do some of u watch/know football? it was easily a 1st down. Jesum.
Yeah - well you are wrong, so it says a bit about you, doesn't it?
ARTICLE 4. OUT-OF-BOUNDS SPOT
Item 1. Loose Ball. If a Loose Ball touches anything on or outside a boundary line, the Out-of-Bounds Spot is the forward point of the ball when the ball crosses the sideline.
Item 2. Runner Out of Bounds. If the ball is in player possession when that player goes out of bounds, the out-of-bounds spot is the forward point of the ball when the ball crosses the side line, or, if the ball does not cross the sideline, the forward point of the ball at the instant the player is out of bounds.
Item 3. Runner Inbounds. If the ball, while in possession of a player who is inbounds, is declared out of bounds because of touching anything that is out of bounds, the out-of-bounds spot is the yard line through the forward point of the ball at the instant of such touching.
Damn, Item 2 tells me OSU got jobbed.
Dozens of posts from people offering their opinion on rules without looking them up. Finally someone posting the actual rule.
And folks this makes perfect sense. If it were not this way then every runner about to go out of bounds would launch himself forward hoping to land out of bounds 2 or 3 yards ahead of where he launched himself.
Kneelbender,
I hope none of you guys mind me being here. It was an amazing game and neither team should feel that the game was anything other than a heavyweight championship fight between two unbelievably equally matched teams.
Last night, I thought Bowers was in bound and the Harrison call should have been targeting. Today, after watching both in slow motion and being sober, I think the refs got both calls right last night.
Bowers - Item 2 as you copied in your post states "when that player goes out of bonds". If you watch the replays, Bowers had his hand on the grass in bounds with no other part of his body touching the ground. That was an amazing body control feat and because he wasn't out of bounds as no part of his body touched the ground and he had a hand on the ground, he was in bounds until a part of his body touched out of bounds. At the point when he touched out of bounds, the forward point of the ball was the spot. It is not the forward point of the ball when the ball crosses the sidelines because the player was not out of bounds at this point.
Harrison - On all the camera angles last night, it looked to me like helmet to helmet contact. On this video, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6O8n8PhRUrQ, you can see it is not. But, I had to slow it down to .25 speed to see it (click on the settings icon and select playback speed). It appears that the only helmet to helmet contact was after their bodies collided and the heads both moved towards each other due to continued momentum of the heads after their bodies stopped due to contact. The video does not show Harrison hitting the ground, but it does show that after the tackle, Bullard landed on Harrison's body, not his head. What this all means is that Bullard did not cause Harrison's concussion from helmet to helmet contact during the tackle or from landing on him afterwards. It was a game saving play done the way the NCAA has asked players to do tackles in order to reduce head injuries. It is unfortunate that despite these safety protocols, Harrison still had a concussion and was out for the rest of the game.
Dawg fan who enjoys open discussion
The Harrison play was clearly launching from the Georgia defender. That is a penalty. Should have never been overturned.
It doesn't have to be helmet to helmet to be targeting. It can be forceable contact to the head or neck area which clearly happened.
Let's Go Bucks
CaliDawg, you are simply wrong on the out of bounds call. Here's the rule that has been posted above.
The most forward point of the ball when declared out of bounds between the goal lines is the point of forward progress (A.R. 8-2-1-I and A.R. 8-5- 1-VII) (Exception: When a ball carrier is airborne as they cross the sideline (including a striding runner), forward progress is determined by the position of the ball as it crosses the sideline (A.R. 8-2-1-II-III and V-IX).
It is where the ball crosses out of bounds. The ball did NOT make the line to gain until well after it crossed over the sideline. At a minimum, one could say then there is no camera angle to tell that unless there is an overhead camera looking down the sideline.
Do you still dispute that this is not the rule? And not what happened on this play?
Ron,
"Forward point of the ball when declared out of bounds." This is 100% correct.
However, you are relying on the exception - that of an airborne ball carrier. Bowers was not airborne. His hand was in contact with the ground inbounds and it was the only point of contact while his body and the ball continued to move forward.
So, no I don't dispute that what you cite is indeed the rule. You're correct. I also don't dispute that the ball crossed the plane of out of bounds before a first down was achieved. However, Bowers was not airborne. IF Bowers' hand was not on the ground, it would not have been a first down. However, just as when a player catches a ball where the ball it over the boundary line, it is only in bounds if there is one or more permitted (feet and hands only) points of contact with the field. Bowers' hand became the reference point for continuing to be in bounds until such time as a part of his body touched out of bounds. That did not occur until the forward point of the ball was ahead of the first down line.
Dawg fan who enjoys open discussion
It furthers defines airborne as a striding runner. He is literally running to the sideline and gets tackled. Same thing to me.
Thank you for the respectful analysis. One point I will dispute with you is that that was a clean hit in the end zone. Regardless of it being unclear if it is against the rule for targeting (what about this rule is clear or evenly applied) those are the kind of hits that they are trying to prevent. In the NFL this would be a penalty. The on field ref in question should have called unsportsmanlike conduct with targeting from what he saw on the field.
