Not that it matters but you can see clearly in this new angle that it's not a catch. Player was bobbling it with two feet in the air. Unfortunate that replay still doesn't have high definition angles. This reminds me of the Davante Adams catch on MNF that was overturned after replay to not a catch.

.@Montana_L_Craig is HIM. pic.twitter.com/EYqIngbeOZ

— Colorado Buffaloes Football (@CUBuffsFootball) October 15, 2022

His foot clearly touched in bounds.
He had control and possession.
Youre mistaken.

Game over

DiabloWags said:

---

His foot clearly touched in bounds.
He had control and possession.
Youre mistaken.

---

You can clearly see that his two feet are in the air while he is still collecting possession.
You're mistaken.

Gotta go with Chunky here. The worst part is that there's no way it should have been overturned--you can"t call it conclusive evidence that he caught it inbounds.

Again--it doesn't matter at this point. There's no way we should have been in OT to begin with.

DiabloWags said:

---

His foot clearly touched in bounds.
He had control and possession.
Youre mistaken.

---

I listened to Starkey in the car.
Starkey and Pawlawski both thought he was juggling it when that foot was down. I haven't yet seen.



Eh, what the heck. They were winless. At home. Look how happy it made them. Who cares. It's not like our season was going anywhere.

I watched all the replays, I believe it was a catch, and the correct call.

That said, even if it was the wrong call. it does not excuse the bears from dropping 2 touchdowns in overtime, or the overall incompetence and ignorance of one Mr. Bill Musgrave.

The ball is definitely still moving in his hands after his cleat comes down. Is it a catch, anyway? It's close. I don't know what the exact standard of proof is, but that is not a call on which the on-the-field call should be reversed. I would say the same if the official had ruled that a catch.

But, as said above, it's the Bears' own fault that the game went to overtime.

I still dont get why stroud isnt their starting qb

Bro throws a rocket

IMO it was too close to overturn and shouldn't have been called that way.

Also, we did not deserve to win.

gardenstatebear said:

---

The ball is definitely still moving in his hands after his cleat comes down. Is it a catch, anyway? It's close. I don't know what the exact standard of proof is, but that is not a call on which the on-the-field call should be reversed. I would say the same if the official had ruled that a catch.

But, as said above, it's the Bears' own fault that the game went to overtime.

---

SECTION 7. Reversing an On-Field Ruling

Criterion for Reversal ARTICLE 1. To reverse an on-field ruling, the replay official must be convinced beyond all doubt by indisputable video evidence through one or more video replays provided to the monitor.

as written its a super high standard that is frequently ignored by the officials on close calls. I think on plays like this the on-field call shouldn't take precedence over much better replay footage if it's that close but that's not the rule.

It is close enough that whatever was called on the field should stand. That said, we shouldn't have been in the situation to begin with.

My question is why wasn't the Starling catch considered possession. He does not have to pull it into his chest to have possession. He caught it with his hands and was relaxing because he knew he had possession. In the field of play, a defender can knock it out later. But in the endzone it is instantaneous because he does not have to do anything further. He caught it. It was knocked out after he caught it, not before he caught it. You cannot knock out a ball that has already been caught in the end zone. In any case, if you have to bring the ball in to your chest then the Colorado catch wasn't a TD either.

Anyway you cut it, both catches were identical in terms of the definition of possession.
So why was one catch that was ruled incomplete and was then overturned without full video proof ruled a TD and the other wasn't? That's the question to me.

But, I also agree that Cal deserved to lose.
Mind you that neither play cost Cal a victory.
All that Starling's catch would have done is forced a second OT.
Colorado wanted it more and would have found a way to win anyway.
Cal would have found a way to lose because they were finding ways to lose all game.

The sad truth is that this game was far more important to Cal, which had a bowl season on the line as well as the health of the program. The Buffs aren't going anywhere this season and they are recruiting much better than Cal so losing didn't really matter and yet the coaches, the student body, the fans, the players and the community all cared about this game way more than the Cal players and coaches did.

And Wilcox can say what he wants about that but it was very obvious and it showed throughout.

This is not why we lost the game.

We had 19 yards rushing after 3 quarters against the 131st ranked rushing defense in the Nation.

DiabloWags said:

---

This is not why we lost the game.

We had 19 yards rushing after 3 quarters against the 131st ranked rushing defense in the Nation.

---

Did he say it was why we lost the game?

heartofthebear said:

---

My question is why wasn't the Starling catch considered possession. He does not have to pull it into his chest to have possession. He caught it with his hands and was relaxing because he knew he had possession. In the field of play, a defender can knock it out later. But in the endzone it is instantaneous because he does not have to do anything further. He caught it. It was knocked out after he caught it, not before he caught it. You cannot knock out a ball that has already been caught in the end zone. In any case, if you have to bring the ball in to your chest then the Colorado catch wasn't a TD either.

