Eleven Warriors

Gotta agree that it was a bad call.  However, I'm sure the wailing and gnashing of teeth will be unprecedented.

The replay official guideline is that he has to see definitive proof, beyond doubt, to overturn a call made on the field. Do not really know how anyone could say 100% that the ball wasn't starting to come out at the goal line. He extended prior to reaching the line and it could have started to come out and maybe it didn't. That's the point. No way to tell 100% for sure.

Not enough evidence to overturn the call on the field. I think that is a good understanding of the mandate of instant replay. There must be proof beyond any reasonable doubt that the call on the field was wrong. If they had called it a TD on the field it would have stayed a TD. Good understanding of the limitations of IR by the officials in my opinion. However, my opinion is worth about as much as plug nikel.

Edit: Groza you beat me to it.

Agree with the OP. It was absolutely a Penn State TD. I'm shocked that replay officials didn't overturn, but since I hate Penn State and love seeing them in misery I don't really give a $hit. :)

I didn't see the play so I don't know if it was BS, but man oh man is it fun to read BSD after a Penn State loss.

Yeah that was BS the replay booth said the ball was coming out before it crossed the goalline but I still saw two hands on the ball

That was close, though I do think it was a TD. N
Not even close to "worst call ever."

There was a shot of the replay booth after they called it and the officials were still talking about it.  Whooops.  I've learned this year that I definitely have a different definition of conclusive than they do.

Didnt see the play so cant make a call on that, but after reading recap on espn with McCloin complaining that they are never going to get that call because it's us against everyone else. Well that just gives me one more reason to root against them every time they play

^ you can't tell?!?  That was one of the worst calls of the year.  It was clearly a TD.   Though I have little sympathy for PSU, anyone with the gift of sight could see that that was an atrocious call.  I still don't know how they didn't get it right.

I know the crying and whining about the officiating in all of their games is at a fever pitch at BSD. I found this gem while reading through some comments after their game. They say they get screwed by the refs EVERY game so several are saying they should exit the B1G but this is fairly sad:

"the conference is very shady. wouldnt mind if we explored some options to leave. i know there is alot of money in the big10, but money isn’t as important as integrity."

I just hope PSU can teach the other B1G schools about integrity before they leave. Talk about having blinders on. Will it ever end? Will they ever get it and stfu?

Remember, Penn State and its fans claimed we held our way to a win.

BSD = Blogging Self-Deception. 

The ruling on the field was a fumble. Upon video review and through the filter of "indisputable video evidence", the referee stated, "the ruling on the field stands." So, the call was correct.

Like they did against us two weeks ago, Penn State had opportunities to defeat Nebraska. They were up 20-6, at one point! 

Even McGloin, arrived at the same conclusion - adding the fact of their -3 turnover margin to bolster the point:

http://videos.pennlive.com/patriot-news/2012/11/quarterback_matt_mcgloin...

My opinion about anything relating to State Pe...YAAWWWNNNN...Z...ZZ....ZZZ...ZZZZ

Bad call? Sure. Some complaining warranted? Sure. Matt McGloin going on a postgame rant about how it's a conspiracy that the refs are trying to screw them and the refs have it out for Penn State? No. Just...No. That is the typical PSU BS that we've all come to know and hate. A ref/replay official makes a bad call plain and simple and a PSUer has to turn it into an everyone's picking on us conspiracy.

The call was questionable... As many calls in college football are. The original call was that the ball was fumbled. Upon review, the ruling stood. I watched a program this morning on ESPNU that highlighted how referees go about preparing for a game, making calls, etc. They do film study about alignments, substitutions, specific situation probabilities, etc. Half of the time, the referees don't even know who ended up winning the game because they're so focused on making the calls correctly. 

And what's great about Brasky getting some love from the refs is that it screws ttun more than anyone!

Wow... not enough evidence? Shucks... what did they want?

I agree that its questionable, but can you tell me from that SBNation clip that without a doubt that ball didn't look like it was coming out a little.  I think it was a touchdown but I don't know if I'd consider that indisputable.

Bad call but if psu holds onto the ball it isn't even a question. By letting go of the ball they put themselves in a bad situation, if he holds on there isn't even a review warranted

Beyond a reasonable doubt means that no reasonable person could have any doubt about the call. I don't think you can say that. I am 99% sure that it was a TD which means that I couldn't overturn the call on the field. 1% doubt is enough to let the call stand.

Likely and beyond a reasonable doubt are categorically different things. Likely doesn't fall under the umbrella of beyond a reasonable doubt.

This is the legal definition:

The standard that must be met by the prosecution's evidence in a criminal prosecution: that no other logical explanation can be derived from the facts except that the defendant committed the crime, thereby overcoming the presumption that a person is innocent until proven guilty.

If the jurors or judge have no doubt as to the defendant's guilt, or if their only doubts are unreasonable doubts, then the prosecutor has proven the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and the defendant should be pronounced guilty.

I would say that there was the presence of reasonable doubt, thus the call on the field stands. If the call on the field had been TD then they would have upheld the call.

Also, I was using 99% as a hypothetical. I would say I am more 70% TD, 30% fumble.

BoB is definitely a gamechanger for them. Unfortunately for him, the reduced scholarships will also be a gamechanger. 

