RefStripes.com
Football Officiating => NCAA Discussion => Topic started by: StudyingFutureZebra on September 15, 2013, 12:26:39 PM
-
Here's the video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D-ELRub8n7s
The play ended with 14 seconds, as the Wisconsin QB just places the ball on the ground to end the play. ASU players then jump on the ball, thinking it's a fumble as the clock continues to run, and when the umpire finally gets the ball to spot it there's 3 seconds and counting. Then, the umpire motions for the Wisconsin offense to stay back from the ball.Time runs out, and Wisconsin gets screwed. If players are obviously trying to prevent the officials from getting the ball so time expires, don't you stop the clock, spot the ball, and then start it again on the ready? I'd almost consider that a palpably unfair act to just hold onto the ball so the official can't spot it until there's no time to get the snap off.
-
There are a few misstatements in your take. 1 - The U was not telling A to stay away from the ball. He was telling them not to snap yet. Wisconsin could have taken their positions on the ball and waited for U to ok the snap. 2 - Players were not "obviously" trying to prevent the snap. There was legitimate confusion and at least 1 of Team B thought the ball might be loose so he fell on it. I am pretty sure that is a common response in football when you think the ball is loose.
-
The play ended with 14 seconds, as the Wisconsin QB just places the ball on the ground to end the play.
This statement is factually wrong. Just placing the ball on the ground does not make it dead. We can argue if the kneeling motion by the QB was enough to simulate placing the knee on the ground (which does make the ball dead), but that is something strange enough that no official in his or her right mind should flag a team B player going for the assumed live loose ball.
-
My thought was because ASU jumped on the ball after the whistle had blown, that could be considered a stalling tactic to allow time to run off the clock.
What are the rules regarding a review in this situation?
-
My thought was because ASU jumped on the ball after the whistle had blown, that could be considered a stalling tactic to allow time to run off the clock.
What are the rules regarding a review in this situation?
Team B may well have been going for a loose ball in the continuing action after incorrectly being ruled dead - which could be reversed by replay. The QB should have given the ball to an official instead of leaving it down on the field.
DB player decisions are not reviewable :) (The QB took several seconds off the clock by arguing the call. The whole offense took off at least two seconds by not being set when the umpire allowed the ball to be snapped. Both actions were stupid and directly contributed to team A not being able to snap the ball before time expired.)
The knee down ruling is not reviewable as neither first down nor goal line was involved. The only time the replay may get involved for dead ball stuff is for an incorrect down number.
-
I would love to know how R explained that to the Wisconsin coach. I didn't think he simulated a knee. I think he just bent down to set the ball down. It also looked like the QB tried to call a timeout just after setting the ball down. QB then decides to tell the R that he wants to spike the ball on the next play. Looks like R says "well then go do it." U is clearly confused as to what happened as he sees ball on the ground, a whistle from somewhere and Arizona State jumping on it. ASU lineman are trying to tell him it's a fumble and their ball and he is conversing with them. L and H never indicate crash in to indicate the next play and the R weakly walks in to signal that the ball was down but then quickly backs out. What a giant mess. They definitely needed to conference and make a call.
-
You can see from both the end zone cam and the sideline view if you look closely that his knee did go down, and the ready-for-play came when the clock hit zero. So even if everybody did get in formation and set as TXMike stated, time had expired when it became legal to snap the ball. I really don't care about either team, but at first glance, this one seemed like another 2008 Washington/BYU or 1990 Colorado/Missouri 5th down where a call or no-call by the officials cost one team the game.
-
You proclaim yourself a "studying future zebra" so here is a basic lesson for you. 1 call in a game that has well over 200 plays with multiple calls possible on each one does not "cost a team the game"
-
He was down.
Terrible awareness by him to set the ball down rather than hand it to the U though.
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Thanks for that. I went to bed before the game was over and have only seen the espn replay clip online. Haven't seen any other views.
-
You proclaim yourself a "studying future zebra" so here is a basic lesson for you. 1 call in a game that has well over 200 plays with multiple calls possible on each one does not "cost a team the game"
+1 :thumbup
-
Wait til Grass-hoppah call youth football.
pi1eOn
-
The 2008 Washington/BYU game where the Washington QB threw the ball 40 feet in the air and left themselves at the mercy of the judgment of the officials? And then Washington proceeded to miss the extra point?
