On the other hand...if replays clearly show another result other than that called on the field, then they should either make the tough reversal or declare themselves to be a bad rule and get rid of replay alrogether!

[Desert Sapper]

That play wasn't the straw that broke the camel's back by a long shot. It did put the game far enough out of reach to flatten the team emotionally. The bottom line thing to take out of this game is execution and hustle. UT executed and hustled the whole game. OU didn't in the second half. This led to ****-poor mistakes in the worst possible moments of the game which caused 4 of the 5 turnovers and a ton of penalties. This team is pretty young, which is probably the biggest reason why this happened, but it is still inexcusable. Hopefully the team will learn from this game and be able to drive on, execute, and play a full 4 quarters.

[Rock Hard Corn Frog]

That may be true, but to risk sounding like a whiner, the refs shouldn't make "that call" either...

Much like how in baseball a tie goes to the runner, in football if it's THAT close the refs oughtta follow the "When in question" part. On the other hand...if replays clearly show another result other than that called on the field, then they should either make the tough reversal or declare themselves to be a bad rule and get rid of replay alrogether!

Not that it matters as far as the lateral call but there is no "tie goes to the runner" in baseball rules. That is a playground rule.

Tie Goes to the Runner?
There is no rule that states that a tie goes to the runner. Well at least not in those exact words. The portion of the rule in section 6.05 that applies to this states, "A batter is out when after he hits a fair ball, he or first base is tagged before he touches first base."

Just like a play at first can be so close as to appear inperceptible a pass must go forward slightly or backward slightly. It will never go precisely sideways.

The difference is of course that an umpire MUST immediately make a call and stick with it while the officials in this case had multiple chances with replay to see this in slo-mo.

As sugalean said it looked like a lateral the first time I saw it and it was a poorly thrown pass.

It made the margin worse than it should have been but this play/call didn't cost us the game. It was just a good example of why we lost.

[The Maestro]

Looks like a lateral everytime I see the play.

Welcome to soonerfans.com, Mr. Stevie Wonder!

Are you really that blind or is it the team you pull for NOT called OU that makes you this way? It's not even that close...

[MiccoMacey]

Ya mean this rule?



I'll admit this could be a lot clearer, and you can bold the last sentence all you want, but the point of the baseline part I'm bolding here is that if it's not conclusively forward (beyond), then it's "backward." That includes "parallel to line of scrimmage." Long ago they just cleaned up the words "or lateral" by defining that as backward. Outside of the rule book, and in other NCAA docs, there's a lot of officials' tests and opinion and other clarification out there. Kevin Wilson gets it too. Seems like many don't.

I'm not sure how you can say "that if it's not conclusively forward (beyond), then it's backward.", when the rule you posted says "When in question, it
is a forward pass rather than a backward pass."

But I'm with you and most everybody else....it's almost a moot point because it didn't cost us the game. It'd be like arguing just to argue. And we don't allow that on this here board. :D

[TexasLidig8r]

:rolleyes:

Next, you'll be demanding to leave the Big XII and join the Big Least Conference because Texas has entered into a conspiracy with everyone and has taken over the Big XII.. oh wait.. too late...

http://mb22.scout.com/fouinsiderfrm1.showMessageRange?topicID=142510.top ic&start=1&stop=20

[colleyvillesooner]

:rolleyes:

Next, you'll be demanding to leave the Big XII and join the Big Least Conference because Texas has entered into a conspiracy with everyone and has taken over the Big XII.. oh wait.. too late...

http://mb22.scout.com/fouinsiderfrm1.showMessageRange?topicID=142510.top ic&start=1&stop=20

Don't lump us in with them.

[TexasLidig8r]

Don't lump us in with them.

Didn't I see a post from you on there ??? ;)

[TopDawg]

So Lidig8r, how much of your clients' time do you spend on various Sooner message boards?

[Tear Down This Wall]

So Lidig8r, how much of your clients' time do you spend on various Sooner message boards?

Dude, when you're billng $150-$300 and hour. You don't actually have to do much to bring in a grand a day. I mean, really. It's like being a doctor without having to know science and stuff.

