Well at least the Pac is admitting the ref's are blind and stupid, I saw this in Okanes article today: "Tedford said Pac-12 coordinator of football officiating Tony Corrente admitted the officiating crew made a mistake by penalizing Trevor Guyton for a personal foul late in the third quarter against Colorado. Guyton tackled Colorado RB Rodney Stewart after Cal linebacker Mychal Kendricks already had, but the whistle didn't blow until an instant before Guyton made contact."

Now if we can get to admit they blew the call on Edmonds' catch...

agreed...

it sounds like they could use your help I Bear... ;-)

:gobears:

no matter what you do, Pac-12 (and 10) refs are a joke

I Bear;568267 said:

---

Well at least the Pac is admitting the ref's are blind and stupid, I saw this in Okanes article today: "Tedford said Pac-12 coordinator of football officiating Tony Corrente admitted the officiating crew made a mistake by penalizing Trevor Guyton for a personal foul late in the third quarter against Colorado. Guyton tackled Colorado RB Rodney Stewart after Cal linebacker Mychal Kendricks already had, but the whistle didn't blow until an instant before Guyton made contact."

Now if we can get to admit they blew the call on Edmonds' catch...

---

So it seems that they were saying or agreeing that he was down, but that the whistle was late. It looked to me like he was not down...

Cal89;568283 said:

---

It looked to me like he was not down...

---

Not only that, but Stewart was acting like he was not down.

I Bear;568267 said:

---

Now if we can get to admit they blew the call on Edmonds' catch...

---

Good call. Bad rule. From my understanding the whole "finish the catch" business is similar to the Calvin Johnson fiasco last year. Terrible, terrible rule, but it's the right call.

I Bear;568267 said:

---

Well at least the Pac is admitting the ref's are blind and stupid, I saw this in Okanes article today: "Tedford said Pac-12 coordinator of football officiating Tony Corrente admitted the officiating crew made a mistake by penalizing Trevor Guyton for a personal foul late in the third quarter against Colorado. Guyton tackled Colorado RB Rodney Stewart after Cal linebacker Mychal Kendricks already had, but the whistle didn't blow until an instant before Guyton made contact."

Now if we can get to admit they blew the call on Edmonds' catch...

---

Without those penalties. Imagine that changes opinions of the team.

You guys should let it go becuase Cal won the game....if they hadn't, I'd be in it with you all.....but come to this weeks game, there will be plenty of blood for everybody's taste!

Cal89;568283 said:

---

So it seems that they were saying or agreeing that he was down, but that the whistle was late. It looked to me like he was not down...

---

Could not tell 100% from the replay angle about his left knee - it was behind Guyton - but it did not appear to go down.

Regardless of whether his knee was 100% down or not, the refs hadn't blown the whistle so the play was still alive when Guyton tackled him. That's the whole point, right? That's why it wasn't a late hit and the penalty was ridiculous.

ninetyfourbear;568345 said:

---

Could not tell 100% from the replay angle about his left knee - it was behind Guyton - but it did not appear to go down.

---

Doesn't matter, though. You don't play till a guy's knee is down. You play until this whistle blows. And the whistle didn't blow until after Guyton had come into contact with the ball carrier (or a fraction of a second before, where it was too late to stop).

when the ballcarrier goes out-of-bounds, when his knee, elbow, butt, shoulder, head, etc. touches the ground, when he drops a pass, or when he scores. The officials' whistles are absolute aids to stopping the play but not necessary for stopping the play.

RealBear65;568385 said:

---

when the ballcarrier goes out-of-bounds, when his knee, elbow, butt, shoulder, head, etc. touches the ground, when he drops a pass, or when he scores. The officials' whistles are absolute aids to stopping the play but not necessary for stopping the play.

---

Problem with that as an answer was shown in spades by the deciding play in last year's BCS Championship game. Out of bounds and scoring are pretty clear, dropped pass and elbow / knee not so clear cut if the ball carrier is still going as if the play is not over. Then the whistle is a necessity.

glad they came out and admitted it. that call definitely would've changed the game because they would've had to punt instead of scoring another long TD 3 plays later, but whose to say what would've happened even if they got the call right. just glad we won the game.

the edmond call was the correct call, the ball hit the ground, which was perfectly clear from the replays. you could see the ball move when he came down with it, and despite the fantastic catch he didn't have complete control of it, or his hand under the ball between the ball and the ground. it was an amazing effort and would've been a hell of a catch if they'd given it to him, but after seeing the replays it was evident that they made the right call. i don't know why people keep saying that was a bad call unless they weren't watching the game on TV...

dchu101;568294 said:

---

Good call. Bad rule. From my understanding the whole "finish the catch" business is similar to the Calvin Johnson fiasco last year. Terrible, terrible rule, but it's the right call.

