Roman Wilson TD review: How is there any doubt among the media?

If Roman didn't have control then neither did Fleming. Funny how OSU fans think they can have it both ways. Can we please move past these irrelevant losers already, the Big ten trophy is on the menu.

Wilson broke the plane of the goal line after taking several steps with, at worst, simultaneous possession which goes to the offense anyway.  I was just glad it was called a TD on the field, so they'd need major proof to overturn the call.

There needs to be some level of reasonableness in these situations and that's what has caused a problem in the NFL. Because the reasonable and rational call is a catch and too often refs get into this weird "well technically" mindset that screws the whole thing up. The NFL is a running joke because they don't know what a catch is.

Wilson gets his hands on the ball at the ~4 yard line with no OSU defender possessing the ball simultaneously. He secures it, then it moves (which is allowed) but he pins it against his shoulder as he covers ~5 yards in the field of play. Even if you claim Burke had shared possession with him as he crossed the goal line, Wilson had possession first and that always favors the offensive player. He then breaks the plane so its a TD. It's not until he and Burke hit the ground and slide another yard that Burke dislodges the ball.

Again, you watch that and rational thought needs to kick in. He caught it with no OSU defender touching the ball, covered more than enough ground/took plenty of steps, and crossed the goal line. It's over and it's not particularly complicated. It's "close" but that doesn't mean it's controversial.

I think a lot of it was Joel Klatt, honestly. Which was a rare moment of WTF from a guy I generally like and listen to. 

I mean Wilson had the ball, it gets immediately raked and loosened, but Wilson manages to keep it in his possession until he crosses the goalline and is tackled, only then is it fully dislodged. I get the argument being made, but it would be patently ridiculous to say that Wilson never possessed the ball while carrying it for 5 freaking yards and into the endzone. And it would be doubly so to look at that on replay and say "it must be overturned". This was 100% a "call stands" situation, and if I had to choose which one is probably correct, it has to be the one where it's probably a TD because of how long he had the ball in his arms (though my bias is obvious lol)

This one was far less controversial than the catch and fumble in the 4th quarter that benefitted OSU. They kept saying in the broadcast "he almost had that 3rd step", but last I checked "almost a 3rd step" does not count as a football move...though even there, it was close enough that I understand why they stood with the call, even if I didn't like it. 

Because guys like Klatt that talk all week need content to present as controversial. 

Watching the game at home, I said to my son, "if that was a Michigan DB, I would think it's an interception." I'm still not sure he secures it before crossing the goal line. But, since it was called a TD on the field, there really isn't clear evidence to overturn. 

Did enjoy seeing that Day spent the entire time out complaining about something that is impossible to change at that time. 

I seriously thought they might reverse it. If it was called a pick on the field, I'm not sure it reverses either. The key - to me - was that he was NOT bobbling it along the way - the ball seemed secure. Once he touched that goal line, it was dead.... but only if he wasn't bobbling it, which to me seemed logical.

JJ not reaching for that 1st down seemed very un-jj-like. didn't matter in the end, but.. 

The refs definitely had their fingerprints on this game. But as with most games, there were critical calls that went both ways and reversing any of them (see Michigan state 2 years ago, or TCU last year) would have tilted the game possibly one way or the other.

The lack of holding calls against oSU or even against us i'm sure, was baffling. Nobody knows what the F a hold is on the Oline. it is so arbitrary, based on 1000 factors, none of which are a list of hard and fast criteria.

Can we all just take a moment to appreciate how absolutely ridiculous that throw was from JJ, though? That was a peak NFL level "Tom Brady in his absolute prime" kind of throw. Even more impressive than the MSU throw. 

That kind of tight window, against that pass defense? Unbelievable. 

Amazed by that throw. 

I agree because if you question this call, then anytime a receiver catches the ball near the goal line, goes into the end zone and drops the ball to celebrate, that would be a fumble. Which is clearly ridiculous.

Plus if you question this one, then the Fleming catch at the sideline they reviewed would also have to be incomplete because now you are saying the out of bounds line / goal line doesn't end the play and you have to keep playing through that. And you have to also overturn the fumble they had and call that incomplete.