[Octavian]

Next, you'll be demanding to leave the Big XII and join the Big Least Conference....

or maybe our coach will advocate restructuring the entire conference so "the two best teams can play in the championship game" like a certain other coach did a couple years ago.

meh...probably not.

[XingTheRubicon]

I can't figure out why Arkansas left the squeaky clean, fair and balanced SouthWorst Conference...

[PalmBeachSooner]

On ADs fumble. Was that even a fumble? I thought the ground couldnt cause a fumble, or is that just the NFL?


There is no such thing as 'the ground can't cause a fumble' in the NCAA or NFL or any leval for that matter. It's a phrase that was coined by announcers. They can get away with saying it because 99% of the time the player is down by rule before the ball comes loose and thus the ball becomes dead and you can't have a fumble. A player is down and the ball becomes dead when any part of his body, other than his feet or hands, touches the ground or he goes out of bounds.

In the NFL if a player trips over his own feet and does a belly-flop onto the ground and loses the ball it is a fumble. The ball is still live because the runner was not down by contact. In AD's case he touched the ground with the back of his hand that was cradling the ball, therefore he was not down and it is a fumble. It doesn't matter if he was being tackled or not.

[yur-out]

So Lidig8r, how much of your clients' time do you spend on various Sooner message boards?
Looks enough time, that if I was one of his clients up for a capital crime. I'd be writting my memoirs rather quickly.;)

[colleyvillesooner]

Didn't I see a post from you on there ??? ;)

yep:


This is the most unbelievable thread ever.

[redhawk49]

Too high, too high!

Waddaya mean too high??

[PalmBeachSooner]

As I've never officiated football I didn't know there is a mechanic for a lateral pass. Sounds like something similar to basebgall umpires signaling infield fly or a balk during a play (I umpired baseball for 12 years) in order to initiate the correct action to follow in the event some additional ruling must be made as a result.
If what you say is true then the officials near the play made a no-call that resulted in a call. I didn't know you could do that either.


I do officiate football and what I know is that most botched calls are the result of poor mechanics rather than the misapplication of a specific rule. New officials are taught the mechanics of their position before being taught the rules. If you exercise the proper mechanic then the rule can be applied correctly. However, if you fail to use the proper mechanic then you have to rely on your memory of what happened which is usually wrong and a forward pass is ruled a backward pass.

[Getem]

There is no such thing as 'the ground can't cause a fumble' in the NCAA or NFL or any leval for that matter. It's a phrase that was coined by announcers. They can get away with saying it because 99% of the time the player is down by rule before the ball comes loose and thus the ball becomes dead and you can't have a fumble. A player is down and the ball becomes dead when any part of his body, other than his feet or hands, touches the ground or he goes out of bounds.

In the NFL if a player trips over his own feet and does a belly-flop onto the ground and loses the ball it is a fumble. The ball is still live because the runner was not down by contact. In AD's case he touched the ground with the back of his hand that was cradling the ball, therefore he was not down and it is a fumble. It doesn't matter if he was being tackled or not.

I don't think so... I know AD wasn't down when the ball came out, but what about the ball itself? If the ball touches the ground while in a player's possession, isn't it down?

http://ok-wood.com/adfumble.jpg

[Stoop Dawg]

I don't think so... I know AD wasn't down when the ball came out, but what about the ball itself? If the ball touches the ground while in a player's possession, isn't it down?

I thought that was the case too.

If AD were running down the field, lost his balance, and touched the ball to the ground to regain his balance then kept running - would they have called him down?

And I guess I'm blind too, because the lateral pass looks exactly like a lateral pass to me.

[Getem]

I thought that was the case too.

If AD were running down the field, lost his balance, and touched the ball to the ground to regain his balance then kept running - would they have called him down?

And I guess I'm blind too, because the lateral pass looks exactly like a lateral pass to me.

Better take another look

http://ok-wood.com/lat.gif

[Texas Golfer]

In AD's case he touched the ground with the back of his hand that was cradling the ball, therefore he was not down and it is a fumble. It doesn't matter if he was being tackled or not.

This is all well and good but it does bring to mind another question. Had AD spun out and dodged the tackle but the back of his hand carrying the ball touched the ground, do you think for even a second that the refs wouldn't have called him down at that spot?

If they would have, he should have been declared down in this situation even more so.

