MIAC in-game updates board

[MonroviaCat]

How the heck is that not pass interference on #10 for U$T???

Thank you---or at least holding

Texas referees...I don't think they will call much.

probably MHB fans 

[faunch]

Another no call Defensive hold on that 3rd down play.

[MonroviaCat]

Another no call Defensive hold on that 3rd down play.

NCAA could have saved money by leaving the refs at home I guess.....

[RoyalsFan]

Toes are no longer part of the foot? I'm confused.

Yes they are, but the heel is also part of the foot. Any part of the foot is out of bounds.

[RoyalsFan]

Toes are no longer part of the foot? I'm confused.

need to have entire foot in...

No. Only need any part in/out of bounds for it to be a reception or no catch.

So which is it if half the foot is in bounds and half out of bounds? Hint: out of bounds

[SJUrube]

Toes are no longer part of the foot? I'm confused.

need to have entire foot in...

No. Only need any part in/out of bounds for it to be a reception or no catch.

So which is it if half the foot is in bounds and half out of bounds? Hint: out of bounds

No. Watch the replay. His toes hit in bounds first, before he rolled on his heel out of bounds. He had possession of the ball when his toes touched down in the field of play.

[SJUrube]

And Linfield should have gone for a TD and not the FG. Still down 3 scores - and that's assuming UST doesn't score again.

[RoyalsFan]

Toes are no longer part of the foot? I'm confused.

need to have entire foot in...

No. Only need any part in/out of bounds for it to be a reception or no catch.

So which is it if half the foot is in bounds and half out of bounds? Hint: out of bounds

No. Watch the replay. His toes hit in bounds first, before he rolled on his heel out of bounds. He had possession of the ball when his toes touched down in the field of play.

Yes, the toes came down first but when a receiver's entire foot comes down, which it did in this case, any part of the foot touching out of bounds is out of bounds. Same as if his heel comes down first and then the toes, it would be out of bounds.

[D O.C.]

Announcers know much more about Glenn's team than LINFIELD.

[faunch]

I'll go on record as saying that instant replay has no place in D3  playoffs.  To use it in only 3 games all season doesn't make sense to me.  It's as if the entire season is played under one standard and then things are changed for the playoffs.  Keep in mind that in 2003 Blake Elliot would have had a touchdown if there had been replay.

[D O.C.]

That was a Waldvogel TD throw. 

[RoyalsFan]

I'll go on record as saying that instant replay has no place in D3  playoffs.  To use it in only 3 games all season doesn't make sense to me.  It's as if the entire season is played under one standard and then things are changed for the playoffs.  Keep in mind that in 2003 Blake Elliot would have had a touchdown if there had been replay.

I don't have a problem with it. I would rather the correct call be made then have a blown call cost a team a championship.

[SJUrube]

Re: sideline catch

RoyalsFan, I'll take your word for it. What I don't get is how that play, and rule, differs from a catch where the receiver drags a foot before going out of bounds - and occasionally landing on the drag foot.

[sjusection105]

I just threw up after that play

[RoyalsFan]

Re: sideline catch

RoyalsFan, I'll take your word for it. What I don't get is how that play, and rule, differs from a catch where the receiver drags a foot before going out of bounds - and occasionally landing on the drag foot.

The difference is that when a receiver drags his foot (which usually means he drags his toes), then in that case his entire foot doesn't come down, just his toes. In that case, it is a catch. That wasn't the case on the play in question.