---

That was Tompkin's idiotic commentary. Even with the rule in place, I still believe Edmonds completed his catch.

I Bear;568267 said:

---

Well at least the Pac is admitting the ref's are blind and stupid, I saw this in Okanes article today: "Tedford said Pac-12 coordinator of football officiating Tony Corrente admitted the officiating crew made a mistake by penalizing Trevor Guyton for a personal foul late in the third quarter against Colorado. Guyton tackled Colorado RB Rodney Stewart after Cal linebacker Mychal Kendricks already had, but the whistle didn't blow until an instant before Guyton made contact."

Now if we can get to admit they blew the call on Edmonds' catch...

---

If that had been called correctly CAL wins by 14 points in regulation

Cal89;568283 said:

---

So it seems that they were saying or agreeing that he was down, but that the whistle was late. It looked to me like he was not down...

---

He was still trying to run. He didn't think he was down. How many times have we seen a guy tackled but he never actually touches and spins around and keeps going? If I am the DC, I want my guy to make that hit.

Isn't it weird that the Pac-12 head of officials works in the NFL on Sundays.

Is that too much of a distraction?

Cal89;568283 said:

---

So it seems that they were saying or agreeing that he was down, but that the whistle was late. It looked to me like he was not down...

---

Agree. On the replay, it looked like the RB rolled over the tackle and his knee did not appear to hit the ground.

jesterno2;568425 said:

---

glad they came out and admitted it. that call definitely would've changed the game because they would've had to punt instead of scoring another long TD 3 plays later, but whose to say what would've happened even if they got the call right. just glad we won the game.

the edmond call was the correct call, the ball hit the ground, which was perfectly clear from the replays. you could see the ball move when he came down with it, and despite the fantastic catch he didn't have complete control of it, or his hand under the ball between the ball and the ground. it was an amazing effort and would've been a hell of a catch if they'd given it to him, but after seeing the replays it was evident that they made the right call. i don't know why people keep saying that was a bad call unless they weren't watching the game on TV...

---

i watched it and the replays never showed the ball hit the ground. It showed the ball shift, but show me the screenshot of the ball touching the ground, then I will agree it was the right call. Until then, I will say the ref assumed the ground moved the ball,

edit: Tedford said he saw the tip hit the ground, I'm guessing jesterno and tedford had higher def TVs. Mea culpa

That was a huge momentum changer. They went on to score and make a game of it. If they kick there and we score, the defense might force a turnover and blow it open.

BearEatsTacos;568430 said:

---

Even with the rule in place, I still believe Edmonds completed his catch.

---

Agree. I thought he caught it at the game, I thought he caught it on the replay at the game, and I thought he caught it the 12 or so times I've seen it on my DVR. The ball does move, but I never see it touch the ground. To my eye, the ball doesn't touch the ground until Edmonds gives the ball up.

BearEatsTacos;568430 said:

---

That was Tompkin's idiotic commentary. Even with the rule in place, I still believe Edmonds completed his catch.

---

AFAIK in the NFL part of the ball is allowed to touch the ground provided it doesn't move around when it does (i.e. you have the ball tucked in solidly, but the tip touches the ground). Since the ball doesn't seem to have moved around even though the tip did touch the ground, I think he still had control of the ball, so on Sundays it probably would have been ruled a catch.

The thought they would take that away never crossed my mind it looked so solid - live and on replay.

pingpong2;568620 said:

---

AFAIK in the NFL part of the ball is allowed to touch the ground provided it doesn't move around when it does (i.e. you have the ball tucked in solidly, but the tip touches the ground). Since the ball doesn't seem to have moved around even though the tip did touch the ground, I think he still had control of the ball, so on Sundays it probably would have been ruled a catch.

---

Yes, this was my understanding as well. My issue with the call is two-fold:

1. As soon as Edmond's knee hits the ground, he has two hands on the ball and it has not touched the ground yet. Isn't he supposed to be "down" right at that moment? If so, it's a catch.

2. After Edmond's knee hits, he rolls over while tucking the ball under his right arm, and the tip of the ball DOES touch the ground. However, it is securely pinned between his arm and his body when it does. If he's still in control when the ball hits the ground, shouldn't it count as a catch?

I don't know the exact detail of the rule, however if it is supposed to rule plays like that as incompletions, it seems to me that the rule sucks.

I thought he was down but a late whistle might excuse the hit. RBs often come off the deck as if the play is still live so you must play the whistle, not the RB's action.