You can't even compare that to a 5th down.
I wish you luck in becoming an official. We always need more good ones. I urge you to be slow to criticize the officiating, especially when you've yet to take a snap yourself.
-
a call or no-call by the officials cost one team the game.
As I said, team A did it all by themselves.
1. QB leaving the ball on the ground instead of giving it to U to have it spotted faster (good hurry-up offenses always hand the ball to an official to minimise delays).
2. QB arguing the call.
3. QB not having his line set waiting for the U to allow the snap.
If I were the coach I would have a long discussion with the QB.
-
And the Wisconsin QB admits it
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/pac12/2013/09/15/arizona-state-sun-devils-wisconsin-badgers-referee-controversy/2817637/
-
That's an excellent article. Kudos to the QB and both coaches.
-
I wish you luck in becoming an official. We always need more good ones. I urge you to be slow to criticize the officiating, especially when you've yet to take a snap yourself.
I was amazed at how much better the officiating got in all sports, not just football, after I became a football official. It was as if my mere presence in the ranks lifted the abilities of officials everywhere.
Either that, or I didn't know nearly as much about the rules as I thought I did before I started officiating. That seems unlikely, though.
-
For consideration by the collective wisdom on this board....what about invoking 3-4-3 in this situation?
Our gut on this play is telling us something isn't right. The way the QB left the ball, B jumping on the dead ball, etc. There was 15 seconds left when the ball was declared dead, which left plenty of time to line up and spike it. Was B jumping on the ball an "obviously unfair" tactic? Probably not, and I wouldn't go down the road of a possible DOG by B either, but the defense got a tremendous advantage, and the net effect was the game clock continuing to roll down while the crew was trying to sort it all out.
After B jumped on the ball, was there an opportunity to get everyone reset (including the crew), and winding it up again with both teams at the line ready to go?
-
For consideration by the collective wisdom on this board....what about invoking 3-4-3 in this situation?
Why invoke anything? If the QB hands the ball to the U, there's no confusion. Why is the burden on the officials to fix the QB's mess?
And, for the record, my gut is fine. ;)
-
http://pac-12.com/article/2013/09/16/pac-12-reprimands-game-officials-wisconsin-arizona-state-game
PAC 12 speaks
-
Why blame the player, coach or team when you have an easy target to pin fault on?
-
I'm not too excited about Larry Scott's statement. He understandably cannot criticize the Wisconsin QB/team for how they handled the situation. However, I would like to know what the Pac 12 and CFO think should have happened in that situation. Other than the U shifting to his position 1-2 seconds earlier, I don't think that there is anything else they could have done.
-
None of us know what was going on down there and what was being said. But maybe the PAC 12 was just watching the body language, and since the R and U seemed to be pretty calm, they took that to mean they were not "handling it with urgency". Maybe if they had been jumping up and down and ripping at the B player to get him off the ball they would have been judged differently. In all of this the one thing I have heard that did make some sense was that they (and we when it happens to us, us) could have used the rules to shut it down, get the ball and spot with a RFP and wind on the whistle.
-
I wonder what the "reprimand" amounts to. Might be a slap on the wrist to get the media off his back
maven
-
The 2008 Washington/BYU game where the Washington QB threw the ball 40 feet in the air and left themselves at the mercy of the judgment of the officials?
I wish you luck in becoming an official. We always need more good ones. I urge you to be slow to criticize the officiating, especially when you've yet to take a snap yourself.
Washington/BYU was a horrible call by the officials to begin with. You don't call UNS unless it's something that's actually unsportsmanlike, like doing an end zone dance or the Lambeau Leap.
Bad officiating gave me the idea to get into it. This is what got my friend who's a Linesman into officiating back in the 90s, in his words: "If you want something done right, you do it yourself."
-
Washington/BYU was a horrible call by the officials to begin with. You don't call UNS unless it's something that's actually unsportsmanlike, like doing an end zone dance or the Lambeau Leap.
Bad officiating gave me the idea to get into it. This is what got my friend who's a Linesman into officiating back in the 90s, in his words: "If you want something done right, you do it yourself."
