RefStripes.com
Football Officiating => Classics => Topic started by: golfingref on October 16, 2010, 03:56:53 PM
-
Can someone help me out!! Linesman throws bean bag to signal fumble. White hat says play on field ruled TD. Replay not conclusive. Why was Auburn given a TD? Yes, I am a Hog fan.
-
Maybe recovered by offense in the EZ?
-
No. Recovered by the defense at the 1 yd line and advanced out to about the 10. Ball never crossed the goal line.
-
Obviously replay is not working too well in this game.
-
Is this the play?
http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2010/10/sec_explains_fannin_touchdownf.html
The SEC explained its officials' ruling on a controversial touchdown by Auburn's Mario Fannin in the first half against Arkansas today. Fannin lost the ball around the goal line. After conferring, the officials on the field ruled the play a touchdown and instant replay upheld it.
In a prepared statement issued through a league spokesman, SEC coordinator of officials Rogers Redding said: "The head linesman signaled touchdown. The line judge signaled fumble. After discussion between the two, it was agreed upon that the head linesman had a better unobstructed view of the play. The call on the field became a touchdown and was then reviewed in the replay booth. The replay official did not have enough video evidence to overturn the call on the field."
Good call? Bad call? Clearly it was a confusing call.
-
The ball was in the right hand of the running back, on the line judge's side of the field. The head linesman was on the left hand side of the running back, 2/3 of the way across the field. I hope they come up with a better reason than that.
-
Direct link to the video:
http://www.cbssports.com/video/player/play/collegefootball/Xh8Df7S7XvHFg8lPnGBN5txZoC2nCfp6
-
The L was obstructed by the Arkansas player. No way he saw it come loose, just as the video does not show it come loose. It definitely did but hard to see when it did. Does seem the runner's arms (where the ball WAS) seem to get to the GL empty. Maybe the SEC response is a cryptic way of saying they had video problems? Does not seem like a strong endorsement for the outcome of the play.
-
The human element of officiating. Even with a million dollars worth of technology, we can't tell and ultimately this call comes down to the teamwork of the guys on the field. This thing is so close that it's virtually impossible to tell. I'd have a hard time with H telling me that he could really see the ball here...his feet aren't set straddling the goal line, which means that his head is still moving and the ball carriers body is between him and the ball. In the end, they had to make a decision and they went with it. That's football.
-
Where's the U in this discussion? He was the closest official to the play, and had a
spectacular pretty darn good view.
-
U's perspective is perpendicular to the goal line. No way he can tell for sure on one this close.
The camera on the L's side that gives the best view is even skewed because it's apparent that it is not directly on the goal line...more like 3-4 yards deep in the end zone. The cameras rarely have a straight line view on the plane of the goal line...the refs straddling the pylon get in their way. This is inconclusive by all objective accounts.
-
Maybe the SEC response is a cryptic way of saying they had video problems?
I checked, there were no video problems. There simply was not enough evidence to change the call on the field. Had the call on the field been a fumble, that call would have stood as well.
Now, was the call on the field handled well? That's a different question.
-
First rule of officiating goal line scenarios...see the ball. How can anyone looking for the ball not see the ball between his feet? and if they didn't see the ball then why didn't the L signal Touchdown. It was not possessed, nor did it cross the endzone. No one signaled touchdown. The L marked the spot and signals 1st down Arkansas at around the 4 yard line. He had a loose ball, recovered and advanced. Now everyone is saying he was obstructed? He didn't think so, nor do I.
The L knew what he had. He should have stood his ground.
Regarding my comments, I know at game speed it was a tough call, but after going to the multimillion dollar replay system, I don't see how they cannot get it right. It's why for the next few weeks we here in Arkansas at the high school level will be mocked/compared to that officiating crew, the same way we were for a half season last year being compared to the officiating crew from the Florida/Arkansas '09 game.
-
Amen Mr. Williams!! Here come the chants "S-E-C" again! ;D
-
Since many HS officials seem driven to be a "college official" I would think the HS guys there like that.
-
Where's the U in this discussion? He was the closest official to the play, and had a spectacular pretty darn good view.
Nowhere, because he ain't standing on the goal line.
A cynical person might, at this point, make some guess at the direction in which your thoughts are heading...
-
Luckily none of us are cynics. yEs:
-
It should have been ruled fumble on the field. The only contact that could have caused the ball to come loose is way outside the EZ, so the runner must already have lost possession in the FOP.
-
[yt=425,350]c5J57vlgQfg[/yt]
-
Looks like a fumble to me.
-
Nowhere, because he ain't standing on the goal line.
A cynical person might, at this point, make some guess at the direction in which your thoughts are heading...
Nah, I've flogged that point enough.
It just seemed to me that the U probably had some idea of whether the ball carrier had possession or not. I'm not, however, certain that the ball carrier was a key at that time.
I think this whole series demonstrates a fundamental for all of us - if you can't see the ball, don't make the call.
-
Nah, I've flogged that point enough.
It just seemed to me that the U probably had some idea of whether the ball carrier had possession or not. I'm not, however, certain that the ball carrier was a key at that time.
I think this whole series demonstrates a fundamental for all of us - if you can't see the ball, don't make the call.
That's the thing I don't understand, and have come to this board to try to figure out. As much as I hate to say it(yes, I'm an Arkansas fan) I can understand how the replay official held it a TD. I think he's wrong, because you can clearly see the ball carriers hands with no ball in them and as someone mentioned above, contact was made before the goalline so it had to come out before that. But, from the replay it could be somehow possible that the ball was in between his legs or something weird so I can see not having indisputable evidence to overturn it.
What gets me, is why the call was changed before the replay. The guy that was right there called it a fumble, and supposedly(although there is nothing to confirm this and all video evidence points to the contrary) the guy on the far side of the endzone called it a TD. The ref somehow decided to take his word for it when he was behind the ball carrier and couldn't possibly see the ball. How do you change that play with at least 2 other officials that were closer calling it a fumble? Especially when you know you are going to have to review it any way and can change it then if video supports it. I think the ref tied the replay official's hands by switching the call before it was reviewed.
I'm not saying it was a conspiracy or anything like that, I just think it was a badly blown call by the ref, and a mistake by the guy that called it a TD when he couldn't see the ball.
-
Many of us have associates working in conferences with IR. We have been told by them there is a "philosophy", sometimes stated, sometimes not, to let the play go and then you can have IR "clean it up".
This situation is also a reminder that the speed with which a TD is signalled is immaterial. There is NO requirement a signal be given at the precise moment an official "thinks" a TD has been earned. By slowing down you give yourself and others more of a chance to process what you have "seen".
-
Many of us have associates working in conferences with IR. We have been told by them there is a "philosophy", sometimes stated, sometimes not, to let the play go and then you can have IR "clean it up".