The bigger problem we are having right now in college football is it the refereeing is not keeping up with the advancement of the game. You have each conference managing referees and many of the games they referee are not as important as these (think Vandy Kentucky or Indiana Purdue) and the refs just aren’t nearly as good as NFL refs. One solution is for the CFP to hire NFL refs for playoff games and bowl games. The other solution is for the CFP to hire separate refs from a pool of various conference refs that they have three weeks to train and work with prior to the bowl games.
If that were truly a first down, then every time a player is going to be tackled along the sideline but 1 yard behind the first down marker, wouldn’t the player dive at a 45 degree angle out of bounds extending the ball, most players can easily dive 3-5 yards, they would touch down out of bounds in front of the marker and be awarded first downs. There would be nothing the D could do to stop them since they would have to hit the player out of bounds to stop the dive.
Exactly. If we are going to play the game that is where the ball is when you touch out of bounds. Then any player can now jump at an angle and gain an extra 3 or 4 yards per sideline carry. Absolutely ludicrous. Several calls were made that were intentionally made to keep that game "competitive" for viewership. We were so so close to blowing the doors off this team. The targeting, the 1st down overturn. Strouds scramble were his toes stepped out with the ball 6 inches short of a 1st down. The timeout on the fake punt, that shouldn't have been awarded post snap. And oddly espn agreed and had to tell the viewers how every single call against us was the right call. They even had a guy ask a referee about the timeout and he said he would stop a play "mid-play" for a timeout if he had too. Lolololo It will always be Ohio against the world. Just say I'm very proud of CJ Stroud and Ryan Day for the game they gave us to witness. It's not their fault that every force was working against us. And if CJ would have ran like that his whole 2 year career here, avoiding the rush and laying it all out there. He probably leaves here the #1 pick and one of the greatest QB's to suit up in the scarlet & gray. But at least we got to see everything he had in him.
Bullets will be back to save the season, and Stroud's dignity.
This is where I'm at as well. It is not that I don't believe what WoodyBruce is saying, I just have a hard time accepting that this is the rule based on how the ball is marked 99.999999999% of the time. If Bowers' made that first down, then over 99% of calls when a player runs out of bounds have inaccurate spots.
If I get a running start and jump from the 40 yard line, and in mid air, the ball crosses into the airspace of out of bounds at the 43 yard line, but I land out of bounds with possession of the ball at the 46 yard line, the ball is placed at the 46 yard line? You can literally leap at the sidelines and gain 3-5 extra yards...I don't buy it.
Is college different than nfl?
It doesn’t seem to be clearly defined in college.
Only thing I could find is NFL rule:
Item 2. Runner Out of Bounds. If the ball is in player possession when that player goes out of bounds, the out-of-bounds spot is the forward point of the ball when the ball crosses the side line, or, if the ball does not cross the sideline, the forward point of the ball at the instant the player is out of bounds.
Yup, the B1G is just a bunch of crazy, bitching conspiracy theorists. Funny though, in the ScUM/TCU game, on the TD that got overturned, the best shot they had was from above and on an angle so you lost sight of the ball and couldn't see the juggle, which in this case would have helped them. Then they had a goal line camera that was so far away you couldn't even tell which teams were on the field. Then in our game, miraculously, they had a camera calibrated perfectly right on the first down marker, complete with this new technology that no one has ever seen before that graphs exactly where the plane of the marker was to show the ball did in fact eventually go past the yard needed. Of course, it was out of bounds, but they didn't catch that part. Also, by the way, they showed a split screen that was meant to show 2 different angles simultaneously. Problem, though, if you look at Bowers' helmet, in one he is looking down and the other looking forward. In the words of Kurt Cobain, just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not after you.
I have watched tons of football and I have never seen an out of bounds spot interpreted this way before. If this is the correct interpretation then a ball carrier could just run at a diagonal, then long jump out of bounds and gain at least a yard every single time before they landed officially out of bounds. Officials don't ever call it this way, and you always see QB's and ball carriers reaching the ball across the line to gain INBOUNDS while they are crossing the sideline.
They overturned this call and the targeting! They also overturned the TD catch in the Michigan game when it was inconclusive at best. It should be obvious or the call stands! It also is bad luck that they had the stupid pylon camera set up there too as that seems to be the evidence they used and is not really available in a normal game.
Only thing I can think of is Bowers hand was still touching the field in play while the ball crossed the line to gain out of bounds. I wish the announcers or rules guy explained things better because I’ve never seen anything like what happened.
If they long jumped out of bounds, the ball would be spotted at the point where their feet left the ground. In Bowers case, it was his hand which is quite unusual and what I believe is confusing folks.
INBOUNDS while they are crossing the sideline.
Not always, it is common for a QB to reach the ball forward with the ball across the OB plane but his feet still inbounds.
Let's Go Bucks
That ball crossed out of bounds short of the first down. It can’t be spotted ahead of where it crossed the sideline, regardless of where the player was when he hit out of bounds.
The spot was correct, the replay was wrong, and all sorts of normal protocols were bent to give Georgia that first down. That is, if the rule language is correct.
Matt
Once the ball crosses out of bounds short of the first down, it can’t be advanced IF the player ends up out of bounds. The maximum forward spot is the place the ball went out of bounds. Period.
