BYU - Washington

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

Problem is the PAC-10 referee used opposite langauge, saying that it is not a judgment call, that they have to flag it by rule. They just weren't on the same page.

Well it clearly is a judgment call. Just because the information was covered and the rules were clear, does not take judgment out of the call. I honestly hate it when I hear people claim certain plays like this are not judgment calls. I would rather take the NCAA Coordinator's point of view on this, then what a conference says. And the ESPN people were too stupid to make that kind of nuance point anyway.

Peace

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

My calculation is based on the fact that at the peak, the velocity of the ball is 0 and that, for these distances/speeds, it takes essentially half the time to go up and half the time to go do down.





I use the following:

v_y0 = 0...velocity at the peak of the throw
g = 32.2 (gravity at sea level)
t = 1, 1.5, and 2 (half of the observed time estimates, T)

So, the equation simplifes to 16.1 * t² (fall time) or 4.025 * T² (total time),

Someone could pull out a stopwatch and time it exactly if they wish and calculate it to the exact inch if they want.

I recall now - thanks! We were taught that the imperial value for the acceleration due to gravity is 32.2 ft/s². We used 9.80665 m/s².

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by kdf5

Someone step up and say the kid screwed up and we'll be on our way to a better world.

You obviously haven't read or heard any of the comments that have come from the UW football program. Willingham, Locker, the AD at UW - they've all said it was the correct call and Locker has taken full responsibility for throwing the ball. He said he knows better and is ashamed of himself for hurting his team. So just because the talking heads on ESPN are idiots doesn't mean the whole world is going to hell.

[youngump]

Originally Posted by TXMike

I believe this was a foul and do not question that Just trying to be straight on the math. Wouldn't the ball go up faster than it comes down, i.e. it would have to be moving faster than gravity in order to continue upwards?
Therefore, shouldn't the equation take that into account?

The ball accelerates up with the force it is thrown with. Eventually gravity overcomes that force. It stops when it's speed equals zero. At that point gravity has exerted just enough force to bring the speed from initial velocity to 0. It will exert exactly that much force on the way down and the ball will end up travelling at initial velocity. (Plus a little because locker released the ball about 5 feet off the ground.
________
PRILOSEC LAWSUITES

[kdf5]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

You obviously haven't read or heard any of the comments that have come from the UW football program. Willingham, Locker, the AD at UW - they've all said it was the correct call and Locker has taken full responsibility for throwing the ball. He said he knows better and is ashamed of himself for hurting his team. So just because the talking heads on ESPN are idiots doesn't mean the whole world is going to hell.

For the moment my faith has been restored in mankind.

[IceGator8]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

You obviously haven't read or heard any of the comments that have come from the UW football program. Willingham, Locker, the AD at UW - they've all said it was the correct call and Locker has taken full responsibility for throwing the ball. He said he knows better and is ashamed of himself for hurting his team. So just because the talking heads on ESPN are idiots doesn't mean the whole world is going to hell.

Actually Willingham whined considerably about the call during the post game show. I have a hunch he toned things down when he got to see the video.


BTW JRutledge, this is not a judgement call. The NCAA rule said you can't throw the ball "high" in the air. This call could have been thrown ten to fifteen feet lower and still been high. This one will get called every single time. If the official doesn't he is negligent.

[ajmc]

If you're in this game long enough you will absolutely make calls, that after personal review, you wish you could take back. Given the circumstances, although this call may very well stand the test of instant review from a strict compliance viewpoint, I suspect the covering official would like another chance on this play.

[JasonTX]

Originally Posted by ajmc

If you're in this game long enough you will absolutely make calls, that after personal review, you wish you could take back. Given the circumstances, although this call may very well stand the test of instant review from a strict compliance viewpoint, I suspect the covering official would like another chance on this play.

I beg to differ. I bet this wasn't the first time he's flagged this type of action. After all the criticism that officials in bowl game took last year there has been a push to not ignore these type of actions. Hand the ball to the official and go to your sideline and celebrate all you want.

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Well it clearly is a judgment call. Just because the information was covered and the rules were clear, does not take judgment out of the call. I honestly hate it when I hear people claim certain plays like this are not judgment calls. I would rather take the NCAA Coordinator's point of view on this, then what a conference says. And the ESPN people were too stupid to make that kind of nuance point anyway.

Peace

You're wrong on two things.

1- The referee made the statement that it wasn't a judgment call, not the conference. He was correct. It's automatic.

2- The ESPN guys did indeed jump on it.

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by ajmc

If you're in this game long enough you will absolutely make calls, that after personal review, you wish you could take back. Given the circumstances, although this call may very well stand the test of instant review from a strict compliance viewpoint, I suspect the covering official would like another chance on this play.

Don't assume you know what someone else thinks when the man hasn't said a word.

[SethPDX]

Originally Posted by ajmc

If you're in this game long enough you will absolutely make calls, that after personal review, you wish you could take back. Given the circumstances, although this call may very well stand the test of instant review from a strict compliance viewpoint, I suspect the covering official would like another chance on this play.

And I suspect he knows he got it right the first time, so there is no need for a second chance. This exact action is spelled out in the rule and this play should be used as an example to college officials of what actions are to be penalized.

The big loss to the Ducks last week, as well as what Oklahoma, USC, et al. will do to UW, will be what costs Willingham his job if he is fired.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by IceGator8

BTW JRutledge, this is not a judgement call. The NCAA rule said you can't throw the ball "high" in the air. This call could have been thrown ten to fifteen feet lower and still been high. This one will get called every single time. If the official doesn't he is negligent.

Well the NCAA Coordinator said it was a judgment call. And considering that the rule does not get specific about how high or what is or is not a foul that is a judgment call. Now it might not be a difficult judgment call, but it is clear that some officials might have passed on this if they were in the situation for all kinds of reasons. If that is your logic, I could say a foot in the air is "high" and justify any throwing of the ball despite how "high" the ball goes. And it will not get called every time and I am sure it has not been called just this year every time.

Peace

[TXMike]

What he said was that EVERY call is a judgment call.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

You're wrong on two things.

1- The referee made the statement that it wasn't a judgment call, not the conference. He was correct. It's automatic.

Well the NCAA Coordinator is a little bit more involved in these things than a crew that is hired by a particular conference.

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

2- The ESPN guys did indeed jump on it.

I saw the conversation again, and Reece did not jump on it or focus on the contradictions to make a point. The conversation was more about the officials used bad judgment because of what time of the game this took place and the game is supposed to be fun. They hardly mentioned the contradiction in language.

Peace

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

You're wrong on two things.

1- The referee made the statement that it wasn't a judgment call, not the conference. He was correct. It's automatic.

Well, it really is a judgement call since they have to judge how much is "high". If it had gone 6 inches over his head, I doubt there would be a call or even any discussion about a possible call. At some point it becomes too high and unless they're got a specific height and a way to measure it on the field, it will remain a judgement call.