He had the ball securely throughout the catch. Yes, part of the ball may have touched the ground but I didn't think that automatically negated the catch. He had that ball all the way through. He was shocked on the sideline when it was ruled incomplete. Absolutely should have been a catch. Bad Rule, Bad Call!

I was really upset at the Guyton penalty. There was no way that was a late hit. The whistle blew only milleseconds before he made contact, way too late for him to pull up [U]and[/U] the ball carrier was still trying to run after rolling over Kendricks.

The problem is, with replay, officials tend to blow their whistles late or not at all because they know once they blow the whistle the play is dead regardless of whatever a replay may show after the whistle. The officials still need to blow the play dead or we will see more "late" hits like this one.

If the Guyton call goes our way, we cruise to a comfortable win.

I Bear;568267 said:

---

Well at least the Pac is admitting the ref's are blind and stupid, I saw this in Okanes article today: "Tedford said Pac-12 coordinator of football officiating Tony Corrente admitted the officiating crew made a mistake by penalizing Trevor Guyton for a personal foul late in the third quarter against Colorado. Guyton tackled Colorado RB Rodney Stewart after Cal linebacker Mychal Kendricks already had, but the whistle didn't blow until an instant before Guyton made contact."

Now if we can get to admit they blew the call on Edmonds' catch...

---

Was there ever a doubt they blew it?

It happens.

The "catch" was not a blown call... bad rule maybe, but good call.

Is there video of the Guyton penalty online? I would like to see it again.

bigtuba1;568877 said:

---

He had the ball securely throughout the catch. Yes, part of the ball may have touched the ground but I didn't think that automatically negated the catch. He had that ball all the way through. He was shocked on the sideline when it was ruled incomplete. Absolutely should have been a catch. Bad Rule, Bad Call!

---

I'm going to sound like an old geezer but in the last 20-30 years it seems like it has gotten harder to make a diving "catch." Back in the day, if the receiver rolled over and he had the ball, it was almost always ruled a catch, unless a ref clearly saw a short hop before the catch. Nowadays, it's virtually impossible to make a diving catch - when the receiver dives, the ball is almost always going to hit the ground and when it does, of course the ball is going to "move." That doesn't mean the receiver lost control of the ball at any time. Yet time and again we see that pass ruled incomplete.

And in the same time period it has gotten a lot harder to fumble the ball. Back in the day, if the ball carrier hit the ground and the ball popped out, it was usually ruled a fumble. And with good reason IMO - the ball carrier needs to hold on to the ball. Plus it's a nice clear rule, meaning fewer disputes and fewer hard feelings about getting jobbed by the ref. Nowadays, it's just the opposite. It's usually ruled down by contact or at least overturned on replay.

I liked the way it was, on both counts.

sycasey;568697 said:

---

Yes, this was my understanding as well. My issue with the call is two-fold:

1. As soon as Edmond's knee hits the ground, he has two hands on the ball and it has not touched the ground yet. Isn't he supposed to be "down" right at that moment? If so, it's a catch.

2. After Edmond's knee hits, he rolls over while tucking the ball under his right arm, and the tip of the ball DOES touch the ground. However, it is securely pinned between his arm and his body when it does. If he's still in control when the ball hits the ground, shouldn't it count as a catch?

I don't know the exact detail of the rule, however if it is supposed to rule plays like that as incompletions, it seems to me that the rule sucks.

---

Regarding 1), you have to maintain possession of the ball even though you're down (this is assuming you didn't already have complete control of the ball prior to going down).

As for 2), I guess NCAA rules are much stricter on what constitutes a catch; I too would like to see them take the pro's approach of looking for control of the ball rather than making sure no inch of the pigskin contacts the turf.

pingpong2;569010 said:

---

(this is assuming you didn't already have complete control of the ball prior to going down).

---

It appeared to me that he did (two hands on the ball, taking a step).

alarsuel;568583 said:

---

Agree. I thought he caught it at the game, I thought he caught it on the replay at the game, and I thought he caught it the 12 or so times I've seen it on my DVR. The ball does move, but I never see it touch the ground. To my eye, the ball doesn't touch the ground until Edmonds gives the ball up.

---

If you look closely at the replay you'll see that his knee touches the ground BEFORE the tip of the ball does, therefore the play is over! The blind a** ref's blew this call also. Both of those calls changed the game and were bad calls when they were made these clowns ref's should be fined.:headbang

sycasey;569049 said:

---

It appeared to me that he did (two hands on the ball, taking a step).

---

I'd imagine that the metric used to determine if a receiver maintains control of a catch is the same used to determine if he subsequently fumbles. I'm not sure what the actual rule specifies, other than the "making a football move" cliche that every analyst and their mom uses.