NOTEBOOK: On Jaylin Noel’s near TD on a kick return that was called back and more from ISU’s 28-21 loss to Kansas

[Cloned4Life]

Reminds me of a punt return 2 weeks ago

Too bad we cant protest during the world series

The 2 situations are unrelated.

In 1 instance, the references allowed the players to 'plan on', deciding not to make a game altering decision if they were not 100% sure on what they saw, and allowing themselves the freedom on replay to go back and get the call correct. Which of course they did.

In the other instance, a reference incorrectly blows a whistle, signaling the entire play dead, instantly, and ensuring it is not reviewable and thus not correctable. The call was 100% incorrect, and this incorrect call directly impacted the game.

 

[Cloned4Life]

I get it, the play was called dead by the whistle, so it is not reviewable. But, if he is trained not to blow the whistle on plays like that, where is the accountability to the official? There should ramifications from the BIG 12 officials. Because if not, who’s to say he won’t be prone to do it again. We are all human and make mistakes, and this one play may not have cost us the game, but may very well have changed the game plan going forward.

There should definitely be consequences for making that obvious (and crucial) of a mistake, yes. Because ultimately, a very incorrect decision by an official made a direct highly negative impact for 1 team in the game. Blowing a play dead is the single most harmful tool a ref has in his arsenal. NOT blowing the play dead - like what correctly happened at a local game a few weeks ago that oddly was the topic whiny conversation for 2 weeks on local radio - allows for the correct ruling to be made after review.

 

[tim_redd]

This is exactly the situation where you absolutely let it play out. Text book. If you are going to blow a play dead you damn sure better know what you're seeing. He didn't, and it turned a ball at the 2 into a punt in a one-score game.

Hell, letting it play out, then coming back and saying the call on the field was that he stepped out, it's under review is fine. They don't have to get the call on the field right, just let it play out.

This crew was in over their heads. That seemed pretty clear.

The only problem I have with this, and it's not even applicable in this case, is that they then need "indisputable video evidence" to overturn something. If the refs declare they are going to let something play out, then they need to make a judgment based on the video. For example so many times a fumble is allowed to play out and the play stands because there is nothing "indisputable" on the replay.

 

[AuH2O]

This is why it's worth discussing the almost completed forward pass that was ruled a fumble even though replay corrected it.

I don't have that huge of a problem with it. Clear on replay, but since it came out like a kickoff and the contact was pretty early in the process, it's conceivable that a defensive player made contact with his arm or ball that made him lose firm control of the ball before coming forward.

I'm not sure if it's an actual rule change or just an emphasis in the last couple of years, but I've seen a fair number of plays where a QB still is able to throw the ball, but because he didn't have firm control when the arm moved forward it's still a fumble. It used to be pretty much always officiated more like if a guy has enough control of the ball to propel it forward, then it's an incomplete pass. The last couple years I have noticed that definition of a forward pass requiring "firm control," similar to possession and being down by contact. If the ball is starting to move/come loose, even if he's still able to make a throw, they are considering it a fumble.

This was correctly overturned, but I think the old way of viewing it where if a guy can throw it downfield it's an automatic incompletion doesn't seem to be how it is officiated anymore.

 

[AuH2O]

The only problem I have with this, and it's not even applicable in this case, is that they then need "indisputable video evidence" to overturn something. If the refs declare they are going to let something play out, then they need to make a judgment based on the video. For example so many times a fumble is allowed to play out and the play stands because there is nothing "indisputable" on the replay.

That is the downside of always letting things play out. I think there should be a carve out for plays like fumble/down by contact and out of bounds, etc where there is a clear rationale for letting it play out, where the burden of proof should shift from indisputable to what appears to be most likely.

 

[quasistellar]

The Kansas players tackled him 30 yards down field anyway. Everybody kept playing because it just seemed like normal amazing return. If they blew a whistle it didn't stop anybody, they just still played football in bounds.

Heck, if it was blown dead, KU should have got an unneccessary roughness call for tackling Noel.

