71Bear;842550827 said:

---

Heck, upon further thought, even Treggs' play was called right. You must control the ball through the entire sequence. He dropped the ball after going OB (which is not relevant to the play - control the ball through the ENTIRE play).....

---

Wrong. Mike Pierria (sp?) knows more than you do on this, and I trust his opinion. The controlling through the catch only comes in when you don't yet have full possession and you are falling to the ground. Once he made a football move common to the game (which he did when he torqued his body towards the sideline) he had possession, then his elbow hit the ground (so he's down) and the ball came out. It was a bad call, especially to overturn the call on the field, which was a catch.

GranadaHillsBear;842550880 said:

---

It's been established he actually was injured. The controversy is the fact he was told down right there. He looked well enough to run off the field then stop and turn around and then fall down. He should have kept running. If he was that really hurt then why didn't he stay down on the previous play? The boos were completely justified.

---

So we're okay with booing college players because they got injured and their coach told them to lay down to stop the play, when the team called a TO because he wasn't going to get off the field anyway? Really? Booing an injured player is okay? Awesome. Good to know.

Vandalus;842550907 said:

---

So we're okay with booing college players because they got injured and their coach told them to lay down to stop the play, when the team called a TO because he wasn't going to get off the field anyway? Really? Booing an injured player is okay? Awesome. Good to know.

---

Maybe they were booing the situation and not the player per se. Seeing what I saw at the time, I would be booing, but it would be directed at the coach....hell, you could tell the kid was ordered to do what he did......

I disagree. Given what I have seen the last couple years, it wasn't a catch. Since it was reversed, this time Mike P. was wrong.

71Bear;842550920 said:

---

I disagree. Given what I have seen the last couple years, it wasn't a catch. Since it was reversed, this time Mike P. was wrong.

---

I bet you can't even find a Texas fan who thinks that wasn't a catch

GranadaHillsBear;842550880 said:

---

It's been established he actually was injured. The controversy is the fact he was told down right there. He looked well enough to run off the field then stop and turn around and then fall down. He should have kept running. If he was that really hurt then why didn't he stay down on the previous play? The boos were completely justified.

---

You obviously missed my previous post where I said, "The Cal section booed loudly after he went down, and even more as he was being helped off. At the time, given what we had seen, I think it was justified."

I was saying Xultaif owes an apology for saying a day later, "And I'm sure he'll play this coming Saturday with no mention of his condition."

grandmastapoop;842550859 said:

---

You might owe an apology here, my friend:

@AutulloAAS
LB Ed Freeman tells me he is out 6-8 weeks with shoulder injury. Will have X-ray today to decide if surgery needed.

---

Well to quote Colonel Jessup from A Few Good Men

Quote:

---

Don't I feel like the fucking asshole

---

Took a peek at this play/sequence during lunch. A few observations:

1) The TX LB was the one who tackled Watson on the previous play, and it was a pretty big collision. Watson was accelerating to try to score and the LB absorbed the hit to his chest area and drove both down to the ground out of bounds.

2) Because the previous play was out of bounds, the clock was already stopped. The TX player going down didn't stop the clock.

3) We substituted, so the refs were going to hold the snap no matter what.

4) All of this just so happened to straddle the 1 minute mark remaining in the first half. The rules allow a 10 second runoff by the other team if only an opposing player is injured within the final minute of a half. The rules also allow the hurt player's team to avoid that runoff by calling a TO if they have one. It's possible the TX coaches had some confusion about these rules implications given the timing of the play and were thinking with an eye towards getting the ball back with enough time to try to score. This is supported by the fact that when they did get the ball back, they were aggressive and we got the pick and scored again.

5) As many have noted, the TX player clearly started to run off the field and then was instructed to sit down from the sideline. It's possible the time sequencing mentioned above caused confusion on the TX sideline regarding what the best strategy would be and what consequences would flow from different courses of action.

