Can someone please create a video showing Hilinskis catch and fumble

Dec 1, 2019
28
66
13
Apples and Oranges man.

Hillinskis got the ball batted back to him and "caught" the ball before throwing it to the ground. IMHO, he wanted to "control" where the ball went so that no Clemson guy could get to it... He was just a bit too deliberate in what he did.

I'm sure you are trying to figure out why one was incomplete and the other was a fumble. In this case, Hillinski's feet were on the ground, he gained possession of the ball (and here's the important part), and he made a FOOTBALL MOVE (in this case throwing the ball on the ground). I'll post the address of the link below. If you notice, he even caught the ball in both hands, transferred the ball to his right hand and threw it to the ground. Touchdown Tigers!

clicky
 

Garnet chicken

Well-Known Member
Jan 1, 2004
5,504
3,288
113
Apples and Oranges man.

Hillinskis got the ball batted back to him and "caught" the ball before throwing it to the ground. IMHO, he wanted to "control" where the ball went so that no Clemson guy could get to it... He was just a bit too deliberate in what he did.

I'm sure you are trying to figure out why one was incomplete and the other was a fumble. In this case, Hillinski's feet were on the ground, he gained possession of the ball (and here's the important part), and he made a FOOTBALL MOVE (in this case throwing the ball on the ground). I'll post the address of the link below. If you notice, he even caught the ball in both hands, transferred the ball to his right hand and threw it to the ground. Touchdown Tigers!

clicky
Sorry he did not catch the ball, he fumbled it without possession and threw it to the ground. The officials blew that call too.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tigertomreed

jeff2001

Well-Known Member
Apr 5, 2003
44,441
17,672
113
50
Apples and Oranges man.

Hillinskis got the ball batted back to him and "caught" the ball before throwing it to the ground. IMHO, he wanted to "control" where the ball went so that no Clemson guy could get to it... He was just a bit too deliberate in what he did.

I'm sure you are trying to figure out why one was incomplete and the other was a fumble. In this case, Hillinski's feet were on the ground, he gained possession of the ball (and here's the important part), and he made a FOOTBALL MOVE (in this case throwing the ball on the ground). I'll post the address of the link below. If you notice, he even caught the ball in both hands, transferred the ball to his right hand and threw it to the ground. Touchdown Tigers!

clicky
BS tater tot. Hilinski has the ball in his hands for 2/10th of a second.
 

cockfight#1

Member
Nov 20, 2006
564
146
43
How do you take 3 steps without possession? Thanks for making my point. If one is a football move so is the other, EXCEPT in the SEC.

The booth man said slow motion shouldn't count. I guess it only counts when you're the hind tit gamecocks. They gonna slow that film down to the nth to find something on us.

Don't forget Clemson's fumble was OVERTURNED. Which means indisputable, I think it's been pretty much disputed by anyone who watched the game.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bucketdad

DetroitCock

Member
Aug 28, 2013
755
177
43

The catch is at :04

The ball is lying solely in the middle of the field at :06

Not a catch in my opinion. Didn't have it long enough, sure his speed took him a good few yards, but clearly did not finish catching the ball. Every other argument I've read against this has not convinced me otherwise. Pretty cut and dry I think and I think they made the right call reversing it, again I don't understand why it wasn't blown dead to begin with.

as for the Mizzo fumble.


QB passes the ball, only for the ball to be swatted by the opposing lineman, QB catches the ball seemingly not understanding that he had to throw the ball forward beyond the line of scrimmage again, he then immediately throws the ball backwards, resulting in a fumble which the opposing team basically picked up in the end zone. QB was the original passer, who passed a ball that didn't go beyond the line of scrimmage. The ball had to be thrown again. The throw QB then made was then clearly tossed backwards,resulting in a fumble that cannot be forwarded from there, but it was a mute point as it was fumbled into the end zone. Again, this is all my understanding of the rule and what happened. I think the refs got that call right as well with the play resulting in a touchdown for Mizzou. Not real sure why OP thought these two plays are similar, I don't see it.

I'm not entirely sure if this is what OP is talking about but it was immediately was popped into my mind.



Cue inflammatory tater! remarks.....go!
 

Palmetto Golf

Member
May 16, 2015
81
122
33
Apples and Oranges man.

Hillinskis got the ball batted back to him and "caught" the ball before throwing it to the ground. IMHO, he wanted to "control" where the ball went so that no Clemson guy could get to it... He was just a bit too deliberate in what he did.

I'm sure you are trying to figure out why one was incomplete and the other was a fumble. In this case, Hillinski's feet were on the ground, he gained possession of the ball (and here's the important part), and he made a FOOTBALL MOVE (in this case throwing the ball on the ground). I'll post the address of the link below. If you notice, he even caught the ball in both hands, transferred the ball to his right hand and threw it to the ground. Touchdown Tigers!

clicky
Clemson's receiver caught the ball in his hands and made 3+ steps with the ball secured in his hands before the OSU player knocked it out. To call that an incomplete pass you have to also say if he continued to run out of bounds with the ball secured the same way it would have been an incomplete pass. I don't think you would agree with the second scenario.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Progcockstin8r

Garnet chicken

Well-Known Member
Jan 1, 2004
5,504
3,288
113


The catch is at :04

The ball is lying solely in the middle of the field at :06

Not a catch in my opinion. Didn't have it long enough, sure his speed took him a good few yards, but clearly did not finish catching the ball. Every other argument I've read against this has not convinced me otherwise. Pretty cut and dry I think and I think they made the right call reversing it, again I don't understand why it wasn't blown dead to begin with.

as for the Mizzo fumble.



