The Campbell TD catch that WAS

[18IsTheMan]

Some on here said it obviously wasn’t a catch because our coaches didn’t object. False!

Beamer said he believes it was a catch. About 30 seconds in, Beamer says he believes it was a catch, even after watching replay.



Maybe Beamer needs a rules tutorial from @Gamecock72.

Considering we ended up winning the game, Beamer would be in a perfect position here to concede that it wasn’t a catch by the rulebook. Nevertheless, he still defends it as a catch. I guess he’s a moron who doesn’t know that it’s clear cut from the rules.

 

[18IsTheMan]

Stephen Garcia concurs

 

[Lurker123]

Well, he said he thought he caught it. But then wasn't even sure enough to take a time out for a review.

I don't think this is the slam dunk comment t you think it is.

 

[18IsTheMan]

Well, he said he thought he caught it. But then wasn't even sure enough to take a time out for a review.

I don't think this is the slam dunk comment t you think it is.

Because that’s not the place he’s breaking down in the video. He’s breaking down the touchdown run, and simply references the Campbell catch as what led up to that play.

I’m not sure how much more of a slam dunk you can get than him saying on video that he thinks it was a catch.

And, actually, the fact that he doesn’t do an in-depth breakdown of it indicates his confidence it was a catch. He just says it rather matter-of-factly. It did not need analysis.

 

[Lurker123]

Because that’s not the place he’s breaking down in the video. He’s breaking down the touchdown run, and simply references the Campbell catch as what led up to that play.

I’m not sure how much more of a slam dunk you can get than him saying on video that he thinks it was a catch.

Yes he was breaking down another play. But he specifically says he didn't want to spend a timeout to review that play because he would lose the timeout.

Seems to me, if a coach was confident it was a catch, and a game winning TD, he would spend the timeout for a supposedly slam dunk.

Instead he settles for 3rd and 15.

 

[Gradstudent]

Well, he said he thought he caught it. But then wasn't even sure enough to take a time out for a review.

I don't think this is the slam dunk comment t you think it is.

I wonder about that point, there was a injury time out after the catch, for Campbell, does that allow for the reply booth to look at it and signal to the on field officials to stop action for a review?

I'm not a expert on how all that works, but there was a break in the action for sure after the catch.

Or did the fact that with the break the officials not do anything, signal to Beamer it had no chance.

 

[18IsTheMan]

Yes he was breaking down another play. But he specifically says he didn't want to spend a timeout to review that play because he would lose the timeout.

That’s not what he said at all. He said that given the game situation, he was not willing to risk a time out, knowing that if they did not overturn the call and we did not end up scoring a touchdown, then we would be in a position where we would need to get a defensive stop and drive to score again, needing all three timeouts.

 

[Lurker123]

That’s not what he said at all. He said that given the game situation, he was not willing to risk a time out, knowing that if they did not overturn the call and we did not end up scoring a touchdown, then we would be in a position where we would need to get a defensive stop and drive to score again, needing all three timeouts.

"But I didn't want to review it because you lose a timeout." That was his quote.

Seems odd that someone would forego the game winning TD, and settle for 3rd and 15 if they were so confident.

Maybe we're making a bit much of an off the cuff comment?

 

[Lurker123]

I wonder about that point, there was a injury time out after the catch, for Campbell, does that allow for the reply booth to look at it and signal to the on field officials to stop action for a review?

I'm not a expert on how all that works, but there was a break in the action for sure after the catch.

Or did the fact that with the break the officials not do anything, signal to Beamer it had no chance.

True. I thought they reviewed all scoring plays. I wouldn't want to assume the booth did, and refused to buzz down. But that does seem reasonable.

Especially when the guy obviously loses the ball when he hits the ground.

 

[18IsTheMan]

True. I thought they reviewed all scoring plays. I wouldn't want to assume the booth did, and refused to buzz down. But that does seem reasonable.

Especially when the guy obviously loses the ball when he hits the ground.

… after the play was dead because his knee was down.

should we be concerned that we’re paying so much money to a coach who doesn’t even have a grasp of the basic rules of what constitutes a catch?

 

[Lurker123]

… after the play was dead because his knee was down.