Matt
It seems like they used this logic on spotting a cj run short of the first down marker. Pac 12 officials... it just means less
Joel
I don’t understand why this is so new to so many of you. How many times do you see a player extend the football forward when heading out of bounds?!
Plain and simple - the replay official F’d us! Not once….
That isn’t new either…. Not new in CFP for that matter.
I don’t understand why this is so new to so many of you. How many times do you see a player extend the football forward when heading out of bounds?!
Plain and simple - the replay official F’d us! Not once….
That isn’t new either…. Not new in CFP for that matter.
This has been a great discussion. I've read everyone one of these posts, and I'll admit that it's not as clear cut as I thought at first that he didn't get the first down.
I admit that I hadn't realized that his hand was down in bounds past the marker. So the scenario that I described where the player jumps or flies out of bounds before the marker does not apply.
I'll still confused though. I know that one hand equals a foot. So, what if he caught a pass just past the first-down marker and got his foot down, but the ball were behind him, having crossed the plane of the sideline and never having gone beyond the first-down marker, even if the marker were extended out of bounds as an imaginary line. Think of a player who is standing right past the first-down marker, and right up against the sideline. Say he fully extends his long arms and reaches way back and to the side to catch a pass that is behind him, and that has already crossed the plane of the sideline. Right after he catches the ball, he steps directly toward the sideline and out of bounds. Where is the correct spot?
I think my hypothetical is like Bowers's case. His hand was clearly past the first-down marker. But I think the ball had crossed the plane of the sideline before reaching the first down marker. In this scenario, is the correct spot?:
1. Where his hand is?
2. Where the ball crosses the plane of the sideline?
3. Where the ball is when he lands out of bounds?
None of the rules you've cited above give a clear answer to this scenario.
Thanks again for the discussion.
Definitely not as clear cut as I thought either. The rule being cited above makes me think it was incorrectly overturned though:
Item 2. Runner Out of Bounds. If the ball is in player possession when that player goes out of bounds, the out-of-bounds spot is the forward point of the ball when the ball crosses the side line, or, if the ball does not cross the sideline, the forward point of the ball at the instant the player is out of bounds.
It says the spot when a player goes out of bounds is where the ball crossed the sideline, not where it was when they touched out of bounds. For the example of running down the sideline with the ball out of bounds, to me that rule says if they are then pushed out, the ball is spotted where it crossed the sideline way back because it was never re-established in bounds. Just how I'm reading it, but I know what color my glasses are.
A question just as important imo though, is why wasn't this same care put into measuring a 4th and inches where the ball was on the yellow line to gain? I know that line isn't always accurate, but it was amazing how he could tell from across the field that it was short and didn't even bring out the chains to measure.
Item 2. Runner Out of Bounds. If the ball is in player possession when that player goes out of bounds, the out-of-bounds spot is the forward point of the ball when the ball crosses the side line, or, if the ball does not cross the sideline, the forward point of the ball at the instant the player is out of bounds.
"When that player goes out of bounds." It's not at all clear that Bowers was "out of bounds" w/n the meaning of this rule because, as has been noted, his hand was clearly down inbounds, and past the first-down marker. That doesn't necessarily mean that the ball should have been spotted where his hand was, but I don't see that this rule applies on its face.
I mean, he definitely went out, but his hand was down before he went out. Idk, to me that rule as reads is pretty unclear, but I do think that as it reads, if a player goes out of bounds, the ball is marked where it crosses the sideline. Seems it would need to be re-established in bounds once it goes out in order to advance it further. But what do I know? I still have no idea what targeting is either after all these years.
It doesn’t matter where his hand is. The hand on the ground keeps him inbounds, so the ball is placed at the spot where the ball was when he touches out of bounds. In this case, the ball was past the line to gain.
If Bowers didn’t have a hand in bounds, then he would have been airborne, and the ball would have been placed where the ball crossed the sideline (short of the line to gain).
It doesn’t matter where his hand is. The hand on the ground keeps him inbounds, so the ball is placed at the spot where the ball was when he touches out of bounds.
So if you catch a pass and get a foot down inbounds, then leap forward out of bounds for five yards, the spot is five yards from where you got your foot down inbounds? That can't be right.
You cannot leap forward 5 yards out of bounds and keep a hand or foot in bounds. It is physically impossible. All of your hands and feet have to be in the air to leap. The rules for spotting the ball change when you loose contact with ground. Bowers has a hand in bounds the entire time. There is no leap as Bowers always has a in bounds hand in contact with the ground.
It shouldn’t be difficult to understand. Many different posters have already provided explanations in this thread. I feel like there is a degree of willful misunderstanding here. It seems like you simply just don’t like the rules of the game. It is very clear to me that the replay official applied the rules of the game correctly.
Okay. I'll have to see a video showing that his left hand is down when his body comes down out of bounds. But that nuance doesn't settle the debate. Say his foot is down right past the first down marker, then his other foot comes down out of bounds. But say, as in my hypo, that he reached back behind the first down marker to catch a ball that had crossed the plane of the sideline. Where is the ball spotted? Say inspector gadget reaches ten yards back and way past the plane of the sideline to catch the ball. Then the one foot that the player got down right past the first down marker slides out of bounds-it stays un in contact with the ground the entire time. Where is the ball spotted?