[Texas Golfer]

If AD were running down the field, lost his balance, and touched the ball to the ground to regain his balance then kept running - would they have called him down?

Thank you. This is my point exactly.

[Octavian]

http://ok-wood.com/lat.gif

ball leaves Paul's hand behind 12 yard line.

ball hits Adrian's hand in front of 12 yard line.

This isn't as pathetically obvious as the onside kick in Oregon or the 2-yard-gift spot on the 20 in Lubbock on the final drive.

It's not the reason we lost.

But it's not too ****in' much to ask for the refs to do their mutha****in' job and get the calls right when they've got the advantage of looking directly at a replay on a tv screen...

and not be called whiners when their incompetent asses can't do it.

How many times can one program get hosed?

[Stoop Dawg]

Better take another look

http://ok-wood.com/lat.gif

That's a good angle, but I'm still having trouble getting upset about a very close call that had pretty much no impact on the game.

[Soonerus]

Clearly a forward pass and giving Texas a TD then effectively ended the game...

[Texas Law Student]

I thought the two interceptions afterwards effectively ended the game.

[Soonerus]

21-10, still a game...28-10 takes a minor miracle to win and results in interceptions trying to pull off the minor miracle...no, that call effectively ended the game and at that point most of the texas fans around me started acting like complete asses...not that, by their nature, they had not been partial asses the entire game....

[Big Red Ron]

Fine then, if you really want to get into that level of pedantry, then their incompetence still knows no bounds, because it's impossible for anyone with eyes to have missed the fact that AD touched it.

Any which way, the ruling as described by the refs on the field on the field is bunk.Great post.

[OU_Sooners75]

Do you all always whine when Sooner Magic does not happen?

Who freaking cares about that call...OU lost that game....Texas might have gotten a freebie...but If the shoe was on our feet, we would not be sitting here debating it, since the game was all but over before that play.


Now, let your balls drop and lets get geared up to take care of the rest of our schedule.

2001...OU lost 2 games...yet beat Texass....guess who was playing in Kansas City that year?

Lets hope We can get our swagger back, we have not had it since we lost to USC. And lets hope for some Sooner Magic....because OU season is not over..We still have a very young team and lots of maturing left to do.


BOOMER
SOONER!

[OU_Sooners75]

21-10, still a game...28-10 takes a minor miracle to win and results in interceptions trying to pull off the minor miracle...no, that call effectively ended the game and at that point most of the texas fans around me started acting like complete asses...not that, by their nature, they had not been partial asses the entire game....


The game was over by that point...True...11 points is easier to overcome...but We kep shooting ourselves in the foot the second half with Penalties and Turnovers.

We found a way to lose that game (no matter how much it pains me to say that). So hopefully we can now move forward and beat the crap out ISU and the rest of the schedule.....

Sidenote:

Missouri is looking really tough right now.

[GrapevineSooner]

That's a good angle, but I'm still having trouble getting upset about a very close call that had pretty much no impact on the game.
I don't think it's close at all.

I think it's obvious.

And without regard to the impact on the game, I think it's ridiculous that some replay official in the Cotton Bowl could not see this was a forward pass.

Sure, I'd love it a lot more if we were so good that such calls wouldn't either doom us or put us deeper in a hole.

But right now, replay in college ball sucks and either needs improvement or needs to go away.

Because sooner or later, all those national pundits calling the fans like myself whiners for simply want the system to work the way it was intended to work (and nothing more) are going to join the bandwagon when replay botches a call in an important game.

Like, say, a conference championship game or a national championship game.

[Rock Hard Corn Frog]

I don't think so... I know AD wasn't down when the ball came out, but what about the ball itself? If the ball touches the ground while in a player's possession, isn't it down?

http://ok-wood.com/adfumble.jpg

No, it was a fumble. The ground actually can cause a fumble provided the player isn't down just like Palm Beach Sooner said. That was probably one of those rare cases where AD being as tough to bring down as he is contributed to causing the fumble. A lesser back goes down easily and can't fight through that tackle for 2-3 more yards.

Still think the PI call on Finley was the worst call in the game but I'm ready to talk about whipping ISU.

[Tear Down This Wall]

Dear Fellow Sooner Fans (part II),

It was a fumble. Get on with your lives.

