BYU - Washington

[Camron Rust]

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?

Gravity is not a speed, it's a force. It is ALWAYS pulling object towards the center of the earth. It pulls on all objects at the same rate regardless of their speed or weight (distance from the earth matters but not in the range we're talking about...it would take a lot of miles to matter). It influences the speed of all objects by 32 feet per second per second....subtracting speed if the object is rising, increasing speed if the object is falling.

The only factor not considered is resistance due to air....the equation assumes a vacuum. Air will make the two times (up vs. down) different and will made the initial up and final down speeds different. The air resistance will be assisting gravity with the ball on the way up and will be opposing gravity with the ball on the way down. However, the magnatude of the effect of air resistance is negligible at the speeds and distances we're talking about. At some falling speed, the resistance due to air is exactly enough to offset gravity and an object will no longer speed up.

At a given height, the speed will be the same both going up and going down...just in opposite directions. When it hit him in the head, it was going the same speed as when it left his hand.

[JugglingReferee]

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 concept you're thinking about is "escape velocity": in order to continue upwards - in effect, "faster than gravity" as you put it.

To esacpe the effect of earth's gravitational pull, and enter orbit, an escape velocity of 11.2 km/s is required. This is the same as almost 7 mi/s, or 37,000 ft/s, according to Google calculator.

[refinks]

I'm not arguing with the call so much as the rule. these are college kids for gods sake. Let them celebrate a little. He did nothing to show up the other team, so why make the officials throw the flag. Stupid, stupid rule. This is why it's getting harder and harder to watch football, because you're not allowed to celebrate after you score. The NFL is now known as the No Fun League, and the NCAA is getting to the point where it should be called the Not So Fun League

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by refinks

I'm not arguing with the call so much as the rule. these are college kids for gods sake. Let them celebrate a little. He did nothing to show up the other team, so why make the officials throw the flag. Stupid, stupid rule. This is why it's getting harder and harder to watch football, because you're not allowed to celebrate after you score. The NFL is now known as the No Fun League, and the NCAA is getting to the point where it should be called the Not So Fun League

Then why to high school kids use better judgment when they are in those situations? I have been in playoff games where the score took place in the final minutes in a back and forth war of a game and the scoring player just hands the ball to the officials? I understand that this is a fun game, but you cannot take it over the top either.

And when they tell you something is illegal and you do it anyway, then you have no one to blame but yourself. I might have more sympathy if this was not addressed before this season.

Peace

[RMR]

Mark May is a hypocrite.

On the show he stated that at worst the crew should have gotten together and waved off the flag.

You can be assured that if they had done that he would have been ripping them for being homers and being too nutless to stick with their correct call.

Announcers blow, period.

[JasonTX]

Originally Posted by refinks

I'm not arguing with the call so much as the rule. these are college kids for gods sake. Let them celebrate a little. He did nothing to show up the other team, so why make the officials throw the flag. Stupid, stupid rule. This is why it's getting harder and harder to watch football, because you're not allowed to celebrate after you score. The NFL is now known as the No Fun League, and the NCAA is getting to the point where it should be called the Not So Fun League

Although the Ref may have announced this as excessive celebration. This was not a celebration/taunting foul. This was more of an act that delays the game. Since all the push from TV networks to not delay the game, it is easy to see why this is a point of emphasis. You can bet that the majority of colleges have seen this and will likely not commit the same act and all the games will not be delayed by this act again. Here is the rule. You can see that this has nothing to do with taunting or celebration.

2. After a score or any other play, the player in possession immediately
must return the ball to an official or leave it near the dead-ball spot.
This prohibits:
(a) Kicking, throwing, spinning or carrying (including off of the
field) the ball any distance that requires an official to retrieve it.
(b) Spiking the ball to the ground [Exception: A forward pass to
conserve time (Rule 7-3-2-d)].
(c) Throwing the ball high into the air.
(d) Any other unsportsmanlike act or actions that delay the game.

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by refinks

I'm not arguing with the call so much as the rule. these are college kids for gods sake. Let them celebrate a little. He did nothing to show up the other team, so why make the officials throw the flag. Stupid, stupid rule. This is why it's getting harder and harder to watch football, because you're not allowed to celebrate after you score. The NFL is now known as the No Fun League, and the NCAA is getting to the point where it should be called the Not So Fun League

This is not new - this parodical acronym has been around for years.

[HawkeyeCubP]

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.

Only if he doesn't want to work for his conference any more.

[JugglingReferee]

Is there significant coaches' input to NCAA rules, just as there is in other leagues?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

Is there significant coaches' input to NCAA rules, just as there is in other leagues?

Unless someone can tell me the background of Redding, all NCAA Committee members are coaches or former coaches. Same applies in other sports committees with the NCAA.

Peace

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Unless someone can tell me the background of Redding, all NCAA Committee members are coaches or former coaches. Same applies in other sports committees with the NCAA.

Just as I suspected! Tx.

[mbyron]

Regarding "judgment calls": there are at least 2 kinds of judgment.
1. Judging whether a rule applies: this kind of judgment will be required of officials at every moment of every game, since we're always judging whether what we see falls within the rules. This is probably what the PAC-10 supervisor was thinking when he said that every call (and non-call) is a judgment call. This is not judgment in an interesting sense.
2. Judging whether a particular criterion applies to a case: the NCAA USC rule mentions throwing the ball "high" in the air, which it does not define. Without a definition, officials must rely on their judgment regarding what constitutes "high" (or indeed many other forms of USC).

The second kind of judgment is harder to develop and does not apply to every case. We have either explicit or implicit definitions of catch, fumble, muff, etc. Think of it this way: you can overturn a ruling of "catch," but you can't overturn a ruling of "high."

The OP required both kinds of judgment, and IMHO the official was clearly correct to rule that the ball was thrown high in the air, and so correct to throw the flag. Had some guts, too, in addition to good judgment.

I think that there will be a lot of meetings with skill position players this week to make sure they know this rule! I doubt NCAA will abandon the rule...

Regarding gravity: there's no such thing. The earth sucks.

[mikesears]

I felt the call was a great call. We can't ignore fouls simply because they happen late in a game and a player is excited. I am guessing that ESPN would have backed the player even if he spiked the ball into the ground and ESPN would have said that he just "dropped the ball".

Besides, this call didn't cause anyone to lose. They still had a chance to tie and it was poor execution by their field goal/extra point team that caused them to lose.

UW take on it is here:

http://gohuskies.cstv.com/sports/m-f...090608aaa.html

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by mikesears

Besides, this call didn't cause anyone to lose.

Penalties aren't causes, they're effects.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by mbyron

Penalties aren't causes, they're effects.

The point remains that the PAT was blocked, not missed. The distance added due to the penalty was inconsequential and irrelevant to the loss.