QB passes the ball, only for the ball to be swatted by the opposing lineman, QB catches the ball seemingly not understanding that he had to throw the ball forward beyond the line of scrimmage again, he then immediately throws the ball backwards, resulting in a fumble which the opposing team basically picked up in the end zone. QB was the original passer, who passed a ball that didn't go beyond the line of scrimmage. The ball had to be thrown again. The throw QB then made was then clearly tossed backwards,resulting in a fumble that cannot be forwarded from there, but it was a mute point as it was fumbled into the end zone. Again, this is all my understanding of the rule and what happened. I think the refs got that call right as well with the play resulting in a touchdown for Mizzou. Not real sure why OP thought these two plays are similar, I don't see it.

I'm not entirely sure if this is what OP is talking about but it was immediately was popped into my mind.



Cue inflammatory tater! remarks.....go!
You can see what you want. When the ball was batted back in his hands, he never had possession because the ball was loose and moving around and then was pushed to the ground.
 
  • Like
Reactions: fightingcock103

castlesl

Member
Aug 4, 2006
314
299
63
You can see what you want. When the ball was batted back in his hands, he never had possession because the ball was loose and moving around and then was pushed to the ground.
i think it was a bad call.

I think he caught the ball for a fraction of a second but i don't think he really ever possess the ball the way he should have to count as a catch. no way if a receiver had that same sequence would anyone count it as a catch. However, I hope he realizes that he needs to do the open palm slam it down motion next time.
 

cofcgamecock9

Member
Jan 12, 2006
204
324
63
Both calls can't be correct. I am sorry, but they can't. If the Clemson receiver wasn't deemed to have made a "football move" then there is absolutely NO WAY that Hilinski could have been deemed to have made a football move.

On the other hand, if the fumble by Hilinski was correct, then there is NO WAY that the play by the Clemson receiver wasn't a catch.

I have no idea which grouping is correct. I don't. But I know that both calls, as they were called, CAN'T be correct. If you think both are correct, then you are using cognitive dissonance and not looking at it objectively.
 
  • Like
Reactions: USCBatgirl21

gamecock1999

Member
Sep 7, 2005
726
520
93
Clearly Hilinski should have grabbed the ball, taken 4 steps, and then let the defender strip the ball so it would be an indisputable non-catch. Hopefully Bobo can coach him up for next year. /s

But what really turned the OSU game is the targeting by #24 against Lawrence. Three years ago that’s just a hard hid. Now you check the slo mo (guess it’s okay sometimes?) to see if metal touches metal. It’s just impossible to be a defender sometimes. You are running full speed and in the last half-second the guy with the ball is literally athletic enough to juke one way or the other while you go running by or, in this case, might decide to duck down to brace for impact. The roughing the punter call was also decidedly tame. I’ve seen Dabo hit punters in the face harder with his spittle as he chewed them out on the sideline.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tigertomreed

GCDC1959

Active Member
Nov 15, 2017
1,195
1,005
113
Hilinski’s situation and Ross’ situation ...what’s the delta here?

Let’s stop worrying about that call and start pulling for LSU to stop the train this year and us to stop it during the regular season soon. Sheesh.
 
  • Like
Reactions: A_F_Deerhunter

cofcgamecock9

Member
Jan 12, 2006
204
324
63
LMAO! Not true. It was clearly a catch and a pass. It was the right call then and in looking back now- a complete airhead moment by a young QB.
I thought so too when I saw it that day. He did "clearly catch it" as you say. But then, that means the Clemson play was a catch too.

Again, as I said in my post earlier, they were either both catches or both incomplete. That is the only option for the way the rule is written. You can't have one be a catch because he grasps it with both hands for less than a second and then not have a catch when the receiver grasped it with both hands for 3 or 4 steps. He wasn't bobbling the ball at all.
 

DetroitCock

Member
Aug 28, 2013
755
177
43
I still don't think the two plays compare. I'll let that be.
But with Hillinski, it was just as quick of a play, yes. But he clearly catches the batted ball, that still needs to pass the LOS or run and can't be "grounded" (it seems he knew it) and, again clearly in my opinion, he "pitches" or throws the ball all within complete control. Say he rears back to throw the ball and the ball slips out of his grip, I would agree with you. 100%. But he deliberately threw the ball in the opposite direction. Fumble. Just a hair brain play that hopefully he learned a good bit from.

The Clemmons fumble he's in the process of making almost a finger tip catch while battling for the ball. Still in the process of catching the ball.

Again though, way different plays. One throwing the ball and one catching.
 

DocSmith89

Member
Aug 29, 2019
466
666
93
Sorry he did not catch the ball, he fumbled it without possession and threw it to the ground. The officials blew that call too.
He can’t throw it to the ground if he did not have possession. But who cares? They took place in 2 separate games, one that had meaning and one that didn’t. Why is a comparison even made? The Tigers won, period. No discussion on chat boards is gonna change that, and there won’t be an asterisks by the W.
 

Latest posts