There is no question the ball was not secure in Roman's hands when he was on his feet and heading to the end zone.  But then he gains control, with two hands, as he is simultaneously falling and crossing the plane.  His knee hits down in the end zone with two hands on the ball and the ball not moving relative to his body.  That is a touchdown right then and there.  Then the OSU guy grabs the ball after they both hit the ground and the OSU guy wrestles it away.

The play was dead when Roman's knee touched down with the ball secure in two hands.  Touchdown.  There is no controversy.

EDIT: the only thing that is controversial about this play, IMO, is whether the ball was across the plane when Roman's knee touched down.  But even that is highly questionable.  I think the ball was for sure across the plane but there is no view down the goal line so the call on the field stands.  This was one call that the refs got right.

At worst, it is a simultaneous catch. If both hit the ground with the ball in their hands, the offensive player is awarded the catch. Burke does not rip it out until both players are on the ground with possession between them. 

eh, who cares. Klatt probably getting a lot of voices from management reminding him OSU has fans too. So he talks up a couple of things that make those dummies happy. 

On the whole, he's been good, very good. And because Michigan has been kicking OSU's ass, that made him seem like a UM homer. He's just trying to undo that a bit.

Just my guess.

I thought it was a clear TD and was surprised that Klatt didn't seem to think so.

It’s a TD. It’s simultaneous possession, which defaults to the offense, when the play is dead. Simultaneous possession did occur when the ball, broke the plane of the end zone and at the same time he was down. To play ended at that moment, and it continued all the way through until the ball was raked out of Willson’s arms. At no point at Ohio State have sole possession of the football.

Klatt is usually really good. This game he seemed to forgot simple rules. He’s human I’ll let it slide. 

Far worse was Klatt's take during the broadcast that the defensive holding on Mason Graham was "a really good call by the official".  I mean what the actual fuck?!?!  Gave them a 1st down on a drive that resulted in a TD.

I think everyone is assuming he didn't have full control when he crossed the line, and never actually secured the catch at all. I don't agree with that, but I think that is the idea.

The debate is whether he secured it enough.  He did.  But it is a funky play.  But not funky enough to really debate after a few watches of the replay.

I agree with OP completely. I was very annoyed that Klatt made it into a "close call". 

IMO instant replay is broken and I think this is a great example of why. We have totally lost sight of what the point of instant replay is: to correct major errors in officiating. What we have today is a system that thinks it needs to carefully parse through any call that is remotely close and re-make the call via the replay. Even though the talking heads on the broadcast always make the "clear and obvious visual evidence" statement, they always end by saying "I have this as a good catch" or "I have this as a touchdown". That is not what they are supposed to be doing per the FREAKIN RULES! It should be pretty damn simple: was there clear and obvious evidence to CHANGE the call? And if it takes showing 4 different angles of super slo-mo then it's not clear and obvious. FULL STOP. The end result is that my initial reaction on every big play is "don't get too excited yet. need to wait for the potential replay". It has made the viewing experience worse.     

The guys convinced themselves that because Romans arms move when it’s yanked on and the  ball moves with his hand as it moves that this is somehow the ball coming out. Roman pinned the ball to his chest with his hand and it moves to a different part of his chest with his hand when his hand moves. If you treat the hand as controlling the ball, then that’s still possession. If you think a single hand isn’t enough to control a ball (tyreek hill and lesean mccoy might disagree) then you see it change position on the chest and think that means it’s out of control. Imo he’s got it in his hand with control pinned to his shoulder as he crosses the plane. Its a really thin margin one way or the other and anyone saying it’s an outrage that the call stood is wrong and stupid. 

There was another play during the game (I haven't re-watched the telecast yet , so I can't remember when), where Klatt was lobbying for offensive pass interference against us and the Buckeyes weren't even complaining.

I thought the review was over whether he was down before scoring.  Whether it was a catch never seemed in doubt to me.  

In any event, the OSU fumble at the end of the game was pretty much the same thing and was also (correctly) ruled a catch.

When I watch it, it’s hard to tell if he definitively secures it. He goes four or five steps while attempting to secure it, and just as he is crossing the plane it looks like he has it. I think the call has to stand, whichever way it’s called on the field. It’s almost like a basketball player bobbling a pass for 4 or 5 steps. Would you call it a travel?

I think the determining issue would be if the ball was moving prior to Wilson crossing the plane, and I don't think it was.

