Officials were trying to insert themselves when they didn’t need to. Nobody was gonna argue anything if they let that play stand.
Iowa punt return called back
- Thread starter Glenn's take
- Start date
A dropped flag isn't necessarily easy to see at field level. As for Iowas return man, he pointed to his teammates, which is allowed, with his right hand. His left hand was waving, it was not a valid signal to his teammates.
A poll of people who haven't read the rule and/or didn't watch the video in context of the call.
As if a poll, that you can't change your vote in, makes any difference. Everyone can be wrong if they wish. At the moment you seem to want to front that group. Whatever.
Now you're being silly. Refs are supposed to ignore the rules and only call penalties when they understand intent. Just ask Rockfly78 as that is his opinion.
So now you and hecl are wrong.
Big Ten referee Tim Odey explained the crew's decision after the game on Saturday.
"The receiver makes a pointing gesture with his right hand and he makes multiple waving gestures with his left hand," he said. "That waving motion of the left hand constitutes an invalid fair catch signal. So when the receiving team recovers the ball, by rule it becomes dead. So that is a reviewable element of the game. We let the play run out and then when we went to review, review shows with indisputable evidence that there is a waving motion with the left hand. And that is when these rules are applied."
But it doesn’t appear that there was a flag or blown whistle. So how did the officials decide they needed to review that? I believe the only thing they were reviewing was whether he stepped out of bounds.
No, this isn't a penalty so no flag. It is reviewable to verify what they saw. This isn't complicated or controversial, despite the complaining by Rockfly.
I don’t know what specifically prompted the review, you’d have to ask the referees. However, there are a couple of scenarios where it would be reasonable for the refs to take another look at it.
First would be a situation where one ref saw the arm wave, but had a bad angle on the play and wasn’t 100% sure there was an invalid signal. In that instance, the right thing to do is to let the play finish without blowing it dead, and then you go back and review the play.
The other scenario would be a situation where all of the refs on the field simply missed the signal, but the replay official caught something that was reviewable. In that case, the replay official would buzz the referee to have them take another look at the play.
Both of those scenarios are pretty common ways that plays end up under review, and both of those scenarios are reasonable.
It’s called grandstanding. They inserted themselves into the game instead of letting the players decide it. Iowa gained no advantage. Everyone played the ball out.
It’s not grandstanding. It’s called getting the call right.
The play should’ve been blown dead the instant the Iowa returner possessed the ball. For whatever reason, it wasn’t. That doesn’t mean that the right thing to do is to then ignore the rule.
To allow the TD to stand would be unfair to Minnesota. It sucks for Iowa, but the refs did the right things because there should never have been a return in the first place.
We had a similar call against us a few years ago. It wasn’t a TD but our guy kinda slipped while running to the ball and caused his arm to swing out. They said he signaled for fair catch.
What is laughable is no one on the field seen it that way. Not the refs, not the players, not the opposing coaches PJ Fleck didn't even argue it, he thought they were about to lose. There was noone that thought he signaled a fair catch. I know why they added the rule but in cases like this it is stupid.
If the flag flies immediately and it's brought back fine ..it sucks but that's technically the rule. I have objection to letting it go and then taking it back in replay though.
Obviously someone saw it or it wouldn't have been reviewed. I guess now we're arguing that someone on the "harmed" team must say something for a rule to be applied? For that matter, how do you know none of the or coaches said anything, not that it matters?
No it just shows how stupid this rule is. What he did, didn't effect anything. The rules guy they had on didn't even catch it. He thought they were checking to see if he was inbounds. I am sure if you were watching in real time you would have caught it. They should fire that guy and hire you yo do it.
Several thoughts after watching the replay and thinking about it for a day or so. First, had I been an Iowa fan, I would have lost my mind, was a very "Kentuckyesque" way to lose a game on a non penalty, only assessed after a review and then overturn a spectacular TD because of an obscure rule that personally I had never heard of. And I have been a fan for more than 50 years.
But that being said, I understand the rationale for the rule, if you just let the PR wave his hands without any consequence, I could easily see where the defense could get confused and not be sure whether the PR called a FC or not.
Sort of reminds me in a way of the bizarre near blocked punt vs. Missouri last year that pretty much ended the game for UK's win, which led to the NCAA changing the rule in the offseason where if a punter is now more than five yards out of his initial position, it is a live ball and cannot be roughing the punter. Maybe the rules committee will look at this as well.
Finally, Iowa still had the ball at their 46 with over a minute to go, needing only a FG to win. Their offense makes Bill Curry's Stack I look like Star Wars in comparison. If they played in the B10 East or either SEC division, Iowa would not have a winning conference record, I don't care how good their defense/punter is.