Love,
Tear Down This Wall

P.s. - It was a fumble. Get on with your lives. Seriously.

[Stoop Dawg]

Dear Fellow Sooner Fans (part II),

It was a fumble. Get on with your lives.

Love,
Tear Down This Wall

P.s. - It was a fumble. Get on with your lives. Seriously.

I'm simply asking what the rule is regarding touching the ground with the football. Do you have any information on that?

[BermudaSooner]

I'm simply asking what the rule is regarding touching the ground with the football. Do you have any information on that?

The rule book doesn't mention the ball touching the ground--believe me I scoured it after the game. Basically it says a runner is down when another part of his body other than his hand or foot touches the ground.

This was a surprise to me, but apparently the rule. I could have sworn I've seen a RB dive for a first down, the ball hits the ground and comes out before any other part of him hits, and it is ruled down. Apparently that should be ruled a fumble.


http://www.ncaa.org/library/rules/2005/2005_football_rules.pdf#search=%22ncaa%20college%2 0football%20rules%22

[GrapevineSooner]

I'm simply asking what the rule is regarding touching the ground with the football. Do you have any information on that?
Why have any information when you (not you, Stoop ;) ) can be an a-hole?

BTW, the ground can cause a fumble in an instance where the runner's head, shoulder, elbow, knee, or butt doesn't contact the ground at the same time or before the ball comes out after making contact with the ground.

[Stoop Dawg]

The rule book doesn't mention the ball touching the ground--believe me I scoured it after the game. Basically it says a runner is down when another part of his body other than his hand or foot touches the ground.

This was a surprise to me, but apparently the rule. I could have sworn I've seen a RB dive for a first down, the ball hits the ground and comes out before any other part of him hits, and it is ruled down. Apparently that should be ruled a fumble.


http://www.ncaa.org/library/rules/2005/2005_football_rules.pdf#search=%22ncaa%20college%2 0football%20rules%22

Thanks for the info. I could have sworn I heard that the runner was down if the ball touches the ground, but that may have come from some announcer somewhere. And those guys seem to know even less about the rules than the referees. ;)

[sooneron]

I gave up on this thread on the first page, but I have a few comments.

The backwards pass- I think the thing that bothers me the most on this one is not that the ball did go forward- allbeit VERY SLIGHTLY. It's that 9 times out of 10, the officials give the offense the benefit of the doubt and call it incomplete.

Here's my last take on AD's "fumble". If he were running, got tripped up and places his hand with the ball in it on the ground (and part of the ball), yet manages to say, get 8 more yards on his feet, wouldn't they call him down back where the ball touched the ground?

[Big Red Ron]

If he were running, got tripped up and places his hand with the ball in it on the ground (and part of the ball), yet manages to say, get 8 more yards on his feet, wouldn't they call him down back where the ball touched the ground?I've actually seen this and yes, they called him down.

[bixby28]

Peterson should have done the 'smart' thing and made a play on the ball. That was ridiculous. He's the best player in the country and he doesn't have the sense to defend the lateral he dropped in the backfield. The excuse that 'he didn't think it was a fumble' shouldn't work with anybody.

Aaron Ross didn't have that reaction to the play. Peterson rocks, but that was a bone-head play.

[Sugalean]

Welcome to soonerfans.com, Mr. Stevie Wonder!

Are you really that blind or is it the team you pull for NOT called OU that makes you this way? It's not even that close...

Sorry Maestro...

I just call em like I see em. As for OU, I admire the program, its tradition and history and the many players I've seen play there through the years.

I'm not one to flame on msg boards and won't now.

Still, who ever called that play is to blame on this one. Hopefully a lesson was learned.

[Sugalean]

My question on the fumble is... on the picture, doesn't it look like Peterson might have been tripped? I can't fully remember the whole play but boy it sure looks like the tackler might have used his legs to help bring him down in that pic.

On the lateral, the refs are looking at the position of the players not the flight of the ball which I think everyone is getting away from. Thompson and Peterson are on the same hash mark which is what the refs went by. In fact Thompson has one foot in front of the hash. The same applies if you have one foot over the LOS but the ball is released slightly behind the line. You have crossed the line and its ruled a illegal forward pass.