Was this a touchdown?
 

Interesting call in the Michigan/TCU game.

Michigan made what looked like what would have been a game changing TD as the clock was running out in the second quarter, only to have it reversed upon review.

What do you guys think?

https://www.foxnews.com/sports/michigans-roman-wilson-upset-bulls-overturned-touchdown-call-vs-tcu

Yes, it was a TD. That said, I don't have a big problem with the call. It was close.

But I do have a problem with the non-targeting call at the end of the game. It was the most obvious targeting that I've ever seen. If they had called it...the game likely would have ended as it did.

https://youtube.com/shorts/95dMTaI0Tz8?feature=share

I thought if you caught a pass on the ground (defined as a knee and elbow touching ground) then you were down? ...or is that fine unless he's touched.?

Only the pros are not down. In college ball it is down.

I believe they over turned the call because he touched the ball while his knee was down outside of the end zone, therefore the ball is dead there. I could be wrong though. Having watched it live, it did, at the time, seem like they got robbed but it is what it is. Ref's are human too, both the ones on the field and the ones calling the calls from the booth.
It is, after all, just a game, no need to get wrapped up around the axle about it. Better luck next year.
[I was rooting for Michigan since my son-in-law is an avid fan of theirs, but I think they really got out played by the Horned Frogs.]

Seems to me like the overturn was the right call then.

TD.

I only saw the replay. But while the knee was down short of the goal line when the ball arrived at the receiver's hands, he bobbled the ball and did not have full control of it until he was on his backside in the end zone. Therefore, it was in the endzone where the catch was completed. Touchdown. The ball/play was not dead when his knee was down, because he didn't have control of the ball.

If this play happened in the back of the endzone instead of at the goal line, it would have been an incomplete pass (because it would have been caught out of bounds).

At least that's my armchair interpretation.

This… good analogy!

Ahh - thats an interesting observation. I'll have to go back and watch it again.

Where the player was “down” has always been so subjective. How long do you suppose it will be before there is some type of chip in the football to determine that? A lot of tennis tournaments no longer have lines people (determined by computer) and it’s only a matter of time before MLB starts relying on the computer…(box on the tv screen). Seems inevitable.

Bunch of bs calls on that game. The targeting call should have held ground. That kid was going to the ground and got hit very hard to the spine.


I don't even know why i watch these games anymore. They have lost their way and had become about the $$$.

Touchdown. The guys on GameDay were on it yesterday, they all agreed that the refs pooched both calls.

During the game the expert ref that the crew has with the announcers (and the announcers) called it a TD. His opinion was that since the receiver didn't gain control of the ball until he 'crossed the plane' that it was a TD.

Targeting is such a joke and administered so poorly.

My buddy summed it up perfectly. Just like the Premier League, the refs are making their calls with a view towards video review rather than calling what they see.

Not calling the targeting call was total BS...with the potential to have been a game changer...

I'm not sure of the exact rule...but I think if the refs call targeting (which it was), the player would have to sit out the first half (or more) of the next game. (because of where the clock was at)

I'll bet that was talked about when the refs huddled up about the call.

I think we need to wait until all of the mail-in ballots are counted.

no?

An ejection for targeting DQ's player for the next half if it occurs during first half of current game. OR first half of the subsequent game if occurs in second half of current game.


I like the idea of the video review ref actually making the call vice buzzing the on field ref and having him look a the itty bitty monitor and decide.

^^^ Thanks
However they do it...I just wish it was consistent.
The replay shows classic targeting. If it's not going to be called...do that all the time.

I disagree due to my ignorenz.

The crown of the hitter’s head impacted the hittee’s shoulder/clavicular area. Is it targeting because the crown impacted? Or is it targeting because the hitter aimed for the hittee’s head?

Defenseless player is what i was thinking. Crown of the helmet just shows more intent then an arm/leg tackle. It doesn't help that he was already tackled going down to the turf.

Michael Dyer was down.

Not that I'd argue a play that happened a dozen years ago ...:(

_