But that being said, I understand the rationale for the rule, if you just let the PR wave his hands without any consequence, I could easily see where the defense could get confused and not be sure whether the PR called a FC or not.
Sort of reminds me in a way of the bizarre near blocked punt vs. Missouri last year that pretty much ended the game for UK's win, which led to the NCAA changing the rule in the offseason where if a punter is now more than five yards out of his initial position, it is a live ball and cannot be roughing the punter. Maybe the rules committee will look at this as well.
Finally, Iowa still had the ball at their 46 with over a minute to go, needing only a FG to win. Their offense makes Bill Curry's Stack I look like Star Wars in comparison. If they played in the B10 East or either SEC division, Iowa would not have a winning conference record, I don't care how good their defense/punter is.
That is a problem with the rule, not the way it was called. I agree Iowa gained no advantage and everyone on the field assumed it was a live ball. I'm not sure how to change the rule to make it work better. The rule sucks, but the call was correct based on what rule says.
Maybe you should ask the refs, players and coaches who were at field level, within 20 feet. Being a smart-ass with me doesn't change the rule. If you think no one saw it and they just reviewed it on a whim or to check the returner staying inbounds, you're in full denial for some reason.
I'll ask you 1 simple question. Let's see if you can answer it honestly.
Did the returner commit an invalid fair catch signal based solely on the rule covering fair catches?
Shit rule, ok. Shit call? No because it is the rule. A punt returner cannot wave their arms, period, unless they plan to take a fair catch.
The only person who has to see it is the Ref, who then steps in blowing the whistle to stop play.
I'm not a rules-nerd, but why does the "fair catch" rule apply at all in this situation?
He didn't "catch" the punt. He "fielded" it after it had bounced on the ground several times along the sideline. As the ball was hitting the ground he was signalling to his teammates where the ball was landing. He ran a long distance after waving to field the ball.
It doesn't matter if you call a fair catch or not; once the ball hits the ground it can be fielded and advanced. The rule also applies to on-side kicks. You can't call a fair catch after the ball bounces.
He didn't "catch" the punt. He "fielded" it after it had bounced on the ground several times along the sideline. As the ball was hitting the ground he was signalling to his teammates where the ball was landing. He ran a long distance after waving to field the ball.
It doesn't matter if you call a fair catch or not; once the ball hits the ground it can be fielded and advanced. The rule also applies to on-side kicks. You can't call a fair catch after the ball bounces.
Last edited:
The rule book says that any signal given after the ball has hit the ground or touched a player is an invalid signal, and the play should be blown dead once someone recovers the ball.
In other words, the rule is basically: if you want to advance the ball, then don’t wave your arm at all. This has to be one of the easiest rules in the rule book for players to follow.
call it live or let it go. they were reviewing potential out of bounds, not the fair catch. The refs took the game over when they didn't have to.
Yes this is a correct call. No reason from him to point with one hand and wave the other had "appearing as a fair catch". That is why they called it an invalid fair catch call. He did not put his hand over his head, but he did wave it for no reason. If you argue he wave it to keep his guys away from it, that is just stupid, he is the only player back there. He waved it like that to slow up the kicking team and then he went for the ball to try to get some yards or a score. Invalid Fair Catch Signal. Not a ref saying look at me.
The announcer said they were reviewing out of bounds, but had no idea. The announcers are not connected to the review mics. They were looking at it all i would assume.
According to Iowa coach Ferentz: "... after the game, officials told him they were checking to see if DeJean stepped out of bounds. "
I get the rule but don't think is makes a lot of sense. Once the ball hits the ground, there can be no Fair Catch. Why would it then matter if the receiver points, waves, or stands on his head?
Big Ten, NCAA explain why punt return by Iowa football's Cooper DeJean was overturned
The Big Ten and NCAA answered questions for nearly 30 minutes about the Cooper DeJean touchdown that was wiped out vs. Minnesota.
www.desmoinesregister.com
One pitiful thing to remember is even if you give them the touchdown, it still came in under 30 points.
I used wrong wording there, should have said officially declares it a fair catch as soon as the receiver drops the red flag. Of course the play would only stop once the ball is caught but it would stop the confusion of whether the receive meant to fair catch or not. Would even help when the receiver is not sure himself sometimes and "in between" whether to signal or not. Sometimes you seen them start to then change their mind as they are trying to concentrate on the ball and make that judgement at the same time.
The bigger question is why in the world were Tennessee fans at an Iowa-Minn game ??
You are watching the reply from above. Pointing with the right hand and waving the left could on the field look like a fair catch indication.