I'm coming BACK for a catch, stretch out for the catch, toe tap at the 40 but my hands/ball break the sideline 38, where do we spot the ball?
The rule also puts 'including a player striding' in parathesis. I dont believe being on 1 hand is any different than 1 foot.
This is incorrect. His hand was not planted on the ground "the whole time". He WAS completely airborne for a moment before he puts the hand down. I think he just gets the hand back down before the ball crosses over the sideline, and then ultimately moves forward to the line to gain.
There is zero chance that was a first down. Full stop
So if I’m Day I’m teaching my WR and RB to lean and fall out of bounds with the ball extended at an angle every play. You figure you can gain about 3-5 yards on a lot of plays where a defender is heading towards you. This does two things. You can’t fumble out of bounds and you can’t get tackled because that’s a personal foul if they jump on you after you land.
Some of you still don't understand the difference between airborne and having a foot/hand/knee/butt cheek/etc. in bounds and on the ground. LOL
It was a first down. He had established possession and was in bounds by way of his hand being on the ground in the field of play. Sigh...
What defines airborne? I would say it's impossible not to land on your hand if you weren't first airborne, unless we're all gorillas.
Here are a few scenarios when spotting the football as it relates to the sideline.
1. Player runs, dives, leaps toward the sideline and no body part is still contacting the field in bounds. Ball is spotted at the point the ball crosses into out of bounds territory, in the air. Even though the player, or ball, hasn't touched down out of bounds the ball is to be spotted at the point, in the air, the ball crossed into out of bounds territory. Example, player leaves his feet and extends ball the forward to the 45 yard line as the ball crosses into out of bounds territory. Player ultimately lands out of bounds with the ball extended to the 47 yard line. Ball is spotted at the 45 yard line.
2. Player approaches the sideline and is dragging a foot in bounds. Example, player is dragging a foot and extending the ball forward as the ball crosses, in the air, into out of bounds territory at the 45 yard line. The players foot finally touches the sideline, out of bounds, with the ball extended to the 46 yard line. Ball is spotted at the 46 yard line even though the ball was being held above out of bounds territory. This is the Bowers play, but instead of a foot, it is his left hand that is still in bounds while the ball and the rest of his body have yet to touch out of bounds. Even though Bowers was holding the ball above out of bounds territory, he was still legally in bounds.
This is why we need to teach players to drag their feet and stretch out of bounds. You can gain a bunch of extra yards this way. Need to keep one foot on the ground. But essentially a toe drag
Your first explanation is correct. The concept is the same as a TD, break the plane before stepping out, TD. It is always where the ball is when it crosses the plane, not where the player crosses over. On the sideline, when he touches out of bounds, where is the ball? If it is still inbounds, mark the ball dead there. If it is out of bounds, then mark it where the ball crossed the sideline (whether the ball is forwards or backwards).
In Bowers case it was very close to a first down, but was called short. It should not have been overturned. Not enough evidence based on the angle
Any time you give a man something he doesn't earn, you cheapen him. Our kids earn what they get, and that includes respect - Woody Hayes
It’s an old topic I know but after rewatching the game highlights from YouTube, I actually think this is a bad call for the buckeyes. It is difficult to determine whether Bowers’ left band was in bound or out before the ball crossed sideline. I think it should have been a stand call which gives the buckeyes a 1st and 10.
It’s an old topic I know but after rewatching the game highlights from YouTube, I actually think this is a bad call for the buckeyes. It is difficult to determine whether Bowers’ left band was in bound or out before the ball crossed sideline. I think it should have been a stand call which gives the buckeyes a 1st and 10.
The fact that it is vehemently being argued is evidence enough that there should not have been an overturn. If the call on the field had been first down it should have stood as well. The same with the targeting. The move to re-officiating from the booth had gotten ridiculous and for some reason it seems as though it happens in big games and rarely in our favor.
You win with people
Has alleged OSU arrogance created a generation of haters who relish the opportunity to break one off in the Bucks?
I don't think so but you might be on to something.
Lawrence J.
Insane how we are just a non-interventionist replay official away from playing in natty three of last four years...literally questionable replay interventions accounted for more than the score difference in each game. Wade call was +7 for Clemson, Okuda TD return was -7 for us, lose by 6. Targeting was -4 and Bowers was +3 for UGA...lose by 1. Unreal. Put it on the pile of things with losing the wrong regular season game, hiring the wrong OC/DC, that has prevented us from taking the mantle as best program last 10 years. Certainly no program has more what-ifs...sucks.
The problem is that after all these years, these morons still don't understand the meaning of "incontrovertible video evidence" when overturning the call on the field
I can't believe we are still talking about this topic. LOL
Let it die. We lost all the 50/50 calls in the Peach Bowl. Hell, we even lost the 99/1 calls in the Peach Bowl but we can't get it back.
Show All Comments
I need an explanation also. It appeared he crossed the line to gain after he was out of bounds.
Wrong - when he is airborne, the exact instance the ball breaks the out of bounds line, it it considered out . He was short. So frustrating....and aggravating that people do not understand the rule...
You literally don't understand the rule.