Anyway you cut it, both catches were identical in terms of the definition of possession.
So why was one catch that was ruled incomplete and was then overturned without full video proof ruled a TD and the other wasn't? That's the question to me.

---

The Colorado guy maintained possession all the way to the ground. The current rules want you to maintain even as you're being tackled, not just have instantaneous possession once it's in your hands. That includes the end zone.

So I actually think it's right that Starling's "catch" was ruled incomplete. And the issue for the Colorado TD is not whether or not he caught it, it's whether or not his foot was down in bounds first. IMO that part was unclear.

I'm w/DWags & G Sloth; it was legit call by the ref. And re; the game - they definitely wanted it more than we did. Shame on Wilcox for game preparation, Musgrave for play calling & players for not wanting it bad enough! We played like our goal is to finish 12th in the conference.

I didn't say this is why we lost the game. I was just pointing out that it wasn't a catch. Thanks for reading.

sycasey said:

---

heartofthebear said:

---

My question is why wasn't the Starling catch considered possession. He does not have to pull it into his chest to have possession. He caught it with his hands and was relaxing because he knew he had possession. In the field of play, a defender can knock it out later. But in the endzone it is instantaneous because he does not have to do anything further. He caught it. It was knocked out after he caught it, not before he caught it. You cannot knock out a ball that has already been caught in the end zone. In any case, if you have to bring the ball in to your chest then the Colorado catch wasn't a TD either.

Anyway you cut it, both catches were identical in terms of the definition of possession.
So why was one catch that was ruled incomplete and was then overturned without full video proof ruled a TD and the other wasn't? That's the question to me.

---

The Colorado guy maintained possession all the way to the ground. The current rules want you to maintain even as you're being tackled, not just have instantaneous possession once it's in your hands. That includes the end zone.

So I actually think it's right that Starling's "catch" was ruled incomplete. And the issue for the Colorado TD is not whether or not he caught it, it's whether or not his foot was down in bounds first. IMO that part was unclear.

---

Starling was already standing on the ground flat footed. He was not in the air. He caught it with his hands, was starting to relax because he had caught it and then it was knocked out. How is that not a catch. The hands can catch the ball. It does not have to be brought into the body. We see this all of the time.

heartofthebear said:

---

sycasey said:

---

heartofthebear said:

---

My question is why wasn't the Starling catch considered possession. He does not have to pull it into his chest to have possession. He caught it with his hands and was relaxing because he knew he had possession. In the field of play, a defender can knock it out later. But in the endzone it is instantaneous because he does not have to do anything further. He caught it. It was knocked out after he caught it, not before he caught it. You cannot knock out a ball that has already been caught in the end zone. In any case, if you have to bring the ball in to your chest then the Colorado catch wasn't a TD either.

Anyway you cut it, both catches were identical in terms of the definition of possession.
So why was one catch that was ruled incomplete and was then overturned without full video proof ruled a TD and the other wasn't? That's the question to me.

---

The Colorado guy maintained possession all the way to the ground. The current rules want you to maintain even as you're being tackled, not just have instantaneous possession once it's in your hands. That includes the end zone.

So I actually think it's right that Starling's "catch" was ruled incomplete. And the issue for the Colorado TD is not whether or not he caught it, it's whether or not his foot was down in bounds first. IMO that part was unclear.

---

Starling was already standing on the ground flat footed. He was not in the air. He caught it with his hands, was starting to relax because he had caught it and then it was knocked out. How is that not a catch. The hands can catch the ball. It does not have to be brought into the body. We see this all of the time.

---

Problem is that the defender knocked it out almost as soon as it hit his hands, like within a split second. That's going to be called incomplete every time.

chunkybear said:

---

I didn't say this is why we lost the game. I was just pointing out that it wasn't a catch. Thanks for reading.

---

I never claimed you said that.

And Im not the only person that has posted in this thread that "this is not why we lost the game".

Have a nice day.

Just fyi you "replied" to my post so I took it that way. But we're both on the same page. No worries.

[note: Cal missed two field goals - six points]

Dgoldnbaer said:

---

I'm w/DWags & G Sloth; it was legit call by the ref. And re; the game - they definitely wanted it more than we did. Shame on Wilcox for game preparation, Musgrave for play calling & players for not wanting it bad enough! We played like our goal is to finish 12th in the conference.

---

Well, Colorado wanted it more so they got the call. Makes sense.

There is a lot of self-hate around here right now, but let's not lose sight of reality.

this is not the ND field goal offsides call. that was criminal

I'd say it was very close, but don't have an issue with the final ruling

I think we would have an issue if this was a more meaningful game for the program. Say we were 5-0.