This situation is also a reminder that the speed with which a TD is signalled is immaterial. There is NO requirement a signal be given at the precise moment an official "thinks" a TD has been earned. By slowing down you give yourself and others more of a chance to process what you have "seen".
That makes sense, I just don't understand why it didn't happen here. An officially supposedly called TD without really seeing the ball, and then changed the call of those that did see it, instead of letting the replay clean it up.
-
GEAUX Tigers! (the real ones from Baton Rouge, that is)
Lash, in no way am I a Razorbacks fan - personally, I don't accept them to this day as an SEC team. BUT, I am in 100% agreement with you. That was a fumble and Arkansas was robbed. It was a bad call on the field, and I do think there was plenty of evidence to overturn the call.
^no
-
You guys seem to think that we can make these decisions in full speed down to the micron. Until there is a RFID chip in the nose of the ball and a sensor placed under the turf, or a frickin lazer beam...this is going to be an art, not a science.
Suck it up princess...it's a TD because we said so!!!
Regardless of whether or not the ball was 1/16 of an inch short, or 1/16 of an inch over (we don't know because there isn't a frickin lazer beam and the camera isn't on the line), there were mistakes made here that we all can learn from. That is what's important...to get better!
-
You guys seem to think that we can make these decisions in full speed down to the micron. Until there is a RFID chip in the nose of the ball and a sensor placed under the turf, or a frickin lazer beam...this is going to be an art, not a science.
Suck it up princess...it's a TD because we said so!!!
Regardless of whether or not the ball was 1/16 of an inch short, or 1/16 of an inch over (we don't know because there isn't a frickin lazer beam and the camera isn't on the line), there were mistakes made here that we all can learn from. That is what's important...to get better!
I don't think that at all. Below is a good view, showing the ball still behind the goal line. There is a video from this angle showing the guy crossing the goal line with empty hands. I understand the guy you can see in the distance signaling TD, all he could see was that the runner got in the endzone and he couldn't see the ball. The problem is that at least 2 guys were closer with views of the ball and called it a fumble and threw the beanbag down, but the ref changed and went with the view of the guy that was the farthest away and couldn't see the ball come out. They didn't make the play in full speed, they talked about it and went with the perspective of the guy farthest away.
(http://woopig.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/201016-auburn-not-a-td-2.jpg)
-
What we need is a thin line of video cameras that are situated on the goal line (where the white chalk meets the green grass). The cabling goes underground to a system where software lets you choose which of the 500 lens' you wish to view.
-
That L gets a playoff game, the H probably not.
-
What we need is a thin line of video cameras that are situated on the goal line (where the white chalk meets the green grass). The cabling goes underground to a system where software lets you choose which of the 500 lens' you wish to view.
An easier way to me would be to just put a small camera in the pylon(sp?) or even 2, one facing down the sideline and one facing down the goal line directly.
-
An easier way to me would be to just put a small camera in the pylon(sp?) or even 2, one facing down the sideline and one facing down the goal line directly.
Your spelling is correct.
Bodies could still block out that camera angle though. The only way a string of GL cameras could be blocked out is if a player is laying on them parallel to the GL.
These cameras are SD and are $7 each. In bulk, they're much lower in cost. http://chucklohr.com/808/
-
Gonna play devil's advocate here....that still picture raises the point....the defender appears to have knocked the ball loose. But his hand he's doing so with is across the plane of the goal line. What if he knocked the ball loose after it broke the GL PLane...and the ball landed back outside the GL Plane? Could have have happened here....
-
Gonna play devil's advocate here....that still picture raises the point....the defender appears to have knocked the ball loose. But his hand he's doing so with is across the plane of the goal line. What if he knocked the ball loose after it broke the GL PLane...and the ball landed back outside the GL Plane? Could have have happened here....
Actually the opposite is true. It's pretty clear the hit that would have knocked the ball out happened before the defenders arm crossed the goal line. Assuming his arm knocked it out and it wasn't just dropped, it definitely wasn't a TD. The problem is you can't assume he knocked it out.
Watch this video, you can see the defender hit the ball before the goal line, and then you can see the runner's empty hands as he crosses the goal line. The official in the endzone saw the same thing, and threw down the beanbag for a fumble and never signaled TD.
Actually, after watching the video I was wrong. It is pretty clear from the second angle that the defender knocked the ball out. Combine that with the first view of when he hit it and the empty hands, and this should have been overturned....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nA1jY4iky60&feature=player_embedded#!
[yt=425,350]nA1jY4iky60&[/yt]
-
Actually his arm doesn't hit him until right at the GL.....and the defender's body really covers where the ball is at that instant. and no I'm not from Auburn.....but it doesn't appear that the defender got to the ball/ball carrrier until he BC reached the plane...
-
I can certainly understand deferring to the H. He had a better look than the L. The H saw what he saw. It would be interesting to know if he saw the ball actually come loose or he just noticed it was loose. The L could not have seen ball break plane but did see ball loose (even if he did not see it come loose). I sure would not say anyone got "robbed" here. "Robbing" implies an intentional, deliberate act. I just see 2 (maybe 3?) guys trying to do their best to see what they can see and then rule on it.
-
Actually his arm doesn't hit him until right at the GL.....and the defender's body really covers where the ball is at that instant. and no I'm not from Auburn.....but it doesn't appear that the defender got to the ball/ball carrrier until he BC reached the plane...
I'm not so sure. Here are some still shots from that video, the first one looks pretty clear that he wasn't across, and from the others you can see the ball down between his legs, and not accross.
(http://img710.imageshack.us/img710/7880/img0814.png)
(http://img177.imageshack.us/img177/9840/img0815.png)
(http://img163.imageshack.us/img163/807/img0816.png)
(http://img219.imageshack.us/img219/9932/img0817.png)
By the way, I appreciate you folks letting me in here and discussing this. I hope you know I am not arguing, just trying to understand this myself and sharing all the information I can find on it.
I can certainly understand deferring to the H. He had a better look than the L. The H saw what he saw. It would be interesting to know if he saw the ball actually come loose or he just noticed it was loose. The L could not have seen ball break plane but did see ball loose (even if he did not see it come loose). I sure would not say anyone got "robbed" here. "Robbing" implies an intentional, deliberate act. I just see 2 (maybe 3?) guys trying to do their best to see what they can see and then rule on it.
Forgive me, I'm not an official and can't remember where the H and L line up, so I'm not sure which you are referring to.
If you are saying they should have deferred to the guy on the far side, that's what I don't understand. He didn't have a view of the fumble, the guy that did was closer and called it a fumble. I don't know why you would take the view of the guy that was farther away and his vision of the ball was blocked by the BC.
-
One thing we have pretty much decided on as a group here is that still photos are not worth much. They can be interesting to look at and say "what if" but they just do not give an accurate picture of the totality of the circumsatnces in most cases.
