Big 10 football

[hardnox604008]

John Gruden stated the obvious during the Rose Bowl broadcast. On the matter of the talk about the Big 10 being dominated by strong defenses, he said, "no, I think it is dominated by sloppy offenses."

Wonder if he caught any crap over that.

Judging by the folks calling in around here on sports talk radio I assume they blasted him with tweets and emails. All these foks seem to beleive that there is no other conference than the Big Ten which merely suffers on account of the fierce conference season.

BTW, can you beleive that they stole that magnificent catch from the Va. Tech kid last night?

If the standard for overturning a clall is strong evidence then that was a crime.

If the standard is, let's see if there is any basis on which we can overturn it, then OK. But just say so then.

[Samnospam]

It was a really rough season for the big ten. There just wasn't a really good team. The b10 needs to make some waves about these bowls aways being home games for their opponents.

[schnurrbart]

Another theft occured in the OT when Michigan lined up to kick the field goal. There was illegal motion by the kicker. I don't think he is allowed to move either until the ball is snapped

[hardnox604008]

One of the most amazing catches I've ever seen. Kid knocked the stuffings out of himself laying out like that.

[hardnox604008]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0Xh8MlPw38

Here's a youtube of it. Stinkin' Woverines.

[verbatime]

The ball clearly hit the ground... no part of the ball can touch the ground.  sorry

[schnurrbart]

The ball CAN indeed hit the ground.  The player has to have control of the ball though.  This player had both arms around the ball and had it pulled to his chest when he hit the ground.  They are essentially saying that the ground "helped" him maintain control.  That is BS!  The ball didn't even move when the nose hit of the ball hit.  The kicker of the winning fieldgoal made a false start that went uncalled also.

[kraft-t]

I agree with the final ruling. The ball was not undercontrol until the receiver was on his back on the ground. Before that the ball was slipping slipping out of his hands. Contact with the ground actually pushed the ball back into his grip.

I don't care either way and I am not an official. But if i were that is the ruling I would have made.

[dagwud]

How about that stupid rule in the NFL that robbed the Lions of a touchdown at the begining of the season?  A player catches a ball in the end zone, has obvious control of it with both feet on the ground but then falls to the ground and the catch is denied because the ball comes loose after the fact.   Kind of goes against the rule about the ground not being able to cause a fumble when it takes place between the two goal lines.