Gio non-first down and penalty

[bigbirdru]

Anyone disagree that this was a brutal blown call? He clearly hit the ground beyond the marker and fumbled the ball after hitting the ground. Should be no fumble. Not sure about the penalty after.

At minimum it should have been a first down and then a 15 yard penalty.

 

[Yeah Baby]

After the nice punt return by our true freshman CB who will be a stud, we got the ball right at the same spot or so I think the announcer said. So it was a terrible call but didn’t hurt us. It did take some time off the clock and who knows if that changes the outcome

 

[cubuffsdoug_rivals]

Anyone disagree that this was a brutal blown call? He clearly hit the ground beyond the marker and fumbled the ball after hitting the ground. Should be no fumble. Not sure about the penalty after.

At minimum it should have been a first down and then a 15 yard penalty.

What you saw today was the B1G protecting their blue bloods. Can't have lowly Rutgers pull a shocker and upset the applecart. The media and other conferences would mock the B1G for allowing this to happen.

 

[RUfromSoCal?]

Maddening beyond belief......

still a head-scratcher......... yeah, I get it -- the ball went backwards - and out of bounds... But, I've watched 10 times... How was he not down?



And how the F#%* does the linesman throw a flag from 35 yards away?......... that was a total joke.... Gio was in the middle of the field in the huddle - he can say anything he Fuc(K#@ing wants to say........

 

[Extra Point_rivals157299]

Isn't the rule the ground can't cause a fumble? I think it was a first down unless they changed the rules.

 

[Knights 1212]

There was a play earlier in the game at about the 10 yard line when the refs measured and Michigan State made a first down by inches. I think that was a bad spot by the refs as it looked to me that MS didn't make the first down and they got a favorable spot. They should have been punting from the ten yard line.

 

[anon_0k9zlfz6lz9oy]

It was awful

 

[rutger80]

Was there ever an adequate explanation? The ball was across the line to get and while his hand was down, the hand being down doesn’t matter. So, what was it?

 

[willisneverrana43]

He wasn’t down when the ball hit the ground. The rest of him was in the air. Before he (meaning his elbow and /or knee) hit the ground, the ball was loose. It did bounce/roll backward and go out of bounds on the wrong side of the first down marker. It was a remarkably good call confirmed by the replay.

 

[Extra Point_rivals157299]

They called it a fumble and the ball rolled backwards behind the 1st down marker and out of bounds.

 

[koleszar]

Horse sh*t call, ground can't cause a fumble except in East Lansing. Then the unsportsmanlike conduct completed the horsesh*t inept refing we saw today. Couldn't believe the pass interference on Young at the 2 either. It was perfect pass defense. It's almost like the refs think to themselves, " they can't be doing that, they're not that good, so they must of committed an infraction to make that good play".

 

[yesrutgers01]

He wasn’t down when the ball hit the ground. The rest of him was in the air. Before he (meaning his elbow and /or knee) hit the ground, the ball was loose. It did bounce/roll backward and go out of bounds on the wrong side of the first down marker. It was a remarkably good call confirmed by the replay.

So, are you saying that contrary to what we have heard for the past how many years, the ground can cause a fumble???

 

[yesrutgers01]

There was a play earlier in the game at about the 10 yard line when the refs measured and Michigan State made a first down by inches. I think that was a bad spot by the refs as it looked to me that MS didn't make the first down and they got a favorable spot. They should have been punting from the ten yard line.

They seemed to mark that ball based on the RB hand that didn’t have the ball.

 

[huskersalways]

The ground cannot cause a fumble when the ballcarriier is down with it. For example: when the runners elbow hits the ground causing the ball to come out. The elbow means the runner was down.

When Gio went out of bounds he extended the ball with his hand on top of it. His entire body was in the air and he “jumped” towards the first down. By him placing the ball on the ground without any other part of his body down it is not a dead ball unless part of his body hits the ground while he still has the ball in his hand. The ball coming loose while he is still airborne means it is a fumble so wherever the ball goes out of bounds. By the ball rolling upfield and going out that becomes the new spot.

As for the penalty, the replay showed Gio making gestures so he was more than likely saying something not so nice to an official and that is a no no. With the proximity to the bench that he was a coach should have been by him in my opinion to keep his head on.

Very strange play.

 

[mildone_rivals]

I thought it was a terrible call until they showed a different angle, from across the field. From that angle, it seemed pretty clear that where the ball touched down on the field was short of the actual first down marker.

The ball was touched down on top of the digitally displayed yellow line on TV. Which is what threw me off and made me think it was a horrible call by the officials.

But when they showed the other angle, it looked like the yellow virtual line was also short of where the first down marker was. They reviewed it for a while. So I would have to conclude that, given the long review, they probably make the correct call.

A more favorable spot would've helped for sure. But we mostly haven't had the calls going our way this season. We haven't had that kind of luck. And they might've reviewed it and changed the call anyway.

 

[17Q66]

The ground can't cause a fumble. If he's got possession of the ball when it touches the turf, then the play is dead with the ball spotted where it touched the turf.

Horrible call.