The L is the one who signalled fumble. He was partially obstructed by the defender. The H, even though farther away appeared to have NOBODy between himself and the ball carrier. What is not absolutely clear is if the ball carrier was at enough of an angle that his own body obstructed the H from seeing the ball. It seems the ball carrier was leaning fiorward parallel to the ground, even though the ball was in the arm opposite the H.
-
If that camera was directly on the goal line...looking parallel exactly in line with the plane, the ref would have obstructed the view. This camera is a yard or two deep in the endzone. That alone changes the perspective from the angle that the ref has.
-
I think we can all agree that the H messed up. There is no way he saw it this close while moving. But, that doesn't mean that the ball didn't break the plane.
These are 2 separate arguments.
-
I'm missing something. Who is signalling a TD here?
(http://woopig.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/201016-auburn-not-a-td-2.jpg)
-
I think we can all agree that the H messed up. There is no way he saw it this close while moving. But, that doesn't mean that the ball didn't break the plane.
These are 2 separate arguments.
I can agree with that. I understand now the perspective of the ref thinking the H had an unobstructed view, but he really didn't. The L and H would have been obstructed the same by the BC but not by anyone else, and the L was closer and signaled fumble.
I wish the SEC would find a photo or video of the H calling TD, because nobody has seen it. All we have is the word of the SEC who issued a statement later that night. I don't believe they would lie about it, but many people do. Evidence of him signaling TD would calm down the crazies a lot.
I'm missing something. Who is signalling a TD here?
That's not a good photo, because it is a split-second after the BC crossed the goal line. He didn't have time to signal at that point, I'd like to see the same photo about 5 seconds later.
If that camera was directly on the goal line...looking parallel exactly in line with the plane, the ref would have obstructed the view. This camera is a yard or two deep in the endzone. That alone changes the perspective from the angle that the ref has.
This isn't correct. Look at the 1:30 mark of the video above, you can see the camera man on the goal line.
-
Have you seen a pic of anyone signalling a TD? I keep reading that no one did at the time, but I haven't seen any video that shows the H enought to tell one way or the other.
-
Have you seen a pic of anyone signalling a TD? I keep reading that no one did at the time, but I haven't seen any video that shows the H enought to tell one way or the other.
On the video posted by juggling referee, at the 0:18 mark, you can see the F and the L walking past the ball toward the H. That seems pretty obvious to me that they are going to talk to him, as he had something different than what they had.
And Penn Wagers wasn't going to signal TD unless someone on the crew had it.
-
[yt=425,350]c5J57vlgQfg[/yt]
I hadn't gone back and watched this. This is the closest I've seen to showing the H, and it appears his hands come to his hips and begin to raise at the 1:20 mark, as he was beginning to signal TD.
-
Certainly appears to be a fumble. But until you can take the word 'appears' out of my previous statement, replay can't do anything with it. If that's all the looks they got in the replay booth, you can't reverse that to a fumble. You can't prove it. If you say there is proof to overturn the call on the field, then you either don't understand the rules of replay or have a different video than what I am looking at.
I think it is a fumble. Key word, "think."
-
Certainly appears to be a fumble. But until you can take the word 'appears' out of my previous statement, replay can't do anything with it. If that's all the looks they got in the replay booth, you can't reverse that to a fumble. You can't prove it. If you say there is proof to overturn the call on the field, then you either don't understand the rules of replay or have a different video than what I am looking at.
I think it is a fumble. Key word, "think."
Oh I absolutely agree. That is as close as you can be to "indisputable" without getting there, but it's not quite there. I am convinced it was a fumble, and I'm convinced the replay would not reverse this either way. Had it been called a fumble, it would have stayed a fumble.
The problem is in calling it a TD, when the guy closer called it a fumble. That's where they messed up.
-
Did you read my post? Perhaps I was not clear so i will try to reiterate. In officiating, being closer does not always mean having the better look. If there was a mistake here, it was not that "the closer guy ruled fumble and the other one did not".
-
Did you read my post? Perhaps I was not clear so i will try to reiterate. In officiating, being closer does not always mean having the better look. If there was a mistake here, it was not that "the closer guy ruled fumble and the other one did not".
They were at basically the same angle. How is officiating any different than anything else in that it is harder to see something from 30 yards than 5 yards? If they had basically the same angle, and nobody was in between either one of them, wouldn't the one that was closer have the better view?
I am pretty sure the first two are true, from the pictures and videos posted. Apparently the guy that was closest didn't feel confident enough to stick to his call when they conferenced, but it seems like he was right in calling it a fumble and the referee was wrong in changing to the opinion of the guy that definitely couldn't see the ball come out.
-
If one guy is 5 feet away from Object X but there is an object Z between him and Object X, he does not have as good a look as someone 30 feet from Object X on the other side of Object X who has no intervening objects.
There was an intervening object for the line judge, another player.
Furthermore, when you are farther away you have a wider field of view so more data is available to your brain then when you are overly close. Not saying the L was overly close, just talking in general terms.
-
If one guy is 5 feet away from Object X but there is an object Z between him and Object X, he does not have as good a look as someone 30 feet from Object X on the other side of Object X who has no intervening objects.
There was an intervening object for the line judge, another player.
Furthermore, when you are farther away you have a wider field of view so more data is available to your brain then when you are overly close. Not saying the L was overly close, just talking in general terms.
I'm afraid you're wrong there. Look at the pictures and the video above, there is no player between the BC and the official in the end zone that dropped the beanbag. Check the :34 mark of the video above and you can see it. He had pretty much the same view, except he was closer and he might have even had a better view of the ball since he was deeper in the endzone and could have seen the ball where the guy farther away on the goal line had the ball carrier totally blocking his view of the ball.
As for your second statement, how is it a good thing to have more data in this case? That means more distractions, the guy closer would be better able to focus in on the ball and nothing else, while the other guy wouldn't see it as closely and would have more data to have to process that didn't affect the call.
-
As for your second statement, how is it a good thing to have more data in this case? That means more distractions, the guy closer would be better able to focus in on the ball and nothing else, while the other guy wouldn't see it as closely and would have more data to have to process that didn't affect the call.
With all due respect, I have to ask - have you ever called a football game?
-
With all due respect, I have to ask - have you ever called a football game?
No, I think I claimed that earlier. That is why I am here asking questions from those that have. If there is a reason it is better to be far away and have more to look at as opposed to being closer and focused on the ball in question, please explain it to me.
-
The U is in the end zone. He has no idea if the ball broke the plane. That is why we do not let the U's signal TD. The L is the one who has the look down the goal line. And he is the one who IS blocked. He did not see a ball in possession break the plane so he did not signal TD. He saw a loose ball so he dropped his bag (which perhaps the U did also). But the unobstructed H (also on the goal line) ruled TD (whether he signalled or not).
