BYU - Washington

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by IceGator8

I was at the game and knew instantly that there would be a flag. The ball went 30-40 feet in th air. When Locker threw it he had enough time to high five, chest bump, and attempt another high five before the ball came back down and hit him.

Seriously, the throw was high enough it gets called 100 times out of 100. Locker as a team leader needs to know this stuff and not commit the infraction.

Exactly. That is completely clear on the video.

I mentally counted approximately 3, maybe 4 seconds, between the release and when it hit him in the head. 3 seconds equates to 36 feet. 4 seconds, 64 feet. Even it my count was fast and it was really only 2 seconds, it would have been 16 feet above his head. If that is not high, I don't know what is. Simply put, Locker was guilty of an act that drew the flag. Whether or not you like the fact that the official called it, Locker unnecessarily took that risk by throwing the ball.

And even more interesting was the fact that the PAT was blocked, not missed. It's not like the extra distance is what made the block possible. Kicking from the 35 is a pretty basic FG distance. The PAT would have been blocked even in absence of the penalty. So, the penalty is essentially irrelvant.

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Exactly. That is completely clear on the video.

I mentally counted approximately 3, maybe 4 seconds, between the release and when it hit him in the head. 3 seconds equates to 36 feet. 4 seconds, 64 feet. Even it my count was fast and it was really only 2 seconds, it would have been 16 feet above his head. If that is not high, I don't know what is. Simply put, Locker was guilty of an act that drew the flag. Whether or not you like the fact that the official called it, Locker unnecessarily took that risk by throwing the ball.

And even more interesting was the fact that the PAT was blocked, not missed. It's not like the extra distance is what made the block possible. Kicking from the 35 is a pretty basic FG distance. The PAT would have been blocked even in absence of the penalty. So, the penalty is essentially irrelvant.

Camron,

I see your formula: 4•t², but how did derive that formula? My physics days are more behind me than I thought, or it truly is 7am on Sunday morning...

To the OP: good call. The officials hands were tied! As for the rule, I don't care either way.

[mu4scott]

Game Management.

[TonyT]

Did you hear him say the official probably cost Ty Willingham his job. How about working on your kicking game and having control of your players so these penalties don't happen. The official didn't throw the ball up in the air. Which Mark May says "HE DIDN"T THROW IT THAT HIGH" The guy is a IDIOT!!!!!

[kdf5]

This whole ESPN mess is just a very small example of what's wrong in our country today. Some old bag spills a cup of coffee between her legs and it's McDonald's fault for making hot coffee. This kid commits a foul and it's the officials fault for costing the head coach his job. Someone step up and say the kid screwed up and we'll be on our way to a better world.

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by kdf5

This whole ESPN mess is just a very small example of what's wrong in our country today. Some old bag spills a cup of coffee between her legs and it's McDonald's fault for making hot coffee. This kid commits a foul and it's the officials fault for costing the head coach his job. Someone step up and say the kid screwed up and we'll be on our way to a better world.

There is such little respect for authority anymore.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by kdf5

This whole ESPN mess is just a very small example of what's wrong in our country today. Some old bag spills a cup of coffee between her legs and it's McDonald's fault for making hot coffee. This kid commits a foul and it's the officials fault for costing the head coach his job. Someone step up and say the kid screwed up and we'll be on our way to a better world.

I do not know what the McDonald's coffee situation has to do with this situation. That situation was about injuries caused by the temperature of the coffee which were determined to be excessive. That had nothing to with just dropping the coffee in a person's lap. The lady that dropped the coffee had 2nd and 3rd degree burns as a result. It had almost nothing to do with simply dropping the coffee. This situation is about violating a clear rule. It is not against the law to drop a cup of coffee.

Peace

[Bob M.]

REPLY: For those interested...

NCAA Football Rules Committee
Mike Bellotti , Chair
Division I (FBS) - University of Oregon
Eugene, Oregon 97403
Term expires 9-1-09*
Rogers Redding, Secretary-Rules Editor
Division I (FBS) – Southeastern Conference
Birmingham, Alabama 35203
Frank Carr
Division III - Earlham College,
Richmond, Indiana 47374
Term expires 9-1-10*
Gil Cloud
Division II - Upper Iowa University
Fayette, Iowa 52142
Term expires 9-1-10*
Randy Edsall
Division I (FBS) - University of Connecticut
Storrs, Connecticut 06269
Term expires 9-1-11*
Chris Hatcher
Division I (FCS) - Georgia Southern University
Statesboro, Georgia 30460
Term expires 9-1-11*
Todd Knight
Division II - Ouachita Baptist University
Arkadelphia, Arkansas 71998
Term expires 9-1-11*
Tony Samuel
Division I (FCS) - Southeast Missouri State University
Cape Girardeau, Missouri 63701
Term expires 9-1-09
Ron Prince
Division I (FBS) - Kansas State University
Manhattan, Kansas 66502
Term expires 9-1-09*
Rocky Rees
Division II – Shippensburg University of Pennsylvania
Shippensburg, Pennsylvania 17257
Term expires 9-1-10*
Ky Snyder
Division I (FCS) - University of San Diego
San Diego, California 92110
Term expires 9-1-10*

Note: Two Division III representatives were not named in time for inclusion in the rules book.

[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.

[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.

[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

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

Camron,

I see your formula: 4•t², but how did derive that formula? My physics days are more behind me than I thought, or it truly is 7am on Sunday morning...

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.

[TXMike]

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 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?