this post was submitted on 22 Oct 2023
17 points (90.5% liked)
College Football
880 readers
1 users here now
A community to discuss college football.
| /c/CFB Poll Top 25 |  |
|---|---|
| 1. Oregon |  |
| 2. Texas |  |
| 3. Notre Dame |  |
| 4. Penn State |  |
| 5. ~~SMU~~ |  |
| 6. Ohio State |  |
| 7. ~~Indiana~~ |  |
| 8. Georgia |  |
| 9. ~~Tennessee~~ |  |
| 10. South Carolina |  |
| 11. Arizona State |  |
| 12. Boise State |  |
| 13. Alabama |  |
| 14. Ole Miss |  |
| T-15. Iowa State |  |
| T-15. Miami |  |
| 17. BYU |  |
| 18. ~~Clemson~~ |  |
| 19. ~~Army~~ |  |
| 20. Colorado |  |
| T-21. Syracuse |  |
| T-21. UNLV |  |
| 23. Louisville |  |
| 24. Illinois |  |
| 25. Baylor |  |
Check out our other sports communities!
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
It doesn't matter what he was attempting to accomplish by waving his hand like that. Intent has nothing to do with it. The waving constituted an invalid fair catch signal. It was a pretty straightforward and uncomplicated application of the rulebook.
Why the Fair Catch Call That Overturned Iowa’s Potential Game-Winning TD Was Correct
Strictly speaking, yes, the rule ended up being correctly applied, but it's disingenuous to say it's straightforward or even uncomplicated. It's a rule which rarely comes up, so these hair-splitting judgments haven't been meted out. No one on the field understood the infraction, the refs didn't even flag it live, and the whole review was not clearly communicated. And worst of all, it's not clearly established this type of infraction is reviewable (which has not stopped refs from overstepping boundaries before).
Heck, I wanted Minnesota to win, but not with this sort of controversy.