Texas-OU Game Thread

[horninchicago]

I previously stated that the call was, in my opinion, not why we lost. It was a factor, but as you have stated, we will never know how much of a factor.

I believe the primary reason was the OL and
the shakeup of the OL means the staff thinks so too.

I appreciate you posting the official rules and makes it clear to me that they blew the call. I hope the issue is now put to bed.

I deleted my recording Sat night in disgust.
I never want to ever see a replay again.

I'm with ya, that's why my recording has been deleted.

 

[BevoJoe]

Rule on Receivers Re-established after going out of bounds:

NCAA: The only 2 restrictions about players going out of bounds and returning are:
1) A kicking team player may not voluntarily go out of bounds and return. 5yd penalty from previous spot.
2) An eligible offensive receiver may not voluntarily go out of bounds and return and be the first to touch a legal forward pass. Loss of down at the previous spot.

The issue was did our defensive player participate in the opposing offensive player going out of bounds, or rather did our guy push theirs out? From the replays I saw, the answer is no. Then the question is, did another player touch the ball after the offensive player re-established himself but before that player in question caught the ball on the field? Again, per the replay that answer is no. As such, in common layman's terms, "we got screwed!"

 

[BevoJoe]

Best pic from the game:

 

[horninchicago]

Rule on Receivers Re-established after going out of bounds:

NCAA: The only 2 restrictions about players going out of bounds and returning are:
1) A kicking team player may not voluntarily go out of bounds and return. 5yd penalty from previous spot.
2) An eligible offensive receiver may not voluntarily go out of bounds and return and be the first to touch a legal forward pass. Loss of down at the previous spot.

The issue was did our defensive player participate in the opposing offensive player going out of bounds, or rather did our guy push theirs out? From the replays I saw, the answer is no. Then the question is, did another player touch the ball after the offensive player re-established himself but before that player in question caught the ball on the field? Again, per the replay that answer is no. As such, in common layman's terms, "we got screwed!"

This is what I found.

The Exception notes "contact by an opponent". I couldn't find the definition of "contact". The rules expert during the game said the can mean whatever they deem it to mean. I recall the Texas player making contact, albeit very light. Maybe he brushed the OU player's jersey, I can't recall.

 

[Run Pincher]

I understand it as "due to contact". Did he go out of bounds "due to contact" or on his own with the contact having no input? Contact along should not be the determining factor. I think it's possible to see the contact pushing him out of bounds, but you have to try really hard to see that.

 

[moondog_LFZ]

The play was reviewed as to the player completing the pass through contact with the ground and being inbounds at the time of reception.
There was no review of the player running out of bounds.
I wanted Sark to call timeout and challenge.

 

[horninchicago]

The play was reviewed as to the player completing the pass through contact with the ground and being inbounds at the time of reception.
There was no review of the player running out of bounds.

How do you know they only reviewed that part? The TV rules guy said they are supposed to review all aspects of a play that are reviewable.

 

[moondog_LFZ]

How do you know they only reviewed that part? The TV rules guy said they are supposed to review all aspects of a play that are reviewable.

Because they pretty much tell you what they are reviewing before and after.
I will try to look it up but they only spoke of reviewing the catch as the review started.
Then the announcers brought up the running out of bounds.
"Hey, it looks like he ran out of bounds before catching that"
They started replaying it and talking about it and wondering if it would reviewed.
Then the ref just says "Play stands as called."
No mention of the running out of bounds.
Even the announcers seemed a bit stunned.

 

[Run Pincher]

HIC I'm going to have to side with Moondog on this one. When the ref's review multiple items they cover those items when they make their announcement.

A perfect example was during the gooner vs KSU game. They reviewed the onside kick and said it went 10 yards and thus call stands, KSU ball. Then Lincoln challenged saying the ball was touched twice by the kicker, they reviewed again and you could certainly see the ball bouncing back up and touching the kicker. Call overturned. Good work in the gooner booth to see it and tell Lincoln to challenge.

Piss poor work by the Texas booth not to challenge. And certainly think if Sark was told he couldn't challenge the call he would've said something about it in the after game PC.

 

[horninchicago]

Guys, I get it. I have stated that they are supposed to review all reviewable aspects of a play. All of them. Whether they did or not, I don't know how any of us could know that.

If they reviewed the OU player stepping out of bounds, they determined, in their minds, that the Texas player made contact, no matter how slight, with the OU player.

If they did not review that aspect, that is egregious.

 

[horninchicago]

As to the referee stating all aspects of a review, I'm not sure about that. I have heard commentators state on many occasions when there is not conclusive video evidence, they will merely state the play stands as called.

 

[Statalyzer]

If they reviewed the OU player stepping out of bounds, they determined, in their minds, that the Texas player made contact, no matter how slight, with the OU player.

"Contact, no matter how slight" is not an accurate reflection of the rule as posted here. The rule says "Going out of bounds due to contact." If he didn't go out of bounds because of the contact, it doesn't matter if their hands happened to bump slightly or whatever.

And there's not even a remotely possible case to be made that contact caused the WR to go out of bounds.