Bottom line I revise my earlier comments to wish the TX player a speedy recovery and apologize to BAHorn. While the TX player may have been able to run off the field (yes it appears he easily could have), he doesn't and shouldn't [u]have to[/u] do that. He's fully within the letter and spirit of the rules imo to stay on the field and stop play.

Probably couldn't find a Cowboys fan who thought Bryant failed to catch the ball in last year's playoffs or a Raiders fan who thought Brady didn't fumble the ball years ago. It is not relevant what fans think. The only thing that matters are the rules and whether they are being interpreted according to how they are written.

xultaif;842550943 said:

---

Well to quote Colonel Jessup from A Few Good Men

---

Classy tweet, Ken. I think we all feel a little bad today, having heard the news.

71Bear;842550960 said:

---

Probably couldn't find a Cowboys fan who thought Bryant failed to catch the ball in last year's playoffs or a Raiders fan who thought Brady didn't fumble the ball years ago. It is not relevant what fans think. The only thing that matters are the rules and whether they are being interpreted according to how they are written.

---

There's a difference. Those calls went against the Cowboys and the Raiders. I don't think you can find a Texas fan who doesn't think that was a catch, even knowing and fully applying the rules.

dajo9;842550971 said:

---

There's a difference. Those calls went against the Cowboys and the Raiders. I don't think you can find a Texas fan who doesn't think that was a catch, even knowing and fully applying the rules.

---

I watched that play at least 10 times (including the slo mo) - looked like a catch to me. I'm maybe not as up to speed on the letter of the ruling, but he controlled that ball and then went out of bounds. I think his knee even hit, didn't it?

Guys, a time out was called. Why is this thread 6 pages?

BayAreaHorn;842550994 said:

---

I watched that play at least 10 times (including the slo mo) - looked like a catch to me. I'm maybe not as up to speed on the letter of the ruling, but he controlled that ball and then went out of bounds. I think his knee even hit, didn't it?

---

Did he control the ball even after going OB? If not, it is not a catch. I saw two plays in the NFL yesterday that were identical to Treggs' play. Both were ruled incomplete.

71Bear;842551078 said:

---

Did he control the ball even after going OB? If not, it is not a catch. I saw two plays in the NFL yesterday that were identical to Treggs' play. Both were ruled incomplete.

---

So you've got the most esteemed officiating expert in the country - with no loyalties - saying it was a bad call, and Texas fans saying it was a bad call... yet you're still arguing it wasn't a bad call...

71Bear;842550960 said:

---

Probably couldn't find a Cowboys fan who thought Bryant failed to catch the ball in last year's playoffs or a Raiders fan who thought Brady didn't fumble the ball years ago. It is not relevant what fans think. The only thing that matters are the rules and whether they are being interpreted according to how they are written.

---

Correct, what matters are the rules and whether they are being interpreted according to how they are written. Unfortunately, there isn't anything near universal agreement about how the rules on a catch should be interpreted. They are written in a manner that is WAY too open to different interpretations. Or, as Ted Robinson said during the 49ers broadcast yesterday (and has said other times before that), nobody knows what a catch is anymore.

Last year, the Lawler TD was reversed on replay review. Pereira said the reversal was wrong. Ultimately, the Pac-12 said the reversal was wrong. David Shaw said, "If that was a catch, then I don't know what a catch it." Of course Shaw doesn't know what a catch is, because as Ted Robinson said, nobody does anymore. I'm not sure what the huge difference is between the call 2 days ago and the Lawler call in the Big Game. They seemed like pretty similar plays to me, the only real difference being that the ball broke the plane of the goal line in one case before the receiver landed out of bounds and lost the ball.

Fans don't necessarily think all calls that go against them are wrong. While the 49ers are my second favorite NFL team, my favorite team in the NFL is whoever is playing the Cowboys. My third favorite is whoever happens to have my favorite ex-Bears on the team at the time, which makes the Packers up there at number 3 right now, so in the Cowboys-Packers game last year, the Packers were both my favorite and my 3rd favorite team in the league. I really wanted the Packers to beat the Cowboys. Nonetheless, I thought Bryant's play was a catch. I was REAL happy it was ruled no catch. But if it wasn't a catch, then the rules are stupid.