And I don't care if Rescigno threatened to murder the side judge's mother; you don't throw a flag under those circumstances.

 

[WhichReligionIsRight]

The ground cannot cause a fumble when the ballcarriier is down with it. For example: when the runners elbow hits the ground causing the ball to come out. The elbow means the runner was down.

When Gio went out of bounds he extended the ball with his hand on top of it. His entire body was in the air and he “jumped” towards the first down. By him placing the ball on the ground without any other part of his body down it is not a dead ball unless part of his body hits the ground while he still has the ball in his hand. The ball coming loose while he is still airborne means it is a fumble so wherever the ball goes out of bounds. By the ball rolling upfield and going out that becomes the new spot.

As for the penalty, the replay showed Gio making gestures so he was more than likely saying something not so nice to an official and that is a no no. With the proximity to the bench that he was a coach should have been by him in my opinion to keep his head on.

Very strange play.

Well, if that's the rule, then thanks for the explanation. but this boggles me to no end. I think the refs just made a horrible call on that play.

 

[wisr01]

The ground cannot cause a fumble.

That’s an oft-spoken phrase in football. Actually the ground can cause a fumble under NCAA and NFHS rules even though there is no requirement for a runner to be down by contact. It would, however, be a very rare occurrence.

The veracity of that phrase lies in the fact that, 99.9 percent of the time, when the ball is freed from the runner’s grip as it hits the ground, the ball is already dead. It is dead because a part of the runner’s body other than a hand or foot had touched the ground before the ball touched the ground. That body part might be a knee, the side of a thigh or the forearm. Contact with the ground by any of those body parts causes the ball to become dead. Forward progress is marked at the foremost point of the ball when the contact with the ground occurred.

So how can the ground cause a fumble? While in a runner’s possession, the ball contacts the ground before any part of the runner’s body other than a hand or foot, and that contact causes the runner to lose control of the ball, then indeed the ground has “caused” a fumble. As you can imagine it would be a most unusual play. The runner would have to either stumble and try to use the ball to regain his balance, he could “lay out” or be flipped heels over head, so that the ball contacts the ground before the rest of the runner’s body, other than perhaps, the free hand.

 

[willisneverrana43]

So, are you saying that contrary to what we have heard for the past how many years, the ground can cause a fumble???

Yes

 

[miketd1]

That was the exact moment I knew we were going to lose.

 

[mikefla]

will ASH and Co ask the league for an explanation?(as in complain???)
I saw more than a few "iffy" ref calls...

 

[williamwardii]

The game changer here was the penalty call. Rescigno had just made a great play getting us into field goal range on sheer individual effort. 1st down or 4th down we still get a field goal regardless, and take the lead. Likely the adrenalin got the better part of him on the bad spot, and like everything else this season poor judgement results in a blown opportunity. I feel for him because he obviously had no idea he said/did anything to draw a flag.

 

[wheezer]

The game changer here was the penalty call. Rescigno had just made a great play getting us into field goal range on sheer individual effort. 1st down or 4th down we still get a field goal regardless, and take the lead. Likely the adrenalin got the better part of him on the bad spot, and like everything else this season poor judgement results in a blown opportunity. I feel for him because he obviously had no idea he said/did anything to draw a flag.

We then had to punt. we pinned them deep. They punted to us, And we got the ball almost exactly where Gio got the ball when he dove, at the 25

So it did not hurt us as bad as it seemed, other then take a few minutes off the clock in a tie game

 

[krup]

The ground cannot cause a fumble.

That’s an oft-spoken phrase in football. Actually the ground can cause a fumble under NCAA and NFHS rules even though there is no requirement for a runner to be down by contact. It would, however, be a very rare occurrence.

The veracity of that phrase lies in the fact that, 99.9 percent of the time, when the ball is freed from the runner’s grip as it hits the ground, the ball is already dead. It is dead because a part of the runner’s body other than a hand or foot had touched the ground before the ball touched the ground. That body part might be a knee, the side of a thigh or the forearm. Contact with the ground by any of those body parts causes the ball to become dead. Forward progress is marked at the foremost point of the ball when the contact with the ground occurred.

So how can the ground cause a fumble? While in a runner’s possession, the ball contacts the ground before any part of the runner’s body other than a hand or foot, and that contact causes the runner to lose control of the ball, then indeed the ground has “caused” a fumble. As you can imagine it would be a most unusual play. The runner would have to either stumble and try to use the ball to regain his balance, he could “lay out” or be flipped heels over head, so that the ball contacts the ground before the rest of the runner’s body, other than perhaps, the free hand.

This is a great explanation. For those still not convinced, the beginning of the linked clip shows the most famous time it happened.

 

[willisneverrana43]

Frankly i’d thought everyone had long known that the made-up phrase “the ground can’t cause a fumble” was dead wrong. Guess not.

 

[Scarlet_Monster]

All I know is that the NCAA needs to follow the NFL time out rules.

Rutgers shouldn't have been charged their 2nd time out because there was an injured MSU player on the field with less than 2 minutes left, and MSU still with a time out.

