Auburn/Arkansas fumble at the goal line

[arthurhawgerelli]

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

[InsideTheStripes]

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.

[arthurhawgerelli]

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.

[HAshleyTX]

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." 

[TxBJ]

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.

[arthurhawgerelli]

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.

[Atlanta Blue]

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.

[arthurhawgerelli]

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.

[SWilliams]

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?

[arthurhawgerelli]

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?

[HAshleyTX]

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.

[arthurhawgerelli]

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.

[Atlanta Blue]

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.  

[KB]

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.

[arthurhawgerelli]

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.