You’re right, I was wrong. Here to eat my shit sandwich in public:
The most forward point of the ball when declared out of bounds between the goal lines is the point of forward progress (A.R. 8-2-1-I and A.R. 8-5- 1-VII) (Exception: When a ball carrier is airborne as they cross the sideline (including a striding runner), forward progress is determined by the position of the ball as it crosses the sideline (A.R. 8-2-1-II-III and V-IX).
Thank you and thank you. This was pretty clearly the wrong. The stupid orange graphic they put up was clearly an effort to misinform and make it look like a first down. That whole situation was so fishy. Go to commercial and come back with little time for explanation and UGA still has the ball. I went nuts.
Bowers wasn't airborne. He has left hand in bounds the entire time that he was extending the ball forward. Having a hand in bounds is no different from having a foot in bounds. Therefore, the exception doesn't apply.
I don't think so, it even says "including a striding runner" which he was to me, as he's getting tackled out bounds.
Think of it as if that foot was dragging (like his hand was) the progress would be continuing until the foot finally dtlragged out of bounds. We've been cheated for sure... The targeting shouldn't have been reversed and all the Clemson 2019 nonsense... But this one wasn't it. I'm weirdly happy to have our secondary exposed one more time as the necessity. The aggressiveness on D will lead to waaaaay less explosive plays when we can cover/guard more efficiently.
Ponder this... Take this same D and put Hooker in at safety and Conley and Lattimore as our DBs. It's still on Knowles to better know the personnel. But this is why we lost.
A striding runner leaves the ground fully with each stride. That is what this means. When running out of bounds you will be airborne for a split second and that's when this would apply.
If you are in contact with the ground, in-bounds, then you are still a live player and the ball can continue to advance.
To give anything less than your best is to sacrifice the gift.
Do people not read?
#walkaway
If it’s the goal line, the ball has to be inside the pile on or hit it. If it goes outside it is not a touchdown. How is this play different than that? The rules don’t change based on where you are. Same for punts going out. It is where they cross the out of bounds line. Not where they finally land.
Purple Raider
Between the goal lines gets different treatment than at the goal line.
To give anything less than your best is to sacrifice the gift.
Between the goal lines gets different treatment than at the goal line.
To give anything less than your best is to sacrifice the gift.
If the ball is outside the pylon when he dives for it (running and passing are different rules) it is not a touchdown. Even if he leapt from in-bounds.
#walkaway
If the ball is in player possession when that player goes out of bounds, the out-of-bounds spot is the forward point of the ball when the ball crosses the side line, or, if the ball does not cross the sideline, the forward point of the ball at the instant the player is out of bounds.
I'm confused because if that's the rule he seemed short. ESPN and the officials acted like as long as he didn't touch the sideline he could advance it even while being above the sideline
As long as the player is in bounds, the ball can be held out over the sideline all the way down the field. Hope this helps.
Then he didn't get the first down. The forward point of the ball when he crossed the sideline was behind the first-down marker. Minimally, it was clear and obvious and should not have been overturned. Fraud.
It’s not where the ball crosses the sideline. It’s he forward point once the player touches outside the field of play.
No, not correct
Ohio is the cradle of football!
That is absolutely correct. And it was incorrectly ruled short when the play was live. I called it a first down before the replay.
You’re right, I was wrong. Here to eat my shit sandwich in public:
The most forward point of the ball when declared out of bounds between the goal lines is the point of forward progress (A.R. 8-2-1-I and A.R. 8-5- 1-VII) (Exception: When a ball carrier is airborne as they cross the sideline (including a striding runner), forward progress is determined by the position of the ball as it crosses the sideline (A.R. 8-2-1-II-III and V-IX).
If that’s the case…then why do we not see players long-jumping out of bounds on every single play? Here’s why: that’s not the rule…and it never has been
Bowers' left hand was in bounds the entire time that the ball was being extended forward. He didn't leap, he had one point of contact inbounds the entire time. It doesn't matter if it is a foot or a hand.
Yes Bringthejuice. Some people just do not understand the rule. When the player is going out of bounds, it is where the ball cross the plane of the sideline, not where the ball is when he touches out of bounds. Otherwise, like you said, a player would long jump (example) and get an extra 7 yards every time on the sideline.
Any time you give a man something he doesn't earn, you cheapen him. Our kids earn what they get, and that includes respect - Woody Hayes
You are absolutely right if he was airborne. I think the nuance here is that he had still established possession in bounds by way of his hand, being in bounds on the turf. This is the way I read the rule, but I’m not quite certain.
The official rule says, "forward progress is determined by the position of the ball as it crosses the sideline". The position of the ball as it crosses the sideline, not the position of the ball when the player touches out of bounds, otherwise we would see bubble screen leaps into the sideline for a guaranteed minimum of 5 yards.
Any time you give a man something he doesn't earn, you cheapen him. Our kids earn what they get, and that includes respect - Woody Hayes
As long as a player is in bounds, he can hold the ball out of bounds all the way down the field. So you're wrong. Again.
No because he is maintaining his in bounds status by running with his feet in bounds, he is not air borne. Also if he steps out they mark where he stepped out not where the ball is. Why is that? If a guy carrying the ball down the sideline steps out anyone knows that the ball is ahead of his feet, why don't they mark where the ball is instead of where he stepped out? Bowers hand dragged out of bounds behind the 1st down marker. same thing ?