I loved watching PSU lose, I am sick of their fans.

Poor PSU. They are the victims here.

Screw all of them.

here is why i hate the rule of "all the ball has to do is cross the line to be a TD" if that play happened anywhere else on the field it's an obviously fumble. There would be no review of the play, no "controversy" over the call. and this post would have never happened. I say, finish the play, if the player dives and the ball is striped before the player hits the ground, its a fumble, regardless if you cross the goal line or not. (I know thats not what the rule says). same with players who catch a ball in the back of the endzone and when the hit the ground out of bounds they need to show possession.

The other call I can remember that compares to this was the purdue game where Braxton fell on a fumble was on the ground no one around him and Short fell down in front of him reached in braxtons arms and pulled the ball out and the officials didn't overturn it

@1styrbuckiclub

Curious to hear what the refs did to help Michigan win.

I personally do believe that was a touchdown; my wife and 2 year-old daughter even said it was a touchdown.  And, yes, 4dorr, they still lost, and one play doesn't decide a game unless it's the last play of the game.  However, there is a lot more to it than to say it's just another play.

If that's a TD, there is at least 2 min back on the clock, Nebraska doesn't punt and drive PSU back inside their 5 yard line which means there isn't a safety and PSU doesn't immediately lose possession.

Had it been called a touchdown initially, it wouldn't have been overturned, either.  I don't believe that the freeze-frame provides completely indisputable evidence that he scored.  The moment before the image freezes shows the ball tilt slightly as it crosses the plane (watch it closely, the ball shifts forward in his hands): this could be indicative of the ball being extended by Lehman, or it could be indicative of the ball slipping out of his hands--something that happened moments later as the hit spun him sideways.

I admit it's plausable that he maintained enough hold on the ball as he crossed the plane, but refs have to deal in absolutes. 

Since when did our officials become SEC refs, rooting for the higher ranked (or in the case of OSU, the more bowl-eligible) team?

I watched the game.  My first thought at seeing the play live was that he fumbled and it was not a TD.  I can completely understand the on the field call.  Upon the replays, it looked like he might (and I emphasize MIGHT) have crossed the goal line before he fumbled - again, my opinion.  I can understand how the replay officials upheld the call on the field. 

That said, it is now time for my coach speak. 

1. Football sense - as was pointed out earlier in this thread, it was 2nd and goal.  No need to reach for the endzone and risk a potential fumble.  PSU had been moving the ball well in short yardage.  Hold on to the ball and live for another down - only reach for like that on 4th down.  Never give the refs the opportunity to blow a call.  Even when you look at the replay Hodge posted above you can tell that if the back had taken care of the ball and held it close to his body he still had a good chance of scoring.  Reaching for the goal line when there is no contact immanent is much different than reaching for the goal line when you have 3 (three) tacklers hitting you.  Play smart football!

And 2 - this it the most important point - Ball Security!  Always hand the ball to the ref at the end of the play.  I have preached this before on here, with some agreeing and some not.  But, the best way to insure that you have possession at the end of a play is to get up and hand the ball to the ref.  THAT is indisputable evidence that there was no fumble. 

NW Buckeye: as usual, great comment!

Only one very minor caveat: I don't mind when a ballcarrier is going out of bounds and kind of reaches the ball out to get an extra yard, as long as the worst case scenario is that he loses the ball out of bounds. Moreover, even if it's not 3rd or 4th down, I don't mind when a ballcarrier is angling toward the goalline pylon and reaches the ball out (with both hands firmly gripped on the ball!) to touch the pylon, and thus break the plane, even though this will occassionally result in the ballcarrier subsequently losing the ball - after the TD - when a defender swats the offending ball in "sour grapes" fashion.

Hodge: excellent point, but I assumed the possession rules to be a bit different for a ballcarrier versus a player receiving the ball, in part for reasons you mention.

Even if a receiver has complete control of the ball right after it hits his hands, he still also has to 1). get at least one foot down and then 2). "maintain possession through the act" if he's in the process of hitting the ground or "make a football move" in the field of play, for him to have been ruled in possession of the ball (and thus it being declared a "catch").

That's not the case for a ballcarrier who has previously had possession of the ball. Hypothetically, if a RB leaped into the air to catch a bad pitchout from the QB, was crushed by a defender and fumbled before hitting the ground, he would be said to have momentarily possessed the ball.

Run Fido - Excellent comment in reply to mine.  Your points are covered under Football Sense.  A great player knows when to reach and when not to reach.  My feelings about handing the ball to the refs really have to do with everything that is in the field of play - particularly when you have 2 more downs to score!  It also applies to diving into the endzone when there is a possiblity of the refs pulling a bonehead move and somehow calling a TD a fumble.  Don't leave the ruling in their hands, leave the ball in their hands!!!!!

Optomistic - I coached many HS kids who were easily taught football sense and still gave the effort.  Yes, some are bricks and don't absorb much.  This is college ball, and if we are to believe all the academic records of PSU players, they seem to be intelligent enough to understand football sense and ball security - particularly on 2nd and goal!  I think it boils down to this - some kids naturally have football sense, some kids can be taught it, and some will never get it, they just happen to be good because they have the physical tools.