 

[bigbirdru]

He wasn’t down when the ball hit the ground. The rest of him was in the air. Before he (meaning his elbow and /or knee) hit the ground, the ball was loose. It did bounce/roll backward and go out of bounds on the wrong side of the first down marker. It was a remarkably good call confirmed by the replay.

This explanation does make sense to me now. However-

The announcers didn’t agree with that,

The refs reviewing it didn’t “confirm” the call, they just let it stand,

And the ref in the booth wasn’t even convinced. He sounded like he disagreed with their call but didn’t want to say it. Does anyone have a clip?

 

[willisneverrana43]

One of the many reasons that i often don’t care what the announcers are saying. Replay couldn’t have been clearer. Refs did a very good job on this one.

 

[Block R]

The ground cannot cause a fumble when the ballcarriier is down with it. For example: when the runners elbow hits the ground causing the ball to come out. The elbow means the runner was down.

When Gio went out of bounds he extended the ball with his hand on top of it. His entire body was in the air and he “jumped” towards the first down. By him placing the ball on the ground without any other part of his body down it is not a dead ball unless part of his body hits the ground while he still has the ball in his hand. The ball coming loose while he is still airborne means it is a fumble so wherever the ball goes out of bounds. By the ball rolling upfield and going out that becomes the new spot.

As for the penalty, the replay showed Gio making gestures so he was more than likely saying something not so nice to an official and that is a no no. With the proximity to the bench that he was a coach should have been by him in my opinion to keep his head on.

Very strange play.

Thank you for clearing it up with this detailed explanation. Apparently I was not the only ignorant one blaming the refs for this evidently correct call.

 

[Bagarocks]

That was the exact moment I knew we were going to lose.

That moment for me was the punt that landed on the one yard line. I said, unbelievable as it sounds, that punt just lost us the game

 

[beaced_rivals]

Isn't the rule the ground can't cause a fumble? I think it was a first down unless they changed the rules.

Simple. Name change not rule change.He didn't hit the Ground. He hit the Turf.

 

[BlockR]

bad call,and an even worse reaction by the guy who was a captain,and then cost his team points.

 

[Njcanesfan]

That was the exact moment I knew we were going to lose.

That moment for me was the punt that landed on the one yard line. I said, unbelievable as it sounds, that punt just lost us the game

Same here.

 

[albanyknight]

The call could of gone either way. That I can accept.

But I will never accept the penalty on Gio when he was nowhere near the refs and could not of said anything that is not said a hundred times a game in every game played in America.

 

[huskersalways]

All I know is that the NCAA needs to follow the NFL time out rules.

Rutgers shouldn't have been charged their 2nd time out because there was an injured MSU player on the field with less than 2 minutes left, and MSU still with a time out.

The reason RU was charged their timeout was because, the end result of the play, the clock would remain running. With that said when the injured player regardless of which team they are on gets off the field the clock starts again when they mark the ball ready for play. MSU could have run 25 seconds off the clock before snapping the ball if RU hadn’t used a TO.
If the offense would have had a dead ball presnap penalty with less than 1 minute to go they could have been charged a TO or get a 10 second run off depending on game situations.
RU had to use a TO there to to keep clock stopped and save 25 seconds.

 

[BlockR]

The call could of gone either way. That I can accept.

But I will never accept the penalty on Gio when he was nowhere near the refs and could not of said anything that is not said a hundred times a game in every game played in America.

how do you know what he said?

 

[huskersalways]

will ASH and Co ask the league for an explanation?(as in complain???)
I saw more than a few "iffy" ref calls...

All schools take certain plays that they want clarification or to complain about and send the tape to the Big10 head of officials. They do get a response from the league on every play they send in but them results are kept in house at the member schools.

 

[TODDB33]

Horse sh*t call, ground can't cause a fumble except in East Lansing. Then the unsportsmanlike conduct completed the horsesh*t inept refing we saw today. Couldn't believe the pass interference on Young at the 2 either. It was perfect pass defense. It's almost like the refs think to themselves, " they can't be doing that, they're not that good, so they must of committed an infraction to make that good play".

I know they are homers but on the 1st TD drive we had 2 15 ya penalties that Lucas and Carlin both thought were bogus. If I recall 1st one was on a 3rd and 6 which we stopped. They would have had to punt on 4th n 6.

 

[willisneverrana43]

We've just got to find a reason why the refs cost us this game.

 

[BoroKnight]

What you saw today was the B1G protecting their blue bloods. Can't have lowly Rutgers pull a shocker and upset the applecart. The media and other conferences would mock the B1G for allowing this to happen.

Dumbass comment. Really, it is. First off, Michigan State, for all its success, is not a blue blood. Nobody would knock the Big Ten for an upset. They happen. This might be the stupidest example of the martyr complex this fan base has.

Do bad teams get many calls? No, they don't. But it's hardly a conspiracy.

First the Big Ten gets mocked for letting a bad team like Rutgers in. Then it's going to be mocked if the bad teams wins a game? Seriously, is that all some of you people do is sit at home staring at the ceiling dreaming up scenarios under which the entire world is trying to screw us?

Get another hobby. For your own good.