That’s clearly not true. Lol
Exactly! This was what I was saying during that play. Bullshit.
“In the end we will conserve only what we love. We will love only what we understand. We will understand only what we are taught.” ~ Baba Dioum
I don't think that's right because the ball has to go inside the pylon even if the player goes inside.
That is only on the goal line.
And since when do we have pylon cams along the sidelines? I've never seen that orange line thingie before and they whip it out to overturn a call made on the field against the Buckeyes. Is that some evil sorcery ESPN conjured up? Has anyone seen this before? A pylon cam where there is no pylon?
I'd rather be an hour early than a minute late.
No one said the refs couldn’t take NIL money.
Well, they used to say that. These days they say, “now it’s legal.”
Time and change will surely show how firm thy friendship, O HI O.
Because he never went out of bounds?
I want a fall Saturday in Ohio Stadium..
He came down out of bounds.
The ball crossed the plane of the sideline, which is where it is usually marked.
Yes, it was initially marked where it crossed that plane. The initial call was the correct one.
Yep. I cannot fathom how it was overturned and they completely blew the discussion on the broadcast.
I know as soon as they went to commercial and I could hear that split second where the ref started his announcement to the crowd that they were going to over turn it. I even said it in the Game thread. Just imagine if that was us and we were short do you honestly think they review that spot? and if they do they over turn it?
On the broadcast, they mentioned Bowers strength of holding himself up with his hand while reaching the ball across. They discussed that several times. What they didn't do was put two and two together to explain how the call was related to that.
Let's Go Bucks
There is no plane on sidelines, nor end lines. Only plane is goal line.
Runners and receivers tip toe the sidelines with ball crossing “plane” multiple times per game
Herbie COMPLETELY missed this. Felt like a botched call.
Herbie is nothing but a shill now. He's beyond a joke at this point.
Nothing I saw said they should have overturned the call on the field. You would have to an overhead shot to really know and that is why those type of spot plays are rarely overturned.
Those three points may have been the difference (I don't assume because score and time dictate actions).
You win with people
Doesn’t turn over on downs usually not go to commercial?
don’t forget the targeting
ESPN was horrible the entire game. Too many commercials, late in player injuries, missing reviews to go to a commercial, Fowler and personal shots at Buckeye players and his obvious bias.
This is how they maximize ad Rev now, it’s on purpose
Nah the call that changed this game was the hit on Marv. Not targeting but he’s out for the game.
ok.
Proudly dispensing unbridled arrogance since 1983.
I always thought it was the position of the ball where any part of the ball carrier touched down out of bounds, That is why you see players extending the ball when they are running out of bounds. In this case, the ball carrier easily eclipsed the mark and the reversal was correct. As much as I hate it for the Bucks.
I thought this too, but I talked to a referee who explained it to me. I get why the rule is the way it is: to prevent players from leaping out of bounds while trying to get a first down.
No, it wasn't. Go back and watch the video. The ball crossed the plane of the sideline before the first-down marker. Minimally, it wasn't clear and obvious that he got the ball to the first-down marker before the ball crossed the plane of the sideline and he landed out of bounds. It was fraudulent.
At the time the ball crossed the plane of the sideline, his hand was still on the ground inbounds. The player never lost contact with the ground inbounds before the ball crossed the first down line. I saw that live and I didn't understand why is wasn't ruled a first down immediately.
Let's Go Bucks
I thought he got it pretty easily live. Was shocked at how bad the spot was. After watching the replay, I just ended up even more confused.
So it looks like the right overturn there based on the image. Good play by the defense but great play by Bowers.
Great, timely image. Why have we not seen one like that for the targeting call on Harrison? If nobody has one then where was the clear and obvious proof of a wrong call that led them to overturn it.
This is interesting. I'll have to go back and watch it. So what you are saying is that if the ball crossed the plane out of bounds but his hand was on the ground in bounds, that the ball is placed up field? I still don't think that makes sense. Once he is airborne and the ball crosses the out of bounds plane, the ball is placed at that spot. IDK...
This was posted by someone in another OP. #2 is the key point. It is the point of the ball at the time the runner is out of bounds. Bowers was not out of bounds until his foot hit but he held himself up with his hand until the ball passed the line to gain.
Let's Go Bucks
You have been diligent on this, NPF, and although we don’t like it, this was the correct call.
No he's not. Those are the NFL rules. The NCAA rules clearly say that is where the ball crosses the sideline when "airborne" which is further defined as a striding runner.
Out of Bounds at Forward Point ARTICLE 4. a. If a live ball is declared out of bounds and the ball does not cross a boundary line, it is out of bounds at the ball’s most forward point when it was declared dead (A.R. 4-2-4-I) (Exception: Rule 8-5-1-a, A.R. 8-5-1-I). b. A touchdown is scored if the ball is inbounds and has broken the plane of the goal line (Rule 2-12-2) before or simultaneous to the ball carrier going out of bounds. c. A receiver who is in the opponent’s end zone and contacting the ground is credited with a completion if they reach over the sideline or end line and catch a legal pass. d. The most forward point of the ball when declared out of bounds between the goal lines is the point of forward progress (A.R. 8-2-1-I and A.R. 8-51-VII) (Exception: When a ball carrier is airborne as they cross the sideline (including a striding runner), forward progress is determined by the position of the ball as it crosses the sideline (A.R. 8-2-1-II-III and V-IX).