Making the call requires a lot of data, was the ball in possession, did it break the plane, did it break the plane before some part of the player's body other than a foot or hand touched the ground, etc etc
-
The U is in the end zone. He has no idea if the ball broke the plane. That is why we do not let the U's signal TD. The L is the one who has the look down the goal line. And he is the one who IS blocked. He did not see a ball in possession break the plane so he did not signal TD. He saw a loose ball so he dropped his bag (which perhaps the U did also). But the unobstructed H (also on the goal line) ruled TD (whether he signalled or not).
Making the call requires a lot of data, was the ball in possession, did it break the plane, did it break the plane before some part of the player's body other than a foot or hand touched the ground, etc etc
Ok, that makes sense. I still don't see why you trust the guy that is 30 yards away, instead of the 2 people (both the U next to the play and the L on the goal line) that called it a fumble.
At the :10 mark you can see the L follow the ball and signal it is Arkansas' possession, around the 2:50 mark you can see the U begin to drop his beanbag and the L does not signal TD.
Why take the view of the guy on the far side of the field, over the 2 guys who were closer. The L and H had opposite view points, one signaled TD and one signaled fumble. The U had a different view point and also signaled fumble. Why did the ref take the view of 1 instead of considering all 3?
-
Lash
The only official in good position with an unobstructed view of this play was the one who ruled touchdown...it's that simple. With all the video presented, I'm convinced that it is possible that a part of the ball broke the plane of the goaline.
I still don't see why you trust the guy that is 30 yards away, instead of the 2 people (both the U next to the play and the L on the goal line) that called it a fumble.
BECAUSE ONE WAS OBSTRUCTED AND ONE WAS NOT AT AN ANGLE TO RULE ON THE PLANE OF THE GOALINE
-
It boils down to the fact that closer is not always better. As Mike said, a wide angle can offer additional information that is critical to a call.
-
No, I think I claimed that earlier. That is why I am here asking questions from those that have. If there is a reason it is better to be far away and have more to look at as opposed to being closer and focused on the ball in question, please explain it to me.
I think Mike already did that.
-
Lash
The only official in good position with an unobstructed view of this play was the one who ruled touchdown...it's that simple. With all the video presented, I'm convinced that it is possible that a part of the ball broke the plain of the goaline.
Why? Several of you have said this, but nobody has explained why the guy farthest away had the best view.
It boils down to the fact that closer is not always better. As Mike said, a wide angle can offer additional information that is critical to a call.
Same question, why does a wider angle make a better position in this instance? What additional information did he have that would help make the call?
I'm interested in an explanation because I can't think of one....but I'm not an official so maybe there is something you're taught that I don't know.
I'll add my own theory. I think the U and the L saw the ball come out and weren't sure if it crossed the goal line, they threw down the beanbag to let it play out. The H didn't see the ball come out because the BC's leg blocked his view, so he called TD. When they conferenced none were sure of where the ball was, so they went with TD and reviewed it on replay which wasn't quite conclusive.
That is strictly my made up opinion with nothing to base it on, just a guess of what may have happened. But it makes more sense than "the guy farthest away could see it better."
-
Why? Several of you have said this, but nobody has explained why the guy farthest away had the best view.
Same question, why does a wider angle make a better position in this instance? What additional information did he have that would help make the call?
I'm interested in an explanation because I can't think of one....but I'm not an official so maybe there is something you're taught that I don't know.
I'll add my own theory. I think the U and the L saw the ball come out and weren't sure if it crossed the goal line, they threw down the beanbag to let it play out. The H didn't see the ball come out because the BC's leg blocked his view, so he called TD. When they conferenced none were sure of where the ball was, so they went with TD and reviewed it on replay which wasn't quite conclusive.
That is strictly my made up opinion with nothing to base it on, just a guess of what may have happened. But it makes more sense than "the guy farthest away could see it better."
Probably the only way this will be resolved to stop the "grassy knoll" crowd, is when the schools release their end zone camera views. It will plainly show if the Head Linesman signals touchdown, and then the conspiracy folks will have to be quiet or get their question answered. I admit bias, but I feel like there is enough evidence to reverse the call. I also never heard a whistle on the replays I've seen. Isn't it apropros to blow your whistle when you signal touchdown? Just asking.
-
Probably the only way this will be resolved to stop the "grassy knoll" crowd, is when the schools release their end zone camera views. It will plainly show if the Head Linesman signals touchdown, and then the conspiracy folks will have to be quiet or get their question answered. I admit bias, but I feel like there is enough evidence to reverse the call. I also never heard a whistle on the replays I've seen. Isn't it apropros to blow your whistle when you signal touchdown? Just asking.
I'm interested in the answer to this also. The guys on woopig stick to that as their reasoning for believing the H never signaled TD, but if he put both hands up for a TD how would he put his whistle in his mouth to blow it? You can see the L put his whistle in his mouth, so I assume the H had to also but couldn't because he was signaling TD, and it would be someone else's job to blow the play dead. But that is just my uneducated guess.
-
I've been taught "Angle over Distance" philosophy ever since I started officiating. It is better to have a good look at the play from the proper angle than be too close and not see the whole situation in it's entirety. It's especially prevalent in non-collision sports like basketball and baseball where you are looking for contact on a shooter's body or hand or a tag at a base. That being said though...on the goal line, any angle at all other than parallel is a bad angle on a play like this.
The L is sitting there with his feet solid, he is dropping his posture to look under the defender, he is looking 100% down the line at the time it all comes together. I think he's in perfect position mechanically speaking. The guy who makes the TD call is just a tad late getting to the line and the BC's leg does mask the ball. Its a fair question to ask...does he have a better (unobstructed) look.
Replay is handcuffed because they don't have indisputable evidence to overturn the call. But that being said, it is very fair to say that it is possible for the ball to have touched the plane of the line. I'm just not sure that H could see that.
It will be interesting to see how the SEC front office handles this.
And for the record, the whistle doesn't mean anything...many plays have no whistle at all. The ball becomes dead PRIOR to our whistle in nearly every case. We practice not having an early whistle...that's why the whistle isn't in the mouth during the play. By the time whomever signaled TD got to blowing a whistle, he likely recognized the scrum for the loose ball and withheld.
-
Thanks blind ref, excellent explanation and it makes perfect sense. I have said all along the replay official was handcuffed by the call, he couldn't have overturned that either way. The play was decided when the ref called TD, and it is questionable as to whether or not that was the right choice.
