Lets be real. That play sucked ***. But Jarvis not catching that third down ball in the final minute cost us just as much. He just dropped it.
Jarvis West Fumble
- Thread starter 2forISU
- Start date
Last edited:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=aVw75K9C0-8Sure. As soon as clueless people stop saying the refs screwed ISU on that play.
Right call was made on that play as much as I hate to admit it. That pass on the sideline on KSU's last scoring drive was definitely out of bounds though. Also, there were 3 holds throughout the game that the KSU OL got away with that were extremely blatant that the refs let go.
I noticed the refs didn't call a single hold on an offensive lineman from either team throughout the entire game. There is something to be said about letting guys play, but c'mon, there was a lot of holding going on. (I think the hold called against K-State on the 2 pt conversion was against a TE, but not sure).
It was on Gronkowski who is a full back. But yeah, there were quite a few holds that were not called, even a few on ISU. ISU also got away with a few pass interference calls, IMO.
Mike Pereira has a great piece at Fox Sports.com on that play and how big of a screw job it was in refs not reviewing the play.
We got screwed on the pylon play. This play was all about what was called on the field. If it was called our ball we kept it. Just one of those stupid situations. I hate replay. Please tell me when we have gotten the better end of the stick on it in the last 4 years?
No but you are misapplying the rule. The truth is this rule is horrible in any way because there isn't a good way to clearly define it. It is a I know it when I see it situation. Like the other poster said there has to be a limit to how long it lasts. Jarvis catches it and goes down then while down the defender reaches in and rips it out. That should be a catch every time.
We did get screwed on the pylon play big time. If nothing else, shouldn't they have reviewed it to see if maybe it was a TD? And then they would have seen that it actually wasn't a catch because he was out of bounds the second his knee hit the pylon.
As for the West play, by rule, they called it correctly as an INT for KSU. However, what I can't understand is if you're not down once your knee hits the ground on a catch, then why are you ruled down once you're knee hits when you're running with the ball and then fumble?
Why shouldn't you have to go all the way to ground and maintain possession of the ball while running with it as well? If West had caught that ball and taken a step or two, and then this happened, it would be ISU ball, correct?
As for the West play, by rule, they called it correctly as an INT for KSU. However, what I can't understand is if you're not down once your knee hits the ground on a catch, then why are you ruled down once you're knee hits when you're running with the ball and then fumble?
Why shouldn't you have to go all the way to ground and maintain possession of the ball while running with it as well? If West had caught that ball and taken a step or two, and then this happened, it would be ISU ball, correct?
This cannot be true, because you are saying there are two different definitions of being down. If the ball ends up on the ground then its a completion and first down Iowa State, but since the defender takes the ball away (after he's down as that picture clearly shows) its somehow an interception... BS. The continuation is only on a pass to make sure he has possession and doesn't bobble it. That picture pretty clearly shows him with complete possession and knee on the ground, first down Texas or any team not named ISU.
So...here's a hypothetical...receiver makes a catch on the way to the ground...bobbles it and while he's bobbling it...rolls over and hops to his feet then completes the catch...is he down or can he keep running? He was not down after he made the catch....
If the receiver somehow manages to keep bobbling it and stand up at the same time before catching it then he could keep going.
The real issue with this play comes down to whether or not Jarvis had control when his knees hit the ground. If you think he was bobbling it when his knees hit the ground then an interception is correct, if he had possession then it should be a first down.
The real issue with this play comes down to whether or not Jarvis had control when his knees hit the ground. If you think he was bobbling it when his knees hit the ground then an interception is correct, if he had possession then it should be a first down.