He was not airborne. His hand was down inbounds which establishes him not to be airborne.
Do you run on your hands? Otherwise, how are you not already airborne to even land on your hand?
It doesn't matter how you run. If you are in contact with the ground with either your hands or feet (anything else would rule you down at that point) you are still inbounds if no part of your body is touching the ground out of bounds.
Feet are only required when it comes to catching the ball on the side line. He already was a runner.
To give anything less than your best is to sacrifice the gift.
Think when people are diving for the corner of the end zone. The ball has to cross inside of the pylon for it to be a TD. It should have been the same thing last night with Bowers. No way that call should have been overturned. The fact not one person on the coverage mentioned that tells me the fix was in on any and all close calls.
AS LONG AS THE PLAYER IS IN BOUNDS, HE CAN HOLD THE BALL OVER THE SIDELINE ALL THE WAY DOWN THE FIELD.
Can he leap forward 5 yards out of bounds and have the ball marked where he landed? Because that's the situation
Reposted from below:
Article 4 Item 2. Runner Out of Bounds. If the ball is in player possession when that player goes out of bounds, the out-of-bounds spot is the forward point of the ball when the ball crosses the side line, or, if the ball does not cross the sideline, the forward point of the ball at the instant the player is out of bounds.
Thanks for your thoughtful contributions to this board. Any opinions on other topics you know literally nothing about?
You’re exactly right.
We all hated the call, but it was correct.
wrong....it is where the ball crosses. Imagine if there was a vertical wall where the out out of bounds is. When the ball touches the wall, that would be the spot. It was a bad call..and really hurt us.
You can say "wrong" all you want but the player was in bounds when the ball crossed the first down marker. I saw it live. There is no "plane" on the sideline.
When did we get pylon cams along the sideline?
I'd rather be an hour early than a minute late.
You’re right, I was wrong. Here to eat my shit sandwich in public:
The most forward point of the ball when declared out of bounds between the goal lines is the point of forward progress (A.R. 8-2-1-I and A.R. 8-5- 1-VII) (Exception: When a ball carrier is airborne as they cross the sideline (including a striding runner), forward progress is determined by the position of the ball as it crosses the sideline (A.R. 8-2-1-II-III and V-IX).
I was glad they had 1 angle to show , come on in a game like this there are cameras all over but ESecPN shows one angle ....funny
Then swore it was definitely the correct call.
No. It's where the ball is--not where the foot is. That's how they always call TD calls. Ball has to cross the plain to be a TD.
Exactly. On the goal line, the player has to get the ball inside the pylon because the ball has to cross the plane IN BOUNDS. As everyone has already said, the side judge got the spot perfectly correct initially. That it was overturned on review is a travesty. Obviously the officials don't even understand the rule though, because after the call was overturned Bill Lemonnier mumbled something like "Yep, they got the call right because the ball was past the line to gain when his body touched down out of bounds." No mention of it needing to cross the line while the ball is still IN BOUNDS. If that's really the rule, ball carriers would always be better off diving out of bounds and getting an extra two or three yards before they hit the ground where no one is allowed to hit them.
This overturn was every bit as bad as the 2019 Clemson scoop and score screw job. The replay official was either corrupt or completely oblivious of the actual rule. Either way there should be consequences, but as per usual, there will not be.
Sidelines are different from goal lines as far as marking the ball vs a body part. For instance a player with the ball can tight rope down the right sideline with the ball hanging out in his right hand and go for several yards or as long as he wants to without the play being stopped for the ball breaking the plane of the sideline. But the instant a body part touches out of bounds, then that is the mark. Another example that you have seen dozens of times: a ball is passed to a player that has to lean/falling over the side line marker with both feet (or in some cases one) in bounds but the ball is over the side line. If the player catches and controls the ball it is ruled in bounds even though the ball was actually caught past/over the sideline. You have seen that dozens of time before. We usually say, "Thant was a great catch." So the call Bowers call was technically correct.
I love the game!
You're comparing apples to oranges. In the cases of the "great catch" you are describing, the player's feet are in bounds so the spot is where the ball was when he had his two feet (or one foot) in bounds. In the case of Bowers, he had zero feet down so they can't mark it forward like they did. If I stand in bounds, stationary, and reach the ball forward, that is different than reaching the ball forward while in mid air out of bounds.
Bowers hand was still on the ground inbounds. It doesn't have to be a foot but that is usually what is involved. Bowers was basically performing a one handed pushup while the other hand extended the ball past the first down line.
Let's Go Bucks
Bowers was in the air and landed out of bounds. You're examples are inapposite.
Fuck Bill Lemonier. He sucked on the field and sucks worse in the booth.
There is no plane on the sideline.
Keep saying that maybe eventually you are right.
Time and change will surely show how firm thy friendship, O HI O.
The ball only got past the first down marker AFTER the ball had went out of bounds! 1 of 3 or 4 calls that went against us! Nothing went against Georgia! I hate playing against the opposing team AND the refs!