Based on the announcement made by the officials, it sounds they didn't even review this part. Whether that actually means they didn't review it, or did review it but still got it wrong even then, I'm not sure.

 

[horninchicago]

"Contact, no matter how slight" is not an accurate reflection of the rule as posted here. The rule says "Going out of bounds due to contact." If he didn't go out of bounds because of the contact, it doesn't matter if their hands happened to bump slightly or whatever.

Based on the announcement made by the officials, they didn't even review this part. Whether that actually means they didn't review it, or did review it but still got it wrong even then, I'm not sure.

Yeah, I'm going off memory from Saturday and what the TV rules guy said. he made it sound like brushing up against the jersey would warrant contact.

What I have heard over the years is if they do not se conclusive video evidence, they only state that the play stands as called. They don't say what aspects were reviewed and why the play stands.

 

[man00]

Sark may set a record for excuses..

 

[moondog_LFZ]

Yeah, I'm going off memory from Saturday and what the TV rules guy said.

TV rules guy agreed that he was NOT touched and went out of bounds on his own.
Herbie says what I did that ref doesn't even mention out of bounds part.
I think they only reviewed whether the catch was made inbounds.
And that was pretty close.
Watch beginning at the 7:45 mark.

 

[moondog_LFZ]

Sark may set a record for excuses..

What the hell are you talking about?
I've seen nothing but accountability for players being out of position, penalties, etc.

 

[horninchicago]

TV rules guy agreed that he was NOT touched and went out of bounds on his own.
Herbie says what I did that ref doesn't even mention out of bounds part.
I think they only reviewed whether the catch was made inbounds.
And that was pretty close.
Watch beginning at the 7:45 mark.

Ah, okay, thanks for that.

Herbie, Folwer, and the rules guy all agree that the Texas player did touch him. His momentum already going that way doesn't matter, according to the rule. Contact was made.

Again, not trying to be argumentative, just realistic here. Where does it say in the rules that they must specify what was reviewed vs. stating it was a complete pass?

The fact is the Texas player made contact, so that would not have brought the play back. Fowler states that Jeff Hanson, whomever that is, said, in his view, the OU player was nudged out of bounds.

 

[horninchicago]

I hope I'm wrong, I just haven't seen the evidence to show that play should have come back by the letter of the rule.

 

[moondog_LFZ]

Herbie, Folwer, and the rules guy all agree that the Texas player did touch him.

No.
They all agree that he stepped out on his own.

 

[horninchicago]

No.
They all agree that he stepped out on his own.

Yes, but that was based on his momentum, which is not a criterium in the rule. Only contact is, which they all agreed did occur.

Anyway, it sucks. They lost. Ugh...

 

[Run Pincher]

Due to contact is the rule. We know there was contact, but did that contact force him out?? I don't think so, but I wasn't in his body when it happened.

 

[horninchicago]

Due to contact is the rule. We know there was contact, but did that contact force him out?? I don't think so, but I wasn't in his body when it happened.

Lol, where were you?

Yep, the rule maybe needs to be changed. Contact is the only aspect.

 

[horninchicago]

Due to contact is the rule. We know there was contact, but did that contact force him out?? I don't think so, but I wasn't in his body when it happened.

Lol, where were you?

Yep, the rule maybe needs to be changed. Contact is the only aspect.

Sorry, you are correct, "...due to contact..."

My mistake. I can only surmise they saw it and ruled it was die to contact so OU will make the CFP later on.

 

[BevoJoe]

No.
They all agree that he stepped out on his own.

Here is the rule on that:

"ARTICLE 4. No eligible offensive receiver who goes out of bounds and returns in bounds during a down shall touch a legal forward pass while in the field of play or end zones or while airborne until it has been touched by an opponent or official. [Exception: This does not apply to an originally eligible offensive player who immediately returns inbounds after going out of bounds due to contact by an opponent. If the player touches the pass before returning in bounds, it is an incomplete pass (Rule 7-3-7) and not a foul for illegal touching. PENALTY—Loss of down at the previous spot."

It appeared the Okie stepped out on his on. As such, he can't be the first player to touch the ball. Never saw our guy push him out, nor did another player touch the ball prior to his catch. I believe the refs blew it by not calling it incomplete.

 

[horninchicago]

Here is the rule on that:

"ARTICLE 4. No eligible offensive receiver who goes out of bounds and returns in bounds during a down shall touch a legal forward pass while in the field of play or end zones or while airborne until it has been touched by an opponent or official. [Exception: This does not apply to an originally eligible offensive player who immediately returns inbounds after going out of bounds due to contact by an opponent. If the player touches the pass before returning in bounds, it is an incomplete pass (Rule 7-3-7) and not a foul for illegal touching. PENALTY—Loss of down at the previous spot."

It appeared the Okie stepped out on his on. As such, he can't be the first player to touch the ball. Never saw our guy push him out, nor did another player touch the ball prior to his catch. I believe the refs blew it by not calling it incomplete.

Yes, I posted that upthread. It must be up to interpretation as to whether it was due to contact.

 

[CreakyHorn]

Best pic from the game:

Is this Edvard Munch's model?