Everything about that play was botched.

I suspect that ref probably immediately realized he ****** up so he didn't throw the flag.

 

[BillBrasky4Cy]

A whistle stopping play has to actually stop play. Players can get penalized for continuing action well after the whistle so for player safety it has to stop there. In fairness to the defense if there is a whistle you can't award the other team additional yardage when defenders who heard the whistle may have let up as they are supposed to.

If the official was screeened from actually seeing his foot step out he should have held his whistle and let it be ironed out in replay, but he didn't so the play has to stop when the whistle is blown.

Anything close like that the officials are coached/instructed to let it play out and replay will correct. That's what's really frustrating about the whole deal.

 

[statsaholic]

I could see that from behind the play when the last guy comes in and hits his feet it would look like he was blocked from Noel's feet and couldn't see it, but it would seem that he prob. stepped out.

But the point is correct - if you don't see it, you don't blow it dead. If he stepped out, no big deal. The official did the one thing you can't do in that situation. That crew was incompetent.

I know this approaches dead horse beating, but another view of the play at the 31... the Noel foot you are blocked from seeing is his left foot plant, and seeing the (right foot) step before and after are both in and his stride is normal just adds to the now obvious "he did not step out" argument. And yes, other video from down the line that were not viewable by the officials showed him being in bounds. And also, yes, this call by itself did not determine the game conclusively, but the game dynamics do change. What MIGHT have happened will never be known, but it did affect momentum and play call dynamics after.

 

[crs8975]

I retract my previous statement. I was watching this on on my phone from the post on this thread and I really did think his toe stepped out on this view. However, now that I've been able to watch it on a much larger screen frame by frame, I now see that it was the refs pants. My Baaaddd people. Also, I thought he was in when I was watching this live on TV and made no effort to review anything.

 

[MeanDean]

Have we heard from the Big XII Home Office? Is our official apology letter in the mail yet?

 

[cytor]

Have we heard from the Big XII Home Office? Is our official apology letter in the mail yet?

It's coming... They are working on the Paul Shirley double foul letter against Mich State first.

 

[SEIOWA CLONE]

Hate to say it, but this play is just so ISU, and really doesn't happen to other schools at the rate it does to Iowa State. The ref should have let it go a then replay decide, if he had stepped out of bounce or not. Watching this crap for over 40 years, one would think that it's about time we start getting the calls to fall our way.

I would hope at least we never get that ref again for the next couple of years.

 

[CYDJ]

Again, it's a horrible call. But it's such a loser mentality to always blame the refs. I'm just over it. The defense couldn't defend the pass and the offense took a 1/2 to decide they want to play. **** calls happen every game. Suck it up and play better.

They did play better, but got screwed out of a pretty decent chance at 7 points. Did they not play better there? Do they have to play better 100% of the time? Evidently, you don't think the officials have to.

Should they play better. Yes, you can always play better. You should not have to give up 29 yards of field position because of a bad whistle when that whistle is rarely blown in that situation.
Did the officials lose is the game alone. No. Did they affect the score at that point if the game. Yes. There is no denying that so stop making excuses for the officials.

 

[sunset]

The big 12 is corrupt. Has been for decades.

 

[danvillecyclone]

Letting a play “play out” doesn’t mean they would have to rule on the field he didn’t step out of bounds.

Just don’t blow the whistle.

Throw a bean bag or hat down just as if a receiver steps out prior to catching a pass. But don’t blow the whistle to stop play.

Then go back and say the ruling on the field is he stepped out.

and then review if necessary.

 

[CyNews]

Holy hell it wasn’t even close. It’s almost as if the ref just assumed he’d go out so blew it.

‘Un-believable’ — to quote the late, great Pete Taylor.

I'm not sure if you were there last night but the stadium was electric after that play. The cyclone players were jacked up, the kansas players were rattled and when it was moved back to the 31 everything flipped back. In the grand scheme of things you are right, it was one play but the momentum swing on that play was ENORMOUS