I also interpreted the article as a critique of the call which really surprised me as the team which came out on the good side of the call is the team from the town where the newspaper is from. I would have expected this from the other team's newspaper but not the hometown newspaper.

I'd call that fair.

Objectivity in reporting? What a concept. :cool:

Guess they want to mae up for how they covered the election.

It's not the first time I've seen the hometown press do this. I went to an NAIA game this past fall where the quarterback spiked the ball on 4th down while trying to rally his team in the waning seconds of the game. The TV station from the school's town actually showed the boneheaded spike on their 10:00 newscast sports segment. Wow.

Obviously, that was a key play, but that's a tough thing to do to a kid. He may be an adult, but he's not a grownup.

I agree, and my mom was just as shocked they showed it. This is a kid who plays for the love of the game, and get some scholarship to go to school, and this isn't a good display of the quality of the players on that team. I was a bit miffed they did show it (even though it was my nephew's team that won the game).

And your reason for thiking the TV station could possibly care a lick about embarrassing this young man, instead of titilating is audience is.......what?

Hey, I did that gig for many years. I know the drill.

I didn't say the TV station cared. Obviously they didn't.

I'm thinking that with young people sometimes, it should be different. We should be better than that.

An assistant editor for a major newspaper once told me, "If a high school player drops a pass and costs his team the game, we don't print his name. If a college player drops a pass and costs his team the game, we print his name. If a professional player drops a pass and costs his team the game, we print his name and his telephone number."

Only a slight exaggeration, obviously.

And, yes, NAIA is college, but it ain't the bigtime.

Should have been a touchdown.

Having experienced the critical review of a controversial as in wrong call from a newspaper web site that slowed the video down to 1/5 normal speed I can tell you this is something we can expect a lot in the future. Don't you wish you had the luxury of sitting at your computer and reviewing the call!?

Officiating is a human endeavor, therefore, it comes with some degree of error. On this particular play it could well be the simultaneous catch rule was not well understood or the official had not experienced it before. Ask yourself how often you have seen one and what did you do the first time you did see one.

As if lawyers don't invade our lives enough this could become a new practice, the bad officiating practice, where a lawyer is on the coaching staff ready to assemble whatever is needed to appeal to the athletic authority when required. And you thought the hot coffee spill at McDonalds was too much!

If the overruling official is a LJ in a 5-man crew, he has no business calling the players OB on the endline. At best, he could have had the players bobbling the ball. In HS ball, there is not enough teaching of officiating philosophies. When in doubt, it's not a catch. But even under a strict rule interpretation, it's a simultaneous catch and a touchdown.

I really hope this was a 6- or 7-man crew because the video from the Naples paper shows the line judge on the line-of-scrimmage when the ball is thrown. At the very end of the video it shows three officials, one of which could be that line judge, discussing the play. If the line judge got into that discussion it is highly unlikely that he would have had any information relating to the play. Only officials at or behind the goal line could have seen exactly what happened.

That said I think touchdown was the right call.

I disagree with your statement..
From the NF Football Officials Manual, the guideline for "when in question"

(a) incomplete pass or fumble... incomplete pass.

(b) Catch or not ... no catch.

NCAA says the same thing... no catch.

Theisey: You're correct. I misspoke. "When in question, the catch, recovery or interception is not completed." NCAA 2-2-7-e