It makes sense about the angle the U had, but the L and H having the same angle seems like the one that is closer would be what mattered. It isn't like a play in baseball where you need to see the bag and the catch, all you needed to see was the ball over the goal line and both had the same view of that. It seemed like the L had the better view but something made the ref trust the H more, that leads me back to my theory of neither being totally sure. It makes sense for them to huddle and the L and H both say they couldn't tell for sure. No doubt he crossed the goal line and no doubt he fumbled, the question is when, so it's possible he was right to signal TD and the U was right to signal fumble since that's all he saw was that there was a fumble, not when there was a fumble. In that case it makes sense to go with the TD since the L and H had obstructed views and hope the replay has a better view, unfortunately it didn't really.
-
It will be interesting to see how the SEC front office handles this.
They already have. There is no way they go back now and say something different. It would destroy all crediobility. They have said their piece and it is up to everyone to agree or disagree buit there will not be anything changed in their official statement.
-
Thanks blind ref, excellent explanation and it makes perfect sense. I have said all along the replay official was handcuffed by the call, he couldn't have overturned that either way. The play was decided when the ref called TD, and it is questionable as to whether or not that was the right choice.
It makes sense about the angle the U had, but the L and H having the same angle seems like the one that is closer would be what mattered. It isn't like a play in baseball where you need to see the bag and the catch, all you needed to see was the ball over the goal line and both had the same view of that. It seemed like the L had the better view but something made the ref trust the H more, that leads me back to my theory of neither being totally sure. It makes sense for them to huddle and the L and H both say they couldn't tell for sure. No doubt he crossed the goal line and no doubt he fumbled, the question is when, so it's possible he was right to signal TD and the U was right to signal fumble since that's all he saw was that there was a fumble, not when there was a fumble. In that case it makes sense to go with the TD since the L and H had obstructed views and hope the replay has a better view, unfortunately it didn't really.
This business requires a lot of trust. If my partner can tell me that he saw something and he's 100% sure of his call, that's my teammate and I'm going to give him the respect of his call. At this level, there is no room for wussies! You make a call and you either be dang sure its right, fix it if it's not, or you be willing to pay the price if you don't. If one of my crew members is fishing in my pond, I think I have every right to ask them to be 100% sure. I'm certain this conversation occurred prior to the R signaling and announcing TD.
If it was easy, everyone would be doing it!!!
-
Okay, this question will seem like it is dripping in sarcasm, but I don't know any other way to ask it.
First things first. The claim is that the Head Linesman signaled touchdown. I've seen no video proof of this, although as I stated before, the end zone cameras of both schools will show the entire field, and I suspect that if there is video proof that there was in fact a signal of touchdown, we will some day see it. I listened several times to the play as it was happening, and the only whistle I ever hear, is the whistles blowing the play dead after the Arkansas player scooped the ball and was tackled. I do not hear a whistle when the HL supposedly signals touchdown. None. And it does seem that the crowd notices the ball on the ground, so no definitive celebration cheer is heard.
For the sake of argument I concede that any official signaled touchdown, so the white hat has very little other choice but to make the official call on the field as touchdown. Even though two other officials seem to think there was a fumble. Tough to do, but the white hat has to make tough decisions.
Now, let's take it to the booth. Several of you have said there is not enough evidence to reverse the call. Why? If you even have just a very topical understanding of Newton's Laws of Motion, you can see that IF the ball had crossed the goal line in the running back's possession, if the defender swatted the ball AWAY from the goal line, the ball would have bounced away from the end zone. You can see on both of the most definitive angles, the ball drops straight down, and clearly 5-8 inches away from the goal line. This is simple gravity. A football takes funny bounces because of its shape, but it cannot defy the law of gravity that is in effect when the defender slaps the ball out of the running back's hand, it goes straight down. Short of a hurricane effecting the ball in a manner that it had to drop straight down for some unexplained metaphysical reason, there is 100% evidence that the ball was never over the goal line or in the end zone.
Am I making sense? I just cannot for the life of me take hold of the fact that there is not enough evidence to reverse the call. If there is not, considering Newton's Laws of Motion, I would think there is no longer reason for video review because all it does is delay the game.
I'm not a conspiracy theorist. I do not think SEC officials have it out for Arkansas, but I sure wish I could understand why there was not enough evidence to reverse the call, and remember I'm not so sure any official ever threw his hands up signaling touchdown.
-
Because replay isn't based on laws of physics...it's based on the laws of what you can see and defend. The ball goes completely invisible for a second...there is no clear picture of the ball in, or out. They can't look at where the ball hits to try and ascertain where it was...it's against the laws of NCAA!
-
Lash, out of long, and sometimes bitter, experience (almost 30 years in this):
Closer is usually WORSE than farther away. The closer you are to the action, the more you are under stress. It's simply part of a humans genetical heritage of being part hunter, part prey. Stress is BAD.
Angles get skewed much more when you are close than when you have 3/4 of the field in between. That is used in what is called "crossfield officiating", where (as the closer wing) you let yourself be guided by the actions and body language of your opposite.
There are (in the meantime numerous) studies by universities that have found that the majority of bad calls come from officials close to the action, while the majority of good calls in field sports like football or soccer are made from distances in the 20 meter (or above) range.
This is why we (sometimes) go with the call from farther away, if discussion leads us to the conclusion that the one farther away had the better look.
In the actual play the H can make a good case that he DID see at least part of the ball at the moment it came loose, and its relative position to the GL. And he had a good view of the first moment the ball was loose, which is the moment we (and the L) can't see because of the player in between.
-
Because replay isn't based on laws of physics...it's based on the laws of what you can see and defend. The ball goes completely invisible for a second...there is no clear picture of the ball in, or out. They can't look at where the ball hits to try and ascertain where it was...it's against the laws of NCAA!
Your serious? Surely you're joking. There is a very clear picture of the ball out of the ball carrier's hands and falling straight to the ground. You're telling me you've never called PI on a player who was reaching around a receiver, yet you couldn't completely see whether he made contact as he reached around him? I know a good referee will only call what he sees, and by and large this is true of most of the officials I've ever had the privilege to work with, but occasionally even a good official will make a call based on what he feels like had to have logically happened based on his experience and what he feels like happened.
I know you're just pulling my leg. Surely.
-
No jokes here...for jokes you'll need to look up Tony Timmons on YouTube! (That's an inside joke!)
I'm saying that REPLAY officials can't do that by rule.
On the field...yes, we use all sorts of geometry, probability, and reasoning. But the guy in the booth has to have INDISPUTABLE VIDEO EVIDENCE to overturn what was called. Imagine the can-o-worms if the R announced, "After further review, the IR official can't see the ball, but logically concluded with a slightly less than perfect camera angle and a PhD analysis in Trigonometry that the ball didn't cross the goal line prior to the defender knocking it out."
-
No jokes here...for jokes you'll need to look up Tony Timmons on YouTube! (That's an inside joke!)
I'm saying that REPLAY officials can't do that by rule.