Was the play Saturday a catch? I didn't know then, I don't know now. And neither does anyone else. What I know is that it SHOULD be a catch.

So watching the replay... as we suspected in the stadium... the first drive of the game, that was an AWFUL spot to not give us the first down.

Also on our second possession you can hear a very loud Roll On You Bears.

Also, seeing the Treggs call for the first time, that was an AWFUL!!!!!! call. Anyone who argues otherwise is just being ridiculous.

Yep. I have heard Mike P. disagree with the outcome of calls (following replay) many times. He is not infallible.

As for fans, that is laughable. As this string has demonstrated, many fans do not understand the rules of the game. How can they be expected to interpret them correctly?

71Bear;842551128 said:

---

Yep. I have heard Mike P. disagree with the outcome of calls (following replay) many times. He is not infallible.

As for fans, that is laughable. As this string has demonstrated, many fans do not understand the rules of the game. How can they be expected to interpret them correctly?

---

Let's review the rule:

Quote:

---

ARTICLE 3
a. To catch a ball means that a player:
1. Secures control of a live ball in flight with his hands or arms before the
ball touches the ground, and
2. Touches the ground in bounds with any part of his body, and then
3. Maintains control of the ball long enough to enable him to perform an act
common to the game, ie, long enough to pitch or hand the ball, advance it, avoid or ward off an opponent, etc, and
4. Satisfies paragraphs b, c, and d below.

b. If a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass (with or without contact by an opponent) he must maintain complete and continuous control of the ball throughout the process of contacting the ground, whether in the field of play or in the end zone. This is also required for a player attempting to make a catch at the sideline and going to the ground out of bounds. If he loses control of the ball which
then touches the ground before he regains control, it is not a catch. If he regains control inbounds prior to the ball touching the ground it is a catch.

c. If the player loses control of the ball while simultaneously touching the ground with any part of his body, or if there is doubt that the acts were simultaneous, it is not a catch. If a player has control of the ball, a slight movement of the ball, even if it touches the ground, will not be considered loss of possession; he must lose control of the ball in order for there to be a loss of possession.

d. If the ball touches the ground after the player secures control and continues to maintain control, and the elements above are satisfied, it is a catch.

---

You seem to think that Treggs "goes to the ground in the act of catching" the pass (section b). Many here disagree, as did the announcers, Mike Pereira, and just about everybody else. Treggs caught the ball (a1). Took multiple steps (a2). And then DOVE (a3). Prior to the dive, he had made the catch and was running (albeit bent forward) (a3). Once he dove and his knee touched the ground, he was down and the play should have ended. The ref right in front of the play saw it the same way, and a single official in the booth overturned it. He was no longer in the process of making the catch when he went to the ground.

grandmastapoop;842551141 said:

---

Let's review the rule:



You seem to think that Treggs "goes to the ground in the act of catching" the pass (section b). Many here disagree, as did the announcers, Mike Pereira, and just about everybody else. Treggs caught the ball (a1). Took multiple steps (a2). And then DOVE (a3). Prior to the dive, he had made the catch and was running (albeit bent forward) (a3). Once he dove and his knee touched the ground, he was down and the play should have ended. The ref right in front of the play saw it the same way, and a single official in the booth overturned it. He was no longer in the process of making the catch when he went to the ground.

---

Like you said, if Treggs was judged to be going to the ground in the act of a catch it was the right call. I do not believe that was the case. However I am sure that if he would have lost the ball in bounds and it was recovered by Texas, the replay would have ruled a catch and a fumble.

dajo9;842550535 said:

---

If anyone thinks the officiating was good I recommend they go watch a replay of Texas' 2nd touchdown drive. 2nd and 13 at their own 2 Heard runs for 34 past Broussard who was being blatantly held for a good, long time. Next play Gray runs for 15 yards past Kragen who was being just as blatantly held.