This interpretation doesn't seem to match the rules.

 

[Lurker123]

The rule was posted before, but here's a link that also specifically describes this situation and quotes the rules:

What is a catch in college football in 2024-25? How the NCAA differs from the NFL

Does anyone really know? Well, here’s what the NCAA says.

ftw.usatoday.com

I understand fully wanting the play to be dead once the player's knee is down. It makes some logical sense. That is not the rule though.

 

[18IsTheMan]

The rule was posted before, but here's a link that also specifically describes this situation and quotes the rules:

What is a catch in college football in 2024-25? How the NCAA differs from the NFL

Does anyone really know? Well, here’s what the NCAA says.

ftw.usatoday.com

I understand fully wanting the play to be dead once the player's knee is down. It makes some logical sense. That is not the rule though.

I stand with Beamer.

He probably knows more than both of us combined. Probably.

 

[Lurker123]

I stand with Beamer.

He probably knows more than both of us combined. Probably.

I do too. I stand with his decision not to call a timeout to review, since, as he said,we would have lost the timeout.

Conveniently, that allows me to stand in line with the replay expert who spoke about in TV, and explained why it was incomplete.

This also allows me to stand with the rules as they are currently laid out, and have been posted in multiple threads.

 

[Fried Chicken]

I think if it was reviewed the call would’ve stood. This would’ve been the case the other way around too. Just too close to overturn either way.

my thought is that Campbell had it, but whatever injury he suffered during the play is why he let go of the ball.

Regardless, it’s hard to know what is actually catch and what isnt these days.

Remember Tori Gurley’s TD in 2010? I always thought that was an incomplete pass…though I’d have to go back and watch it. But no way to overturn a call that close.

 

[18IsTheMan]

I'll cast my vote to stick with the opinion of the guy who has coached a team to the top 15 of college football.

He probably knows a little bit on the subject.

 

[Anon1733442921]

… after the play was dead because his knee was down.

should we be concerned that we’re paying so much money to a coach who doesn’t even have a grasp of the basic rules of what constitutes a catch?

Dude, I can't figure out if you're a Debbie Downer or a Tater. Every freaking negative possibility, real or imagined, you push it hard.

 

[Dabo's Weenie]

I'm perfectly fine with the way it played out. After the penalty it was 3rd and Sellers - which has become a de facto TD - and watching Chuck LaNorris weave through those urnj-clad clowns (while seeing them take each other out) and then woof at the baby taters after breaking their hearts was priceless.

The only thing that could have made it better for me was if Taneyhill was there to sign the Dodo bird track... again.

Two legends of the game.

And one of them still has more opportunities to raise the bar on their performances. We can only hope.

 

[Lurker123]

I'll cast my vote to stick with the opinion of the guy who has coached a team to the top 15 of college football.

He probably knows a little bit on the subject.

Agreed. And he said we would have lost the timeout had we challenged the play.

Good call.

 

[kidrobinski]

It was absolutely a catch, and a damn good one, and always has been since I began playing the game in the sixties. If they have since manufactured a rule that says a catch must meet the criteria of a proper pasa doble to be decreed valid that Campbell’s failed to meet, then that’s as dumb as the details of the targeting and horse collar rules. I understand Beamer not calling the time out to review, but given the subsequent injury delay the booth should have deemed it close enough for review, in spite of the conveniently available rules expert pontificating.

 

[Lurker123]

It was absolutely a catch, and a damn good one, and always has been since I began playing the game in the sixties. If they have since manufactured a rule that says a catch must meet the criteria of a proper pasa doble to be decreed valid that Campbell’s failed to meet, then that’s as dumb as the details of the targeting and horse collar rules. I understand Beamer not calling the time out to review, but given the subsequent injury delay the booth should have deemed it close enough for review, in spite of the conveniently available rules expert pontificating.

I agree with this, I think. The issue is with the way the rule is written, not the way it was interpreted.

If that's not what you meant, please forgive.

You also bring up the point that was brought up earlier. I understood that all scoring plays were reviewed. But with the injury delay, the play may very well have been reviwed and the booth didnt need to buzz down to stop play.

 

[Gamecock72]

This interpretation doesn't seem to match the rules.

Correct statement you made.