On the field...yes, we use all sorts of geometry, probability, and reasoning. But the guy in the booth has to have INDISPUTABLE VIDEO EVIDENCE to overturn what was called. Imagine the can-o-worms if the R announced, "After further review, the IR official can't see the ball, but logically concluded with a slightly less than perfect camera angle and a PhD analysis in Trigonometry that the ball didn't cross the goal line prior to the defender knocking it out."
So gravity is not indisputable evidence? The ball drops straight to the ground. Had it ever been over the goal line or in the end zone, there is absolutely no way on this planet it could have dropped straight down, as seen on two camera angles. The runner was going into the end zone the entire time, he was not knocked back at all. The ball went straight down. It lands 5-8 inches behind the end zone and rests until acted upon by another force (the Arkansas player scooping it up).
It is time to do away with instant replay if you cannot use laws of science and nature as part of your perception as a guideline when making the decision.
What you're saying is that if you are the trailing official, and you see a tackler reach in front of a ball carrier, the ball carrier's head jerks back, you cannot throw a flag for face mask because you didn't actually see his face mask grasped? Not all of your brethren think this.
What a world.
-
Reading is fundamental sir.
Please don't use the framework of "so you're saying" when that is not at all what I said. You sound like a coach!
-
So gravity is not indisputable evidence? The ball drops straight to the ground. Had it ever been over the goal line or in the end zone, there is absolutely no way on this planet it could have dropped straight down, as seen on two camera angles. The runner was going into the end zone the entire time, he was not knocked back at all. The ball went straight down. It lands 5-8 inches behind the end zone and rests until acted upon by another force (the Arkansas player scooping it up).
It is time to do away with instant replay if you cannot use laws of science and nature as part of your perception as a guideline when making the decision.
What you're saying is that if you are the trailing official, and you see a tackler reach in front of a ball carrier, the ball carrier's head jerks back, you cannot throw a flag for face mask because you didn't actually see his face mask grasped? Not all of your brethren think this.What a world.
Absolutely, I am not calling a personal foul facemaks unless I see the hand on the face mask and the head move from the movement of the hand on the facemask. I have seen way too many times that a head jerks with the jersy pull or any number of reasons. Like wise I do not call a touch down unless I see the ball in player possession crossing the plane of the goal line. If you assume............... well you know what happens then.
-
The ball drops straight to the ground. Had it ever been over the goal line or in the end zone, there is absolutely no way on this planet it could have dropped straight down,
There is NOTHING in the replay that shows that the ball could not have crossed the plane, been knocked loose by the defender and dropped the exact way you described. Laws of physics or gravity or whatever, you have no way of knowing if the ball was 5" short of the plane, or 1" over it. What you are describing ASSUMES the ball was dropped straight down. There is no VIDEO EVIDENCE that is true. There is also no video evidence that it is not true.
In other words, the call on the field HAD to stand, as there was no video evidence to support either side of this argument, which has now moved from the ridiculous to the sublime.
You sound like a coach!
Watch it!
-
I can certainly understand deferring to the H. He had a better look than the L. The H saw what he saw. It would be interesting to know if he saw the ball actually come loose or he just noticed it was loose. The L could not have seen ball break plane but did see ball loose (even if he did not see it come loose). I sure would not say anyone got "robbed" here. "Robbing" implies an intentional, deliberate act. I just see 2 (maybe 3?) guys trying to do their best to see what they can see and then rule on it.
You're right, mike. I removed my officials cap and put on my fan cap. But I still believe the call was all jacked up.
-
There is NOTHING in the replay that shows that the ball could not have crossed the plane, been knocked loose by the defender and dropped the exact way you described. Laws of physics or gravity or whatever, you have no way of knowing if the ball was 5" short of the plane, or 1" over it. What you are describing ASSUMES the ball was dropped straight down. There is no VIDEO EVIDENCE that is true. There is also no video evidence that it is not true.
In other words, the call on the field HAD to stand, as there was no video evidence to support either side of this argument, which has now moved from the ridiculous to the sublime.
Watch it!
So a ball dropping straight to the ground from two different angles, 5" short of the goal line is not true evidence of what was taped?
My memory is that you are a coach, or former coach, so you probably have a football laying around close to you. Ask for help. Have your helper hold the ball and you slap the ball straight down. Then slap the ball from the front of your helper, and then from behind. Film it if you like. You will see that when a ball is slapped straight down, it is physically impossible for it to fall any other way. Now, the shape of a football has been proven time and again may cause it, when it lands, to go any random direction. If you slap the ball from the front, or back, you will witness inertia and the ball will travel opposite the direction the force came from. When it lands, it's up to randomness again.
The video that the replay official witnessed showed the ball go straight down, 5-8" short of the goal line. No, he didn't have a view where he could see the ball being slapped, but he can see that there is no physical way the ball could have crossed the goal line. Zero.
My point is that it seems to take more evidence to reverse a call than can ever possibly be proven, so they should do away with instant replay. If you cannot use simple gravity as indisputable evidence, and the second controversial play in the game where the runner's knee was clearly down proved you cannot use vision as indisputable evidence, why lenghthen the game so unnecessarily?
-
Although I'm 100% definite this is meant to be insulting, if I'm on this crew, and I'm of the understanding that at least some of the crew who worked the Arkansas Auburn game frequent this board, I take them up on this.
http://www.4029tv.com/r/25439919/detail.html
-
So a ball dropping straight to the ground from two different angles, 5" short of the goal line is not true evidence of what was taped?
[...]
The video that the replay official witnessed showed the ball go straight down, 5-8" short of the goal line. No, he didn't have a view where he could see the ball being slapped, but he can see that there is no physical way the ball could have crossed the goal line. Zero.
My point is that it seems to take more evidence to reverse a call than can ever possibly be proven, so they should do away with instant replay. If you cannot use simple gravity as indisputable evidence, and the second controversial play in the game where the runner's knee was clearly down proved you cannot use vision as indisputable evidence, why lenghthen the game so unnecessarily?
Are you saying that it would have been impossible for the ball to be slapped out back towards the runner's body after it crossed the goal line and deflect off the body at an angle that would have if fall straight down? The runners body was angled toward the goal line and absolutely could have provided the necessary angle to deflect a ball straight downward. It may be highly unlikely, but I do not think it is impossible.
For the record, I believe it was a fumble. I also don't believe the replay official had enough evidence to overturn either call.
-
Are you saying that it would have been impossible for the ball to be slapped out back towards the runner's body after it crossed the goal line and deflect off the body at an angle that would have if fall straight down? The runners body was angled toward the goal line and absolutely could have provided the necessary angle to deflect a ball straight downward. It may be highly unlikely, but I do not think it is impossible.
For the record, I believe it was a fumble. I also don't believe the replay official had enough evidence to overturn either call.
No, I didn't say it couldn't be slapped back towards the runner's body. The runner, and his body, were heading into the end zone. I'm saying the defender slapped the ball straight down, and the ball, as seen on the video, reacted the only way it could when slapped straight down, outside of the end zone.
