GSU and a Little Perspective

[GTNavyNuke]

One question on the turnover. If the ball was not going forward or backwards, but straight down the line, is it a forward or backward pass for the purposes of rules interpretation?

What I saw from the times it was replayed was essentially down the line. So I expected the call on the field to "stand" and not be overturned. I believe the call on the field was a forward pass.

 

[GT Man]

Tell you what though... looked damn fine in those unis. PLEASE wear them the rest of the year!

 

[dressedcheeseside]

One question on the turnover. If the ball was not going forward or backwards, but straight down the line, is it a forward or backward pass for the purposes of rules interpretation?

What I saw from the times it was replayed was essentially down the line. So I expected the call on the field to "stand" and not be overturned. I believe the call on the field was a forward pass.

I don't know the official rule, but the backwards pass is called a lateral and what does the word lateral literally mean....?

 

[str8shooter]

The rule is pretty plain. It says that based on the call on the field, there must be "indisputable" evidence to reverse it. As you look at the play when it happened, two officials immediately blew the ball dead and called it an incomplete pass. The replay official reversed the ruling by saying that the ball was released on the 27 yard line and touched by GT on the 27 yard line, making it a lateral. The ruling on the field takes precedence here and the indisputable evidence must be there. So what if the ball was an inch or two, or even a half inch forward of the QB when touched? That would make it a forward pass. Frankly the ruling on the field should have remained, since this one was much too close to call. As many have said, the video evidence was not clear enough to make that exact judgment. GT fans don't want to hear this, since the play went in their favor. What would they think if the roles were reversed? The word "indisputable" has meaning, and I'm not sure that it was properly used in this instance. It's over and done, but GT got the benefit of the doubt on this one.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

The rule is pretty plain. It says that based on the call on the field, there must be "indisputable" evidence to reverse it. As you look at the play when it happened, two officials immediately blew the ball dead and called it an incomplete pass. The replay official reversed the ruling by saying that the ball was released on the 27 yard line and touched by GT on the 27 yard line, making it a lateral. The ruling on the field takes precedence here and the indisputable evidence must be there. So what if the ball was an inch or two, or even a half inch forward of the QB when touched? That would make it a forward pass. Frankly the ruling on the field should have remained, since this one was much too close to call. As many have said, the video evidence was not clear enough to make that exact judgment. GT fans don't want to hear this, since the play went in their favor. What would they think if the roles were reversed? The word "indisputable" has meaning, and I'm not sure that it was properly used in this instance. It's over and done, but GT got the benefit of the doubt on this one.

What angle is "indisputable"? There's no such thing. It's all up to the discretion of the video official.

Many times the video angle is not perfect. This drives me nuts on the goal line. Why not set up a camera that aims directly down the goal line? In this instance, the video angle was perfect, it was right down the horizontal line of the play. You couldn't have placed the camera any better if you wanted to. This is what allowed the video official to be certain of his call. In fact, he was so certain, he publicly named the yard lines he used as reference in his call to the stadium. This is what made it "indisputable" in his mind.

 

[AE 87]

I think there's a bias toward lateral that refs are supposed to use as part of their discretion. Last year, we were the victims of this call where it was called a pitch on the field but video showed it clearly going forward, and it was not overturned.

Imo, the rule should take into account relative positioning more than absolute. The qb delivering the ball to a player who is behind him at the time of release is pitching the ball regardless of ball's trajectory.

 

[Animal02]

What angle is "indisputable"? There's no such thing. It's all up to the discretion of the video official.

Many times the video angle is not perfect. This drives me nuts on the goal line. Why not set up a camera that aims directly down the goal line? In this instance, the video angle was perfect, it was right down the horizontal line of the play. You couldn't have placed the camera any better if you wanted to. This is what allowed the video official to be certain of his call. In fact, he was so certain, he publicly named the yard lines he used as reference in his call to the stadium. This is what made it "indisputable" in his mind.

With as cheap as cameras are now......Cameras should be fixed on each side of both goal lines, as well as each way down the sidelines.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

I think there's a bias toward lateral that refs are supposed to use as part of their discretion. Last year, we were the victims of this call where it was called a pitch on the field but video showed it clearly going forward, and it was not overturned.

Imo, the rule should take into account relative positioning more than absolute. The qb delivering the ball to a player who is behind him at the time of release is pitching the ball regardless of ball's trajectory.

I agree as long as "behind him" means relative to the field, not relative to the qb. (If the two guys were running east/west, the aback could be "behind" the qb yet 4 or 5 yards infront of him north/south.) In this case, the pitch back was definitely behind the qb relative to the field.

