State Championship Call

[JugglingReferee]

If you pause the video with 7 seconds left, you can see first contact, and at this point, the distance from the foot that would have hit inbounds to the sideline is the same (or greater than!) as the distance that same foot hit the ground beyond the sideline in goal.

Simple physics tells us that because there was an external force applied to the airborne path of the receiver, that his foot most definitely would have had a chance (or definitely would have) to hit inbounds.

Good call by the official. This call reminds me of (FJ#80) Gary Gautreaux's call in the SuperBowl. If only this official faced the players to ensure that the receiver maintained contact with the opponent and the ground... it would have been a SuperBowl call.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

If you pause the video with 7 seconds left, you can see first contact, and at this point, the distance from the foot that would have hit inbounds to the sideline is the same (or greater than!) as the distance that same foot hit the ground beyond the sideline in goal.

Simple physics tells us that because there was an external force applied to the airborne path of the receiver, that his foot most definitely would have had a chance (or definitely would have) to hit inbounds.

Good call by the official. This call reminds me of (FJ#80) Gary Gautreaux's call in the SuperBowl. If only this official faced the players to ensure that the receiver maintained contact with the opponent and the ground... it would have been a SuperBowl call.

Are you simply ignoring or missing the fact that if the receiver is already moving in that direction it *doesn't matter* if the receiver would've gotten a foot down? A force out only applies when the direction of the receiver is changed. This is clearly explained in a post above and comes directly from the NFHS case book. What is called in Canada is not really relevant to whether this call is good in Canada or in the NFL.

It's simply an awful call brought about by poor positioning and ball hawking.

[whitehat]

Actually, the complete or incomplete should have been a mute point: There was at least one ineligable obviously downfield (he was on a pass route in the EZ as we all have seen) that the same official missed. As a wing in 5 man crew we have got to see who is covered and who is eligible...Offense should have been replaying the down 5 yards back after encforcement.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by whitehat

Actually, the complete or incomplete should have been a mute point:

It was mute: he didn't say a word.

Perhaps you mean 'moot point'?

[bigjohn]

isn't this forum always on "Mute"?

[whitehat]

Originally Posted by mbyron

It was mute: he didn't say a word.

Perhaps you mean 'moot point'?

ah yes, my fingers on a keyboard never can catch up to my mind...which isn't saying a whole lot ..yes, "moot" it is

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

Are you simply ignoring or missing the fact that if the receiver is already moving in that direction it *doesn't matter* if the receiver would've gotten a foot down? A force out only applies when the direction of the receiver is changed. This is clearly explained in a post above and comes directly from the NFHS case book. What is called in Canada is not really relevant to whether this call is good in Canada or in the NFL.

It's simply an awful call brought about by poor positioning and ball hawking.

Admittedly, I haven't had a chance to read all posts since I was in the Dominican while reading them, and my net time was limited.

Changed must be a term meaning "significantly changed". I hardly doubt that the angle between pre- and post- contact is 0 degrees.

If that is the rule, then so be it. It's a bad rule.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

Good call by the official. This call reminds me of (FJ#80) Gary Gautreaux's call in the SuperBowl. If only this official faced the players to ensure that the receiver maintained contact with the opponent and the ground... it would have been a SuperBowl call.

Not since the NFL rule change requiring 2 feet inbounds, no matter whether the receiver is pushed out.