News & Observer | newsobserver.com | 2008 NCAA Men's Bracket

Anyone accuses UNC fans of whining I say:
This was a game for top 25 VIP teams ( ND is welcome because of history). You just DON'T understand how hard every game up there is, UNC plays with target on there back, because they are a top 25 team( VIP only). It is totally different from the bottom where turds are concentrated (examples: Duke and NCSU). So just go cheer for your team and how cute they play flag football, and just wait for UNC to come in your stadium, show you a real top 25 team, push your team around with a plunger ( it is too far to reach down there from the top 25 VIP area) then leave you crying.
Top 25 teams are concerned about every call, it doesn't matter if we win or not, because every play counts, "perfection is required", unlike area 50 and below where all you need is a good game and everyone wins a candy trophy.
Oh boy I wish you would understand, give us a call 1-800-NA-NA-NANAA and we might send you pictures from the TOP 25 area.
Or you can come to Franklin St. (Campus is off limit for NON TOP 25 teams) and lick the ground, you might just taste the spirit.

Thank you and I wish you best of luck to crack the top 50 in a decade or 2.

You Carolina ninnies are whining more about one call than we did over the TA knee.

And y'all won! Get over it!

The big problem here is that the rules is very poorly written in the rules book.

In the rules book it clearly states that it is a catch if an airborne receiver has possession of the ball when any part of his body FIRST returns to the ground, however, under the interpretations section, an almost identical play is mentioned and it says:

"Airborne receiver A85 possesses the ball and in the process of going to the ground, first contacts the ground with his left foot as he falls to the ground inbounds. Immediately upon hitting the ground, the ball comes loose and touches the ground. Ruling: Incomplete pass"

Why does the first rule state that it is a catch when the receiver has possession of the ball when any body part FIRST hits the ground, but the interpretation section completely contradicts that?

Robbi -

Did you research the rules before posting this crap? The airborne thing goes out the window WHEN THE RECEIVER ESTABLISHES POSITION ON THE FIELD WITH THE BALL AND TWO FEET as Foster did BEFORE the ball popped out.

That call was the worst overturn I've seen in college football in years. It wasn't even freakin close.

You must b a disgruntled wolfpakker. If u say he trapped that ball between his arm and his leg you are blind. Bob Griese saw the play and said it was a catch, he knows a heck alot more about football than some dizzyizzy! Good luck the rest of the year.

To catch, intercept or recover a ball, a player who leaves his feet to
make a catch, interception or recovery must have the ball firmly in his
possession when he FIRST returns to the ground inbounds with any part of
his body or is so held that the dead-ball provisions of Rule 4-1-3-p apply
(A.R. 2-2-7-I-V and A.R. 7-3-6-IV).
1. If one foot first lands inbounds and the receiver has possession
and control of the ball, it is a catch or interception even though a
subsequent step or fall takes the receiver out of bounds.
2. Loss of ball SIMULTANEOUS to returning to the ground is not a catch,
interception or recovery.

....the caps on FIRST and SIMULTANEOUS are mine. Foster caught the ball, landed a foot on the ground, then a knee on the ground, then the elbow on the ground and the ball came out. how is this not the FOOT being the SILMULTANEOUS return to the ground? hell, the elbow was in third to the ground. that play was over when his knee hit. sorry, Mr Rhoads.

hey.

everything else has a "clock".

put the replay official on a clock.

360 seconds.

at 361 the call
on the field stands

if there is
no replay review judgment.

in order to have possession of the ball he has to have posession of the ball and be in control of his body. He had the football but his 2 steps were from momentum from him jumping and catching the ball and not him trying to advance the ball or from him taking deliberate steps. Therefore when he couldnt regain his balance and he fell and lost the ball it is all considered one motion. Since he lost the ball during that continous motion its considered and incomplete pass. Its the same if he jumped caught the ball, got one one foot in bounds and hit the ground out of bounds and lost the ball. Which is considered incomplete

is this "airborne" rule in effect?
If a receiver goes "airborne" to catch a ball, comes down on his feet, runs 10 yards and then falls down on his face - without being touched - and loses the ball, is that an in complete pass?

I thought the airborne rule governed a player who lands on his back for chest - something like that - then loses the ball. Foster touched his feet inbounds with possession before hitting the ground and losing the ball.

My only issue with the call is that it looked like there was insufficient evidence to prove that Foster did not have two feet down. His left foot was definitely down, and it was unclear whether or not his right foot was down. If he had both feet down with control of the ball before his elbow hit, didn't he establish possession?

Also, I think it's interesting that we don't have an independent organization evaluate refs. Obviously the league is going to back up their employees whenever possible. It seems like there should be more accountability in the public eye for refs.

“If a player is airborne and catches the ball, with or without contact, when the player comes to the ground, he must maintain possession of the ball,’’ Rhoads said, citing the CFO’s rules. “If he immediately loses it, it’s incomplete.”

except that, as already stated, foster did NOT go directly from "airborne" to hitting the ground. he took at least one step and tucked the ball away...then replay showed that his knee hit first, WHILE he still had the ball...then his elbow hit and the ball came out. the ref on the field saw it clearly enough.

doug rhodes is either a dishonest man trying to cover for the nitwit in the booth or else a fool. he'd better adapt to the age of large HD tvs or he'll be fired for incompetence in short order...

The bottom line is that the officials, whether on the field or in the booth, did a poor job calling and managing the game. Why so many reviews? Why so long to review those plays? If those are the best game managers that Doug Rhoads (did we expect him to say "oh, we got it wrong"?) or any other league supervisor can serve up, then college football officiating has a problem. When officials call a great game, you don't notice them. We certainly noticed these guys. And never mind the umpire who was so blatantly out of shape. He's probably an outstanding citizen, but if he can't run up and down the field, how can players, coaches or fans expect him to get into position to make the right judgments?

The ground "cannot cause a fumble"... but what was at issue was NOT a fumble but an incomplete pass. The ground CAN cause an incompletion--the receiver must maintain control of the ball while landing.

What the "ground cannot cause a fumble" means is that IF a player has established control of the ball and then hits the ground causing the ball to be lost, then because the player was down when he touched the ground, the ball was by definition lost after the player was down and was not a fumble.

But that requires the player to have established control of the ball--a receiver who is landing after catching a pass does not establish such control unless they keep the ball while hitting the ground.

"As Foster's elbow hit the ground, the ball was jarred loose. The play was originally called a completion, but it was overturned on instant replay, Rhoads said, based on guidelines set by the College Football Officials Association." J

Just basically wondering if the "ground-can't-cause-a-fumble" rule been changed? How does this situation fit with the ruling? I was at the game, sitting 10 rows up on the UNC side, at the 25-yard line. Foster made the catch right in front of Section 127. He made, it appeared, TWO QUICK STEPS, trying not to fall, with the ball in his possession, his forward momentum caused him to not be able to stand and he hit the ground, the ball popped loose and rolled out of bounds. The official, standing there, saw the play and ruled it a catch -- but a Notre Dame player defensive player waved his arms, signaling "no catch." When the re-play announcement was made, no one could figure out what the ruling was -- everyone in the stands near the 25-yard line clearly saw the catch, two steps, then Foster went down near the sidelines. No ND player touched Foster. Again, does the ground now get credit in the stax for a fumble? Or did the re-play official incorrectly view the tape?