In that case you should probably note that Locker's action with the ball was specifically prohibited by way of an example in the rulebook.
I guess that makes it unsportsmanlike by definition, no?
-
I haven't seen a single mention of Wisconsin's snap infraction on that final snap. If we want to play the what if game let's be sure and throw that out there as well.
-
In all of this the one thing I have heard that did make some sense was that they (and we when it happens to us, us) could have used the rules to shut it down, get the ball and spot with a RFP and wind on the whistle.
Indeed the play unfolded in an unusual fashion, which probably caused the crew to lose focus on the situation - as it would to any of us. Nevertheless, someone (R or U most likely) should have signaled TO. Rule passage 3-3-1-a gives the R broad power to call a TO in uncommon situations like this one.
Last sentence of 3-3-1-a: "The referee may declare and charge himself with a discretionary timeout for any contingency not elsewhere covered by the rules (A.R. 3-3-1-IV).
-
I guess I'm just used to football from a different time. The football I remember from my childhood was before all these new "targeting" rules and before they tried to make the game "so safe" that they're effectively ruining football.
My problem is the targeting rule and the number of roughing the passer calls that you see these days. Even if the defensive player is so close to the QB that when he throws, the pursuer has no way of getting out of the way-and he still gets flagged. Breathe on the receiver out of bounds and you get called for a late hit. And now, the best hits that you longed to see every week will get you ejected. And most of those are judgement calls, and every official is going to rule differently.
-
Washington/BYU was a horrible call by the officials to begin with. You don't call UNS unless it's something that's actually unsportsmanlike, like doing an end zone dance or the Lambeau Leap.
Bad officiating gave me the idea to get into it. This is what got my friend who's a Linesman into officiating back in the 90s, in his words: "If you want something done right, you do it yourself."
When I read your first couple of posts I thought to myself "He might be one that gets it." Since then, however, I suggest that you don't quit your day job. Your bedside manner leaves much to be desired and unless you change your approach, you won't last long in this business.
-
I haven't seen a single mention of Wisconsin's snap infraction on that final snap. If we want to play the what if game let's be sure and throw that out there as well.
How was there a snap infraction?
I've wondered do individual college football conferences hire their own officials and how do you get assigned games?
-
The crew got in a hurry, was more worried about stopping the clock to get it fixed and instead let the clock run out and still didn't fix it. Nothing more complicated than that.
-
Unless someone can show me a provision for stopping the clock here -- either by the officials on their own or due to a foul by ASU -- I don't know how ANY crew could have gotten this right. The QB would have most likely snapped the ball with less than 3 seconds and not been able to get another play off.
Larry Scott hung his guys out to dry to appeal to the media who will blame the officials for everything, regardless of the situations they are put into.
-
How was there a snap infraction?
I've wondered do individual college football conferences hire their own officials and how do you get assigned games?
Well, watch what the snapper does on his last snap.
And yes.
-
Washington/BYU was a horrible call by the officials to begin with. You don't call UNS unless it's something that's actually unsportsmanlike, like doing an end zone dance or the Lambeau Leap.
Bad officiating gave me the idea to get into it. This is what got my friend who's a Linesman into officiating back in the 90s, in his words: "If you want something done right, you do it yourself."
This made me smile because I was once in your shoes as a young youth football coach. I was so bound and determined to do it better from the gate.
Experience is a humbling thing. Bully nailed it when he said it is amazing how much better the officiating is once you actually start doing it.
I do sincerely wish you luck, I hope you will reflect upon your posts in a few years after you have many snaps under your belt.
-
Washington/BYU was a horrible call by the officials to begin with. You don't call UNS unless it's something that's actually unsportsmanlike, like doing an end zone dance or the Lambeau Leap.
Just a side note: if you ever make it to the NCAA officiating, you too will be flagging such actions. Or, if you won't, you probably won't be retained for long.
-
Bad officiating gave me the idea to get into it. This is what got my friend who's a Linesman into officiating back in the 90s, in his words: "If you want something done right, you do it yourself."
Actually 11 years in and that is (almost) also how I got started. We have a chronic shortage of officials and bad retention, and in a game were I was a player there were some major problems with some new officials.
So, after the game I went to the white hat and said basically 'You (the association) need as much help as you can get. How do I get started as an official'.