For the record, although momentum was effected, I'm not blaming the loss of the game on a poor call. I'm just saying that there is no reason for instant replay, in its current constricted format. It takes less to convict a person of murder than to have a call overturned in the NCAA if gravity is not evidence enough to change a call. deadhorse:
-
I'm just gonna say "you're full of crap hawgerelli." I understand you are a fan which allows me to see that your completely biased with your "arguement." There is no video evidence showing what contacted the ball to cause it to come loose. The defender may have hit the runners arm causing him to lose it. That gives a different impetus and blows your opposite reaction theory to bits. You cannot see if the ball hit the runners belt or upper thigh or whatever else is hidden at the moment of impact. Save your "physics" for your final exam...and don't expect an "A."
-
Absolutely, I am not calling a personal foul facemaks unless I see the hand on the face mask and the head move from the movement of the hand on the facemask. I have seen way too many times that a head jerks with the jersy pull or any number of reasons. Like wise I do not call a touch down unless I see the ball in player possession crossing the plane of the goal line. If you assume............... well you know what happens then.
Ditto.
-
I'm just gonna say "you're full of crap hawgerelli." I understand you are a fan which allows me to see that your completely biased with your "arguement." There is no video evidence showing what contacted the ball to cause it to come loose. The defender may have hit the runners arm causing him to lose it. That gives a different impetus and blows your opposite reaction theory to bits. You cannot see if the ball hit the runners belt or upper thigh or whatever else is hidden at the moment of impact. Save your "physics" for your final exam...and don't expect an "A."
Wow. It matters not if I am a fan. It also doesn't matter what knocked the ball out. What matters is the video does show that the ball dropped straight down. There is zero possibility that it ever crossed the goal line. Zero. I get the fraternity thing. I appreciate you standing up for your "brothers," but I'm full of crap because I suggest that there is in fact enough evidence to reverse the call? Thanks for your open mind. When you're preparing for your jr. high assignments Thursday, try and make football drop straight down by hitting it away from your body.
-
Wow. It matters not if I am a fan. It also doesn't matter what knocked the ball out. What matters is the video does show that the ball dropped straight down.
The video MIGHT show that the ball dropped straight down. But since you don't see where it was when it left the runner's possession, you have no PROOF that it dropped straight down. You THINK you see it drop straight down, but since you don't know where it was when the runner lost possession, you don't KNOW that, and neither did the replay official, which is why he couldn't change the call on the field, no mater what it was.
There is zero possibility that it ever crossed the goal line. Zero.
Obviously, that's not true.
I get the fraternity thing. I appreciate you standing up for your "brothers,"
Obviously, I'm not part of the fraternity, but I know when there is not enough evidence to overturn a call.
but I'm full of crap because I suggest that there is in fact enough evidence to reverse the call?
Well, I'll say you don't understand the role of the replay official.
Thanks for your open mind. When you're preparing for your jr. high assignments Thursday, try and make football drop straight down by hitting it away from your body.
Well, the next time I see this replay official (and I do at the SEC games where I work), I'll be sure to let him know what you thought of his decision. I'm sure it will keep him awake that night.
Did the crew on the field miss the call? They might have. The fact that they were divided means SOMEONE was right and someone was wrong. Penn chose to go with one of the two sides, and maybe his decision was right, and maybe it was wrong. But replay showed it's fallibility, and proved why the rule requires the following be followed:
The instant replay process operates under the fundamental assumption that the ruling on the field is correct. The replay official may reverse a ruling if and only if the video evidence convinces him beyond all doubt that the ruling was incorrect. Without such indisputable video evidence, the replay official must allow the ruling to stand.
-
The video MIGHT show that the ball dropped straight down. But since you don't see where it was when it left the runner's possession, you have no PROOF that it dropped straight down. You THINK you see it drop straight down, but since you don't know where it was when the runner lost possession, you don't KNOW that, and neither did the replay official, which is why he couldn't change the call on the field, no mater what it was.
Obviously, that's not true.
Semantics, but the video doesn't "MIGHT" show the ball drop straight down. It definitely shows it drop straight down.
Obviously, I'm not part of the fraternity, but I know when there is not enough evidence to overturn a call.
I made that statement as a compliment. Honestly. I honestly wish that the coaches and teachers I work with would stand behind their peers like game officials do.
Well, I'll say you don't understand the role of the replay official.
I totally understand it. I think the replay official's duties should be tweeked a bit if he cannot rely also on laws of science to help him make a decision.
Well, the next time I see this replay official (and I do at the SEC games where I work), I'll be sure to let him know what you thought of his decision. I'm sure it will keep him awake that night.
That's good. You big timed me. Congratulations. Do you feel better? My bet is if he has any conscience at all, he did lose sleep after this game because there were two very critical replays in the game, that had a big input on the momentum of the game. If he has the ability to never second guess himself, I would say he probably isn't perfect, but it don't take long to call the roll of the class he is in.
Did the crew on the field miss the call? They might have. The fact that they were divided means SOMEONE was right and someone was wrong. Penn chose to go with one of the two sides, and maybe his decision was right, and maybe it was wrong. But replay showed it's fallibility, and proved why the rule requires the following be followed:
The instant replay process operates under the fundamental assumption that the ruling on the field is correct. The replay official may reverse a ruling if and only if the video evidence convinces him beyond all doubt that the ruling was incorrect. Without such indisputable video evidence, the replay official must allow the ruling to stand.
Maybe you and I aren't watching the same replay. The defender reaches in, clearly, before the player breaks the plane of the goal line. I concede that there is not a camera angle that shows the contact that took place on the ball. My "dead horse" argument is that from the evidence I see on that replay, the defender reaches in before even the player breaks the plane (well, his helmet is breaking the plane) of the goal line, and then we can see the ball drop straight down and rest 5-8 inches behind the goal line. My argument is that this is compelling evidence (inertia) that the ball never broke the plane.
Honestly, I'm not as upset as I'm coming across. Arkansas' responsibility was to stop Auburn whether there were calls against them, or in their favor. When the both school's end zone wide camera shot is released, I will be incensed if the Head Linesman is not holding his hands up signaling touchdown. If the video shows him signaling touchdown, I only expect that the linesman who throws his bean bag on this play, and then later in the game runs forward as if to spot the player down, and then changes course running to the end zone, never releasing his bean bag signifying, he actually saw the fumble, and no knee down, and (lol) he uses no other laws of science to defend his lack of protocol, to be trained more properly.
-
Guys, keep it professional, and not personally attacking one another. Visitors to the board should not be berated for their opinions/viewpoints anymore than officials who defend their craft. A healthy discussion helps all learn.