 

[str8shooter]

Guys, there is a photo posted on Twitter of the play at the moment the ball is touched by the GT player. It is absolutely straight across the field. Shows the ball released between the 27 and 28 yard line and touched on the 27. The ball was pitched with the left hand, and this is "inconclusive" evidence that it WAS a forward pass. Not crying over spilt milk, but WOW!

 

[Longestday]

What I have a hard time believing is that we have fans basically saying we did not win because they feel the reversal was a bad call, not a close call, a bad call. That ball was down the line and not forward and you can use outside and inside hash marks to line up paper and see the ball is clearly a lateral and not forward. If it was really forward, can be seen as a forward on the screen, and called a lateral then I can see a fan saying we stole that game. Fans... can't live with them, can't live without them.

Do you know how much happened in that game that was not called that would have helped us. Originally, the refs probably allowed all the holding and etc. because GSU was falling so far behind. But, as the second half went on they allowed them to continue.

How about 2 chop blocks where the center was clearly not engaging the DL both times. The DL was brushing him to keep him from getting to the second level. The center never even had a shoulder on him. I would love to have those two calls back. Very clear holding like on our CB and on the DE. You can not have a hold on a jersey when you are behind a guy and the guy in front is dragging you. Calls go both ways and I refuse to cry about a very close call that bounced our way that has no evidence of going forward.

 

[UgaBlows]

Pretty sure str8shooter there is a gsu fan. Hey man, if your team deserved to win maybe they outta try playing good the whole game? Bottom line is GT checked out at halftime, this game would have been 70+ to 21-ish if the good guys had kept the pedal to the metal.

 

[UgaBlows]

Do you know how much happened in that game that was not called that would have helped us. Originally, the refs probably allowed all the holding and etc. because GSU was falling so far behind. But, as the second half went on they allowed them to continue.

How about 2 chop blocks where the center was clearly not engaging the DL both times. The DL was brushing him to keep him from getting to the second level. The center never even had a shoulder on him. I would love to have those two calls back. Very clear holding like on our CB and on the DE. You can not have a hold on a jersey when you are behind a guy and the guy in front is dragging you. Calls go both ways and I refuse to cry about a very close call that bounced our way that has no evidence of going forward.

There was some blatant pushoff's by their receivers going on too

 

[AE 87]

I agree as long as "behind him" means relative to the field, not relative to the qb. (If the two guys were running east/west, the aback could be "behind" the qb yet 4 or 5 yards infront of him north/south.) In this case, the pitch back was definitely behind the qb relative to the field.

obviously

 

[Lexjacket]

 

[dressedcheeseside]

obviously

It's obvious to you and me, maybe not to others. Frame of reference is critical and should not be left to assumption. This particular aspect of the game of football has been of interest for me for a long time. I've read the rule many times and it doesn't even include frame of reference in it. smh.

 

[Declinometer]

If we are going to bring up calls by the officials how about the phantom pass interference on DS and the non calls on GS secondary.

 

[danny daniel]

One question on the turnover. If the ball was not going forward or backwards, but straight down the line, is it a forward or backward pass for the purposes of rules interpretation?

What I saw from the times it was replayed was essentially down the line. So I expected the call on the field to "stand" and not be overturned. I believe the call on the field was a forward pass.

Sideways or backward is a lateral. It has to be clearly forward to be a pass. Also no pass interference behind the LOS. Inadvertant whistle on loose ball is a rerun of the down from original LOS.

 

[GTech63]

Announcers kept saying the NCAA rule was "if it was not clearly forward it is NOT a forward pass." Video replay showed it was clearly not forward. I have not been able to find NCAA rule via Google. NFL rules in my interpretation it would be a backward pass.

From http://forum.officiating.com/football/36647-clarification-forward-backward-pass.html
REPLY: Just to further clarify---the NF definitions for forward and backward passes are in 2-31-2 and 2-31-5. The NCAA definitions are in 2-19 2a. Note

1. there is a fundamental difference between the way that each code determines whether a pass is forward or backward, and
2. in both codes, a pass parallel with the line of scrimmage (accepting each code's differences) is considered a backward pass for rule purposes.

http://static.nfl.com/static/conten...pdfs/11_Rule8_ForwardPass_BackPass_Fumble.pdf

 

[Whiskey_Clear]

I thought it was a lateral live. Once the ref called it a forward pass I thought there was no chance it would be overturned. Glad I was wrong.

 

[Ggee87]

Yep.....USC is saying WTF this morning.

Yea BCs transfer from UF QB would be Nesbitt 2.0 in our offense. He looked nice running the speed option to the edge