End of game Notre Dame - Stanford

[football-1]

big play.

I think will be shown often.

Was forward progress stopped ?

I mean the runner was pushed backwards, but then falls to side and forward, still moving he did strech ball to/over goal line.
Nothing to hear cause crowd did cheered loud already.

[grunewar]

Goal line call goes Notre Dame's way in win over Stanford

Article has video - second look (Starting at 13 secs) is the best. He appears to be on other player's backs and not the ground. There was also a question of possession.....

[JasonTX]

That left elbow looks very close to be touching the ground before the stretch.

[MD Longhorn]

I disagree with Pereira on both statements.

1) Progress was definitely stopped. Ask yourself this, if you disagree. If, at the moment we see the 2nd lunge begin, the player had fumbled - would you be ruling fumble, or forward progress?

2) The elbow was down before his arms extended - it's not a TD even on the second lunge.

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

I disagree with Pereira on both statements.

1) Progress was definitely stopped. Ask yourself this, if you disagree. If, at the moment we see the 2nd lunge begin, the player had fumbled - would you be ruling fumble, or forward progress?

2) The elbow was down before his arms extended - it's not a TD even on the second lunge.

This.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

I disagree with Pereira on both statements.

1) Progress was definitely stopped. Ask yourself this, if you disagree. If, at the moment we see the 2nd lunge begin, the player had fumbled - would you be ruling fumble, or forward progress?

2) The elbow was down before his arms extended - it's not a TD even on the second lunge.

So you're saying that there's no difference in how you'll call this considering it's 4th and goal? You're not going to give the runner every change to either (1) be down or (2) get to the goal line?

I'm not saying I agree or disagree, I'm just looking for discussion on this.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Rich

So you're saying that there's no difference in how you'll call this considering it's 4th and goal? You're not going to give the runner every change to either (1) be down or (2) get to the goal line?

I'm not saying I agree or disagree, I'm just looking for discussion on this.

I don't think you should rule differently on 4th and goal than you would on another play. If the defense stops the offensive player's forward progress and still has him in their grasp, the play is over.

[grunewar]

Head official: Review correct to confirm ND stand

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by grunewar

Head official: Review correct to confirm ND stand

That doesn't say the original call was correct, only that the review procedure was correct in that there was not enough to overturn the call on the field.

[MD Longhorn]

But the original call itself is completely judgement. When you see the runner go forward, get stopped, and go backward, at some point you blow the whistle - action after that didn't happen.

[Steven Tyler]

From seeing it in live time in the game, the runner was never in the grasp of a defender, and stretched the ball of the goal line. I don't see how the two guys on the wing could see the elbow down, but the umpire would have the best angle on that.

Everybody wanted to go home.............

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Steven Tyler

From seeing it in live time in the game, the runner was never in the grasp of a defender, and stretched the ball of the goal line. I don't see how the two guys on the wing could see the elbow down, but the umpire would have the best angle on that.

Everybody wanted to go home.............

He wasn't ruled down. His forward progress was ruled stopped (Grasp of a defender and elbow down are irrelevant).