Florida-Ole Miss: Can replay not assist with dead ball vs. live ball fouls?

[zebrastripes]

Late in the first half. The Florida-Ole Miss crew incorrectly rules a Team B personal foul, hands to the face, to be a dead ball foul when it clearly should have been live ball, on fourth down with a successful field goal. If correctly ruled Ole Miss would have had the option of wiping off the field goal and taking first down with goal to go. Is the RC seriously not allowed to say on O2O “Hey guys, this is a live ball foul”? Don’t understand the point of having replay if they can’t intervene on blatant errors like this.

Would have liked to see some more common sense with the on-field crew, too. How often is hands to the face a dead ball foul? Almost never.

[dammitbobby]

Not a replay expert or anything even remotely close, but I started this past year learning the replay tech position. From what I saw, the RO/Communicator roles conversations with the crew can vary, depending on the crew. Some RO/Communicators are very engaged and actively provide 'helpful' information as to 'hey guys, the RO likes the 31 better, instead of the 32' (where the crew spotted the ball, etc.), correcting numbers on foul announcements, etc., they are just giving information to the crew and they can use or not use that information. Other crews didn't really provide that kind of feedback on an ongoing basis; it really seemed to be whatever the on field crew wanted. 

 I don't recall a single time this season where replay tried to correct a foul status like the one you described (because there was never anything like that, that occurred, while I was up there), but had they realized it, I think most replay officials would notify the crew. They can't make them change it, it's up to the crew to decide whether to take that information or not, so I wouldn't assume that replay wasn't trying to give them information.

[ljudge]

I would not get on O2O after the fact and attempt to change.  But if they got on O2O during their field discussion ("open mics please") the RO could give them information they can use.  It would ultimately be an on-field final decision, but you'd need that level of trust and be 10000% certain it was live ball.  By rule, replay cannot get into subjective areas of a foul, and that aspect isn't reviewable, but if you are certain it's live-ball, heck yes, give it to the crew on O2O.   

[oldtimerref]

I waited until the end of the season to bring this up because  it should  be  a disgrace to both the NCAA & NFL. There are replay officials working college games in FBS that have never even been on a high school varsity field and at least 2 NFL replay officials who have never even worked any football games. To verify what I say just go to the replay camps. An official from Texas is working an  FBS conference and even worked a Bowl game last year plus worked 2 seasons in the UFL. With as many good retired officials around, why would any college conference or the NFL go this route. It is a disgrace that football officiating has reached a level where politics and camps have become over 80% of what is required leaving less than 20% to experience and ability. Politics was always involved but experience and ability were the majority factor for advancement.

[ljudge]

 

I waited until the end of the season to bring this up because  it should  be  a disgrace to both the NCAA & NFL. There are replay officials working college games in FBS that have never even been on a high school varsity field and at least 2 NFL replay officials who have never even worked any football games. To verify what I say just go to the replay camps. An official from Texas is working an  FBS conference and even worked a Bowl game last year plus worked 2 seasons in the UFL. With as many good retired officials around, why would any college conference or the NFL go this route. It is a disgrace that football officiating has reached a level where politics and camps have become over 80% of what is required leaving less than 20% to experience and ability. Politics was always involved but experience and ability were the majority factor for advancement.

With all due respect you couldn’t be more wrong!  Replay is not a “retirement home” and it’s as competitive as ever.  Think of how you got hired.  You probably worked at lower levels and showed what you can do by working games, scrimmages, etc.  Not all on-field can transition to replay as easy as you might think.  For replay you need to show you can work and that is in a booth with real equipment and game situations.  Go to a clinic and you will be humbled very quickly how difficult it is.  Some core competencies that come to mind:   be able to process information extremely quickly, be a rules expert, critical thinking skills, great with video technology, be very decisive, you need to unlearn the instincts you had on the field and deal with facts and video (just to name a few).

[dammitbobby]

With all due respect you couldn’t be more wrong!  Replay is not a “retirement home” and it’s as competitive as ever.  Think of how you got hired.  You probably worked at lower levels and showed what you can do by working games, scrimmages, etc.  Not all on-field can transition to replay as easy as you might think.  For replay you need to show you can work and that is in a booth with real equipment and game situations.  Go to a clinic and you will be humbled very quickly how difficult it is.  Some core competencies that come to mind:   be able to process information extremely quickly, be a rules expert, critical thinking skills, great with video technology, be very decisive, you need to unlearn the instincts you had on the field and deal with facts and video (just to name a few).

I'd add: be able to speak and communicate in the language of replay, which is unbiased ('Ball is on the ground, and the ruling on the field is incomplete' vs just 'incomplete pass')

[oldtimerref]

My  question was really simple, how can you relate to a situation on the field when the replay official has never been there. All the clinics, camps and other training will never replace practical experience. I  never said replay was a retirement position for older officials, only asking why these organizations use people who never even worked a high school varsity game, rather than offering them to officials with real experience.

[peterparsons]

Isn't that how replay started out (former on-field officials) and it has evolved over time since then.

Replay isn't about re-officiating the play (at least, it's not supposed to be). It's a fundamentally different process, so needs a different skill set.

[dammitbobby]

I think that is a very good way of describing it.  All the subjectivity, judgement calls, and nuances of the rules are handled by the on-field officials. Replay is only tasked with evaluating things that are not subjective, but are very binary.

Dean Blandino has never worked a snap on the field as an official, yet he is (arguably) one the best replay officials in the game, at any level. While being an on-field official helps for sure, it's not required to be a top-level replay official, because replay simply doesn't need those accumulated years of judgement and subjectivity.