While the 1st half was filled with bad calls (non-calls) in Texas' favor, I do believe the 2nd half was more evenly called.

---

Look, saying the officiating was good is a relative measure. I'd take that officiating crew over any Pac 12 crew any day. In fact, can we hire that crew for our home games this year? If for no other reason than to rub some more mud in the Pac 12's eye.

Go Bears!!

I do not disagree that it should have been a catch. But the rules do not allow for that to be the case. Yesterday, Bruce Miller of the Niners had a similar play waved off (caught the ball in the EZ and controlled it until falling OB. At that point he dropped it).

Unfortunately, the current rules do not allow for either Miller or Treggs to be credited with a catch.

Logy;842551143 said:

---

Like you said, if Treggs was judged to be going to the ground in the act of a catch it was the right call. I do not believe that was the case. However I am sure that if he would have lost the ball in bounds and it was recovered by Texas, the replay would have ruled a catch and a fumble.

---

And 71Bear would have been saying GREAT CALL!!!

71Bear;842551163 said:

---

I do not disagree that it should have been a catch. But the rules do not allow for that to be the case. Yesterday, Bruce Miller of the Niners had a similar play waved off (caught the ball in the EZ and controlled it until falling OB. At that point he dropped it).

Unfortunately, the current rules do not allow for either Miller or Treggs to be credited with a catch.

---

You are free to disagree that it was a catch under the rules, if you think Treggs had not completed the catch before going to the ground. But the rules do allow for it to be a catch, and I've just showed you how.

I was afraid that they were going to apply the tuck rule on Heard's fumble. Jalil did a great job in penetrating an that play. Tregg's play was the only one that I thought was bad - it should have never been reviewed. That play actually lead to some interesting consequences. Texas got called for targeting on the next play. And the player who replaced the ejected player cause the fumble on Muhammed near the goal line.

The tuck rule is no more. It was changed a couple years ago.

71Bear;842551078 said:

---

Did he control the ball even after going OB? If not, it is not a catch. I saw two plays in the NFL yesterday that were identical to Treggs' play. Both were ruled incomplete.

---

I admit I don't know the rule to the letter - if he had been in bounds and knee hits he was clearly still controlling. I'd have to rewatch to see where he lost control relative to OB. That said to "my eyes" as they showed the replay multiple times it was a catch. But they reviewed it extensively and said no catch.

anyone know when the texas OL took out our guys knees?

ecb;842552234 said:

---

anyone know when the texas OL took out our guys knees?

---

I think it was 3rd quarter some time, but I'd have to go back and review. They showed it clearly on a replay - though he didn't get our guys knee thanks to some fancy footwork.

BayAreaHorn;842550592 said:

---

I'm not defending the act - and we called a timeout anyway. But fans here are making it a HUGE deal, yet most here seemed plenty OK with it against Oregon.

---

Calling a timeout AFTER is meaningless if it prevented us from snapping the ball and taking the 12 man penalty. It's just an excuse. Also saying we were OK with it against Oregon is BS, many were quite mad about it. This is a classic two wrongs don't make a right situation. We were wrong when we did it, you are wrong now. That's like Tom Brady and his "everyone cheats" argument.

-kap

BayAreaHorn;842551501 said:

---

I admit I don't know the rule to the letter - if he had been in bounds and knee hits he was clearly still controlling. I'd have to rewatch to see where he lost control relative to OB. That said to "my eyes" as they showed the replay multiple times it was a catch. But they reviewed it extensively and said no catch.

---

BayAreaHorn, until Cal goes to the Rose Bowl, 71Bear will always think everything Cal does is wrong. This is the perfect example. EVERYONE says it was a bad call, including Texas fans, but since we haven't been to the Rose Bowl in 50+ years.....

BerlinerBaer;842551041 said:

---

Guys, a time out was called. Why is this thread 6 pages?

---

Good point. And why am I reading it?