Pain heals, chicks dig scars, glory lasts forever
Shane Falco
Easy: the refs simply asked Kirby if he wanted the first down, and complied accordingly
The decision to reverse the call was the actual correct call. If you look at the replay, Bowers left hand was actually in bounds while the rest of his body, and ball, crossed out of bounds. Since his left hand was on the ground, in bounds, and no other part of his body or ball had touched out of bounds, the ball was properly spotted beyond the first down marker. Essentially, even though the ball was being held outside of the field of play, above the sideline, he gets forward progress because he still wasn't out of bounds.
Now, the non targeting call was egregious.....and I would also like to point out an incomplete pass with about 8:30 to go in the third quarter that might have been fumble that Ohio State recovered in the immediate aftermath. The Buckeye could have had the ball around the Georgia 30 yard line instead of taking over at the Ohio State 10 yard line.
No-ball has to cross the cross the plain in bounds. As Day said in the pre-game interview----this game would come down to 2-3 plays which it exactly did---all against OSU. JFK grassy gnoll anyone?
What kills me about this call is that there is zero way to take the camera angles to construe incontrovertible evidence for a first down. It's not just us or this game. Refs have been going rogue all too often on replays to redetermined a call from scratch. That is not their job or the rule. They overturn if there is incontrovertible evidence, and allow the play to stand if there is not.
If there was incontrovertible evidence for this overturn, they should easily be able to outline it for the public.
This. Why overturn the call if the video proof is fuzzy at best? Give me a break!
Class of 2001 - classless since then.
This is the only post I want to respond to because it is one of the things I hate most about some refs. The whole point to replay is to fix CLEAR and OBVIOUS mistakes. It is NOT for a ref to decide he would have made a different call. His job is not to make a first time call on whether, for example, it is a catch. His job is to decide whether there is clear and obvious evidence that a mistake was made. All close calls should stand as called.
The thing that makes me skeptical is this: how often do you see spots like that changed on replay. It seems to me like the spot of the ball is the least often overturned thing in instant replay.
Let me never fall into the vulgar mistake of dreaming that I am persecuted whenever I am contradicted.
The only explanation I have for this play being overturned and the no targeting call is this https://youtu.be/1C8y5z_7YtA
It's not that it was a bad call. It appears that the ball did cross the line to gain before he touched out. The thing is it was very close, and those are rarely overturned. That play and reversing the targeting call were huge in the game.
linepilot
I blew up on this play at an NYE party where no was into the game as I was.
What I still can't confirm, and this thread hasn't got to the bottom of, is does the plane of the line to gain stretch to infinity sideways out of bounds. Because Bowers clearly did not cross the line to gain with the ball in the field of play. If there was a pylon like the goalline he went around it to make the line to gain.
I maintain I've never seen this play called this way. Watched thousands of football games and I've never seen it interpreted that way. I'm positive that I've seen dozens of similar plays at the goalline where there is a pylon and better camera angles and they say no the ball went around the pylon, no TD. Still befuddled by this one.
Goal lines are the only planes. There are no planes on sidelines or end lines.
In college, the goal line plane only extends beyond the sideline if the player touches down in the end zone. He still needs the ball to break the plane. If only the ball breaks the plane, it has to be at or between the pylons, before the carrier is down (which he is if he’s out of bounds)
Easy. He didn't get the first. Cut to commercial and ESPN tells the refs that yeah he did get the first and so he did.
This is the reality now and will be for as long as ESPN has some control of the CFP. They are going to do make sure and SEC or an ACC team or both get in the championship game every year. They are protecting their investment.
There are no “planes” on sidelines. You can hold the ball out over it all you want, as long as your body doesn’t touch outside it.
The ball will always be spotted at its forward most point when the player is ruled down, UNLESS, the goal line comes into play. (In college) The goal line plane only extends beyond the sideline if the ball carrier touches down in the end zone.
If Bowers were reaching for the goal line instead of just the line to gain, no TD. Ball or player have to be inside pylon, and if it’s the player, he has to touch down in the end zone.
Link to rules explanation? If true, I don't think I've ever seen called or discussed that way. It is usually very rare to overturn a sideline out of bounds play spot.
The on air ref gave the explanation, which until today, I thought was common knowledge. Watched the game with 20 diehard fans and everyone knew it was 1st down. The field ref likely thought (as many of us did live) that his foot was dragging ground, which would’ve put him down short. Replay showed he got the foot up. Very heady play.
Sounds like 21 “diehard” fans are wrong then. Not going to discuss the specific play. By there’s a clear-cut rule on this. And it isn’t what you think it is.
TBH, it surprises me how many people are confident in an incorrect understanding of the rule.
Based on your logic ,a player is not out of bounds until they touch the ground out of bounds. Therefore If a player touches in bounds on the 20 yard and dives forward 4 yards and lands way out of bounds but on the 24 yard line ,the ball would be marked at the 24 ? Because I have never seen refs go up or worry about where a player lands out of bounds
Mjm
Has anyone ever seen that computerized line they put on the screen before!?!? That orange vertical line? I haven’t. Watching it before that showed he was short and out.
As I wrote elsewhere, f you're mad about the officiating write to the NCAA. One address is NCAASupport@turner.com.
HWTOH