RefStripes.com
Football Officiating => NCAA Discussion => Topic started by: TXMike on January 02, 2020, 05:43:31 AM
-
https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/big-ten-supervisor-of-officials-fumble-return-for-td-should-have-stood-in-ohio-state-clemson-game/
-
I wasn’t able to be in the chat room during that game, so I don’t know what the consensus was. My feeling when I saw the play live was that INC was the correct call. However, after seeing the replay from the EZ camera, I was shocked that it wasn’t reversed.
If the same play had happened in the EZ, I have no doubt that the ruling would have been a TD.
-
if called INC on the field, absolutely no beef with staying with that, but never should have been reversed on replay....nothing clear and obvious there as an error. IMO, that's a perversion of the replay process, re-officiating the play and substituting the booth judgment for the on-field judgment. It's not a sky judge (yet) but that's how it was used. And really unprecedented to my memory on how many senior officiating leaders have publicly commented that it was an incorrect reversal. Not just the TV refs like Terry McCauley and Periera, but as mentioned in the story Bill Carollo and in other stories, Rogers Reddings himself.
-
if called INC on the field, absolutely no beef with staying with that, but never should have been reversed on replay....nothing clear and obvious there as an error. IMO, that's a perversion of the replay process, re-officiating the play and substituting the booth judgment for the on-field judgment. It's not a sky judge (yet) but that's how it was used. And really unprecedented to my memory on how many senior officiating leaders have publicly commented that it was an incorrect reversal. Not just the TV refs like Terry McCauley and Periera, but as mentioned in the story Bill Carollo and in other stories, Rogers Reddings himself.
What if the on field crew reported it directly to replay as "without replay we rule this as incomplete on the field but let it play out so replay could more easily award a catch and resulting action if it was obviously a catch?" I have no idea if that's how any conferences handle this type of play in replay. I know the rule specifically states to do that for forward/backward passes but not for catch/no catch.
-
In that case, the replay reversal was correct. In real time, there was clear and indisputable evidence that the ball was not caught, so the ruling of an incomplete pass by the replay official was correct.
-
I will throw this out for discussion...if you believe that it was a catch...does forward progress come into affect on the play prior to the fumble?
-
I will throw this out for discussion...if you believe that it was a catch...does forward progress come into affect on the play prior to the fumble?
As I saw the play and watched the replays, I noticed that the receiver was being pulled backwards as the defense was trying to strip the ball.
-
As I saw the play and watched the replays, I noticed that the receiver was being pulled backwards as the defense was trying to strip the ball.
That was my original thought as well. Initial "catch" was at the 32 with the defender having the receiver wrapped up just outside the 30 and while pulling him further back trying to strip the ball is finally successful at about the 28-1/2 - 29. I was originally thinking that IR would rule this FP and put the ball back to the 30 where it was pretty clear IMHO that the ball carrier was stopped and under control of the defender prior to the ball being stripped.
Is IR allowed to make a FP call if the original call on the field was not FP?
-
Is IR allowed to make a FP call if the original call on the field was not FP?
I don't think that RO can get involved with this at all.
-
I don't think that RO can get involved with this at all.
Correct. Replay can't get involved with forward progress if that's what's ruled on the field or to make it a forward progress decision.
I would rule incomplete on the field in a game without replay and think that was the better call. But this was close enough I have no problem if the ruling on the field was catch/fumble.
-
I would rule incomplete on the field in a game without replay and think that was the better call. But this was close enough I have no problem if the ruling on the field was catch/fumble.
Agree. The officials on the field correctly let the play go, because it was a catch then fumble. But without replay, I would have thought otherwise.
-
I hope everyone is making their statements based upon the play being ran at full speed. We can take anything and slow the video down enough and make it a catch.
-
I think instant replay has changed the axiom of “no cheap turnovers.”
This is an incomplete pass and this play epitomizes the problem of officiating to replay.
-
Sorry to necro this thread, but I thought the call should have stood as called.
The Receiver had a firm grip in his hands and took 3 or so steps... that to me is control. He then brings it in and the DB knocks it lose.
Had the flank ruled it incomplete, that should have stood too. I think how it was ruled on the field should have stood on this one.
I mean look, we are split on whether or not it was a catch or fumble, so it should be left alone and remain as the crew called it.