The two “national” CFB podcasts I listen to said that it was a TD or the call for it to stand was correct. I’m also vexed by why Klatt thinks otherwise, but I don’t really care either!

The hilarious / sad thing is that I had an MSU fan post on my FB adamant that it was an INT. I pointed out that the call on the field was TD and the replay did not overturn it. He said "oh, I don't care about replay...."

But MSU fans sure cared about replay in 2021 on the Hutch play / TD.....

We have "JT was short," and they now have "Wilson never secured the ball."  The difference is we have a list of one-score games we lost over the last 20 years.  All of those games had at least one questionable call that we could point to as the reason after the game was over.

Conversely, the media are doing their job, creating controversy because controversy creates clicks, and clicks make money.

I think it's obvious the question is whether Wilson completed the catch before he crossed the goal line. The common interpretation of the rules says the receiver needs to have complete control of the ball before a catch is completed. Whether Wilson controls the ball fully or not can certainly be argued about.

It looks to me like he made a clean catch initially, but Burke gets his hand in there just a tiny bit before Wilson can pull the ball in. That gets the ball loose and forces Roman to correct which leads to a technically unsound grip on the ball. We can see the ball wiggle multiple times while Roman carries it to the endzone. Now he does maintain two hands on the ball, but it's a tenuous hold for sure. It wouldn't take much to knock that ball out of his hands because he's not properly securing it.

To me it's a touchdown because Roman never did lose grip of the ball and thus maintained control, but the movement of the ball as observed has been used in the past as an indicator of a lack of control. In other words, you could certainly see it another way, and we may very well do so if it was an OSU receiver in the same position.

I don't know what the right call is there. What I do know is that the still shots that people post of Roman having possession and a knee down in the endzone are not actual evidence of possession. During a catch, by definition, possession requires time to pass and steps/football moves/etc to be made all while maintaining control of the ball the whole way. At some point, "possession" is established but it's always a little bit of a murky call.

I think it was a "call stands" situation, and we were fortunate to get the TD called live. But once it was called a TD, it was correct to stick with it

Wilson clearly secures the ball with two hands, then takes a step and a half while bringing  the ball to his body before any contact. That's possession. Then he crosses the plane of the goal line with the defender struggling to strip the ball.

If ANYTHING you could maybe try to make a case that this was a strip and fumble into the EZ if the ball is being bobbled before he crosses the plane. But it is obviously not an INT.

Also, I don't think it IS a fumble as Wilson maintains control past the goal line. But that is what the naysayers would be more reasonable to argue.

The thing for me is this-- the ball can move and a player can still be determined to have maintained control of the ball. If you watch the ball as he crosses the goal line, he has firm control with two hands, even if the ball is jostling slightly. It's a judgment call and certainly not 100%, but anyone who says "the ball was moving therefore it wasn't a catch" doesn't understand the rules.

Cause it’s anti-climatic for the drama to be over. It’s like taking down the Christmas tree. If Iowa was a worthy opponent they’d be taking about Saturday instead?

The media needs something to fill empty air so this is it.

What the OP describes is correct.  I sit right at the goal line and it was clearly a catch somewhere around the 2-3 yard line.  Once he breaks the plane with the ball (which he clearly did), the play is over and it is a touchdown.

The call wasn't reversed.

The problem is people have a relatively fixed set of beliefs and interpretations based on their own bias (in this case, being an OSU fan or in general "anti-Michigan"). Even when faced with direct, even unassailable proof to the contrary, they will deny and cling to their beliefs. You may be aware that this applies to more than just sports...

Michigan lost 2016 on multiple questionable calls that swung the whole game. I’ll never feel bad if something goes out way that shouldn’t after that.

Yet, another excuse for Suckeye nation.

After further review, the call stands; TOUCHDOWN!!

I'm not reading through to see if this was mentioned. I thibk you need to only look at the play up until the ball touches the plane of the goal line. Stop the review there. If he established control before the ball touched the plane, the rest is meaningless. If he didn't, then you start to look at what happened after that. 

I haven't seen anyone except Klatt talking about it. On both the B1G Network "The Final Drive" show and the ESPN Sports Center and College Football Final recaps, it wasn't even mentioned.

I think he has it pretty clearly, but the argument would be that he never secured the ball the whole time.

it was such a clear & indisputable play i was slightly annoyed video review didn't result in "call on the field is confirmed" decision