That being said, AtlantaBlue, you mention..."The instant replay process operates under the fundamental assumption that the ruling on the field is correct. The replay official may reverse a ruling if and only if the video evidence convinces him beyond all doubt that the ruling was incorrect. Without such indisputable video evidence, the replay official must allow the ruling to stand."
So my question is a) did anyone on the field signal touchdown prior to the R doing so, and where can we see that videotape? and b) if no one signaled touchdown, then the order of calls was fumble by the L, then after consultation, touchdown by the R, why would the instant replay not issue on the first ruling made by the L which was fumble. Does that revert to a "the referee is the ultimate authority" thing?
However, if the L and the H both had different signals, then I understand why the R after consultation made a decision, thus establishing the ruling on the field as a touchdown. Again, does anyone have a photo, or video of the H and L signalling differently?
-
Guys, keep it professional, and not personally attacking one another. Visitors to the board should not be berated for their opinions/viewpoints anymore than officials who defend their craft. A healthy discussion helps all learn.
That being said, AtlantaBlue, you mention..."The instant replay process operates under the fundamental assumption that the ruling on the field is correct. The replay official may reverse a ruling if and only if the video evidence convinces him beyond all doubt that the ruling was incorrect. Without such indisputable video evidence, the replay official must allow the ruling to stand."
So my question is a) did anyone on the field signal touchdown prior to the R doing so, and where can we see that videotape? and b) if no one signaled touchdown, then the order of calls was fumble by the L, then after consultation, touchdown by the R, why would the instant replay not issue on the first ruling made by the L which was fumble. Does that revert to a "the referee is the ultimate authority" thing?
However, if the L and the H both had different signals, then I understand why the R after consultation made a decision, thus establishing the ruling on the field as a touchdown. Again, does anyone have a photo, or video of the H and L signalling differently?
Let me be clear here. I've probably been around this board longer than most of the officials who post here have. I read it all the time, and post very little. There's probably not a better poster on here than Atlanta Blue. He thinks I'm this Razorback fan punk with no objectivity. There's probably enough evidence to convict me of that without a replay official stepping in and clearing it up.
Having hopefully cleared up that I expect to be "attacked" some. I am an athletic director who protects the officials on my field and courts to the nth degree, even when I have disagreed with a call or two in the game. Posting on this board allows me to lower my professionalism a bit, and be a fan. I am disappointed by being told I'm full of crap, but Atlanta Blue talking down to me doesn't bother me. I'm also Bill Clinton's 3rd cousin, and I've never voted for him for any office in my life, but I appreciate his fame, and when he made decisions that I know he didn't believe in, but had to do them politically, I understood.
I know people in the athletic department at Arkansas and Auburn. Auburn is actually my second favorite team. I also know that they have an end zone camera that shows the entire film for coaching purposes. One of the schools will have the evidence if the Head Linesman signaled touchdown. He probably did. In this day and age, if he didn't, and some sort of "conspiracy" seemed to exist, it would have already leaked out. It is my understanding that the SEC officials get to view this video for their training purposes, but I've been told that film isn't released until mid week, so I'm kind of expecting either a bombshell or a big nothing tomorrow. Can you actually do that? Maybe that's Newton's 14th law?
-
I don't believe you came here looking for answers, you came here looking for a specific answer. When you didn't get it...well here we are.
-
I don't believe you came here looking for answers, you came here looking for a specific answer. When you didn't get it...well here we are.
No. I pretty much found the answers I expected.
My true question has been about whether there is a need for instant replay under the current constraints. I've said it several times in this thread. IR just lengthens the game. When a crew has to join together and decide what the ruling on the field is, so the IR official knows his limitations can't be what was envisioned when IR was implemented. Supposedly, the official furthest from the play overrules everybody including the official who throws the bean bag and never hesitates in believing what his eyes saw, and even those of you who are claiming it looks like a fumble but not enough evidence to reverse should have a hard time arguing if it turns out this guy never signaled touchdown, but meant to.
By the way, several Auburn fans agree with me 100% on this call, so it's not just my homerism. Evidently lots of people are full of crap.
-
There's probably not a better poster on here than Atlanta Blue.
Thank you, but not even I believe that. I try to be fair, and I try to learn. I am not a football official, but I do work with the replay officials in the SEC, and have even been invited to the SEC officials meetings in Birmingham (as well as their golf tournament!).
He thinks I'm this Razorback fan punk with no objectivity.
Not a punk, but a fan with let's say, limited objectivity.
I am disappointed by being told I'm full of crap, but Atlanta Blue talking down to me doesn't bother me.
I NEVER said you were full of crap. I said think you were wrong (and less than objective), but I never said anything about full of crap.
I also know that they have an end zone camera that shows the entire film for coaching purposes.
Well, maybe. Yes, all major colleges (and even my high school team) have end zone cameras. They may or may not have an angle wide enough to show the H out on the sideline. And these films are not usually part of the officials review. The schools will sometimes send them to the league office if there is something specific they want reviewed, and the league office can certainly ask a school for an end zone tape, although that would be a rare occurrence. No school would deny the request. But it's not a standard thing for the league to get each team's end zone film.
I am certain that the H must have signaled touchdown. The L and the F walk past the ball and are moving toward the H after the play, which seems to indicate they need to meet with him, which they wouldn't have done unless he had something different. And Penn Wagers, formally the highest rated R in the league (and probably number 2 right now) would not have suddenly come up with a TD call if no one had called it originally. Just because we can't see the H raise his hands in the CBS replay doesn't mean it didn't happen, I'm certain it did.
But I don't have indisputable proof by replay. ;)
-
There is no need for an immediate TD signal to come to the conclusion that a TD was scored after delibertaion by the officials.
There are numerous situations where the covering official sees a TD but only gives a TO signal after the end of the play, because he has a flag down (or notices a flag thrown by another official). If the penalty is declined or the flag is picked up (for whatever reason), the TD will be signaled by the R.
And that's the point: the only REALLY IMPORTANT TD signal is that by the R after the officials huddle.
-
Atlanta Blue, I didn't mean to say you said bad things, somebody else did. Poor communication on my part.
KB brings up an interesting, yet factual point. I will just add that if it turns out that the HL didn't signal td, and the decision was made after the conference, there will be uproar because the league office released a statement saying he claims he did signal td.
Okay, enough of this, I'm off to prove that the "face" on Mars is actually the burial mound of Moses. Keep up the good work guys, and stop getting offended when you're questioned. I watched this game with a veteran official and he was incensed by the decision, but he's been a fan much longer than he's been official.
As an old timer myself, I am more deeply concerned of the new generation of coaches who think the game is all about them. I'm speaking of high school and jr. high level coaches. You veterans keep the communication lines open with them and make them realize that you are only on the side of what is correct, and you put them in a position to grow up when you make this your platform. Refusing to communicate with them, just makes both of your jobs harder.