DiabloWags said:

---

His foot clearly touched in bounds.
He had control and possession.
Youre mistaken.

---

Wasn't the call overturned?

Neither angle was definitive. The replay blew the call. If it is arguable, it shouldn't have been overturned?

Regardless, Colorado is the better team. Cal is a faceplanting team. Reminds me of the 2007 big game. Just... What can you do. The coaches and players don't want to win.

Are we still talking about this?
Really???

This is the least of our issues.

Great view of this play and it's definitely not a catch. Both feet in the air as he's still trying to secure the ball. But, it counted and the #cubuffs got a much-needed break to get today's win (great play by MLC either way!) https://t.co/wBySIZzBmG

— Brian Howell (@BrianHowell33) October 16, 2022

Not that this changes the fact the offense is putrid...

ColoradoBear said:

---

Great view of this play and it's definitely not a catch. Both feet in the air as he's still trying to secure the ball. But, it counted and the #cubuffs got a much-needed break to get today's win (great play by MLC either way!) https://t.co/wBySIZzBmG

— Brian Howell (@BrianHowell33) October 16, 2022

Not that this changes the fact the offense is putrid...

---

Definitely not a catch. Definitely not something conclusive to overturn. That said, the offense is putrid.

KoreAmBear said:

---

ColoradoBear said:

---

Great view of this play and it's definitely not a catch. Both feet in the air as he's still trying to secure the ball. But, it counted and the #cubuffs got a much-needed break to get today's win (great play by MLC either way!) https://t.co/wBySIZzBmG

— Brian Howell (@BrianHowell33) October 16, 2022

Not that this changes the fact the offense is putrid...

---

Definitely not a catch. Definitely not something conclusive to overturn. That said, the offense is putrid.

---

Definitely a catch. Definitely something conclusive to overturn. That said, the offense is putrid.

I didn't realize the Cal defender got his hand on the ball based on the TV replay angles. Looks like it forced the receiver to adjust the ball in his hands which occurred after his foot left the ground.

Based on video review I don't think there was enough to overturn it either way (if it has been called a catch it would have stood, if it was called not a catch it should have been overturned).

That said, in the spirit of the game, my gut says that's a catch, and an amazing one at that. Meanwhile, our receivers are dropping balls right in the bread basket. Twice.

Notre Dame was frustrating as all get out based on a truly horrendous indefensible bad call early on that completely changed the tone of the game. This was not that. This was an amazing bang bang play where the Buffs clearly wanted it more than we did. The long catch that set up their TD on the trick play was similar. We actually defended it pretty well, the receiver just wanted it more.

Dgoldnbaer said:

---

KoreAmBear said:

---

ColoradoBear said:

---

Great view of this play and it's definitely not a catch. Both feet in the air as he's still trying to secure the ball. But, it counted and the #cubuffs got a much-needed break to get today's win (great play by MLC either way!) https://t.co/wBySIZzBmG

— Brian Howell (@BrianHowell33) October 16, 2022

Not that this changes the fact the offense is putrid...

---

Definitely not a catch. Definitely not something conclusive to overturn. That said, the offense is putrid.

---

Definitely a catch. Definitely something conclusive to overturn. That said, the offense is putrid.

---

Only way you call that a catch is if you go by the still shot of his foot down and the ball in his hand for the split second. He bobbled it right after that, both feet off the ground.

I obviously see it differently. Oh and BTW; while in kindergarten I was taught it's OK to agree to disagree!

Not that another voice is needed in this discussion, but in my view, it was probably a catch. If they had called it a catch on the field, the clear result of replay should have been "call stands." But it was not called a catch on the field, and I do not think the video review comes even close to the standard to overturn the call on the field. It should still have been "call stands" even if the officials thought it was probably a catch. That's just the way the rule works, whether you like it or not.

As for Starling, he got lazy, or cocky, or a little of both, and didn't fully secure the ball. As much as I believe he in fact had total control of the ball with both feet on the ground, the quick timing makes it really hard to call it a catch. I'd like to know what the rule is in that situation - plainly, the normal "football move" standard can't apply in the end zone, because there is no "football move" to be completed once you have possession in the end zone, but I'm pretty sure I would have called it incomplete given how fast it all happened, and despite my heart desperately wanting a different result. I also suspect that's a mistake Starling won't make again.

And did these things cost us the game? Perhaps. If the first call stands and Starling is ruled a catch, we win. But there were so many other things that led to our demise, many of which were brought up above, and I agree that getting to a second overtime likely still would have led to a loss given how the teams were playing. It was about the worst game I've watched as a fan, going back to 1991.