I guess the difference is that I didn't want to fix it - just help support them because they needed people.
As for football being better in 'the good ol days' - As someone who played for 18 years I don't think I agree. I look now at what I did then to my body - especially my head and realize I put my future self way at risk without understanding the consequences.
The new rules are changing what football is. Not making it better or worse, but trying to make it safer for people. Maybe more boring for (some) fans - but they have other options like boxing, MMX or car crashes to watch.
-
Well, watch what the snapper does on his last snap.
And yes.
There is nothing wrong with the snap on this play - no need to make stuff up to justify a mistake.
There is a minimum of 2 very loud and clear whistles sounded, with multiple toots, at the 15 second mark when both teams are virtually in scrimmage formation and the ball is virtually at the succeeding spot. Also, both teams clearly stopped playing for at least 2-3 full seconds until the creative B player basically said what the heck, let's do our best to screw this up since they have a chip shot field goal attempt.
Diablo has the only correct answer here. Team B intentionally tried to kill time and we failed to correctly handle the situation. We note that the rules allow us to stop the clock in this situation, we've learned to stay better focused at crunch time, and we move on. Additionally, there's at least 1 umpire commenting on this board that thinks that a delay of game on B here would be 100% justified.
-
"Act like you've been there before" -- many coaches
"Handing the ball to the nearest official can never be misjudged." -- Bama_Stripes
-
Additionally, there's at least 1 umpire commenting on this board that thinks that a delay of game on B here would be 100% justified.
With no IR I could agree with you, but with the IR and the "immediate continuing action" rules, I don't really see how you could flag team B for going for an apparent loose ball even after the whistle. Would you always flag team B or only when the game clock is winding down?
And yes, the crew got confused by the weird action by the QB. Yes, they should have handled this better, but I still claim that when your team is in hurry-up, if you leave the ball on the ground instead of handing it over to the nearest official you're asking for trouble.
-
Also, both teams clearly stopped playing for at least 2-3 full seconds until the creative B player basically said what the heck, let's do our best to screw this up since they have a chip shot field goal attempt.
Really? And what is your factual basis for this allegation. You cannot view the events of that moment in time using the knowledge you have gained since then. Put yourself in that player's shoes AT THAT MOMENT. The ASU head coach's post game interview made clear he and his staff thought the ball was a fumble and were yelling at the team to cover the ball. That is a fact. He has subsequently said now that he has reviewed the video he realizes the Qb was down before he gave up the ball. But he did not know that at THAT MOMENT. It is way too easy to fall into the trap of looking at a situation and slowing it down, backing it up, replaying it, etc etc instead of just thinking what would have been logical AT THAT MOMENT knowing what a person knew. Hell when we all saw the video the first time I suspect most of us thought the QB had just put the ball on the ground. Why is it so hard to accept that is what Tam B coaches thought and maybe even some of the players thought?
The only way I would support a delay of game call against the defense here would be if the U was adamantly ordering the player off the ball so he could spot it and the player refused the order.
-
The QB would have most likely snapped the ball with less than 3 seconds and not been able to get another play off.
The new three-second rule applies only when the clock will start on the snapready. In this case the clock was already running so the rule would not apply.
EDIT: Whoops.
-
The new three-second rule applies only when the clock will start on the snap. In this case the clock was already running so the rule would not apply.
Isn't it the other way around? The 3-second rule applies only when the clock will start on the ready? (3-2-5-a). But, agree, this rule wouldn't apply anyway as clock was running at the time.
-
The only way I would support a delay of game call against the defense here would be if the U was adamantly ordering the player off the ball so he could spot it and the player refused the order.
Sorry but we'll disagree here. The officials on the field clearly made an obvious decision and the multiple loud and clear whistles that sounded immediately indicated such. IMHO at an absolute minimum, the clock could, and probably should have been stopped when B clearly interfered with a ball that had previously been blown dead. Stopping the clock would have in no way impacted the possibility of IR reviewing the play for a look at a "continuing action" recovery of a fumble.
-
There is nothing wrong with the snap on this play - no need to make stuff up to justify a mistake.
Pointing something out that is pretty evident in the video is now making stuff up to justify a mistake? Really?
Are snappers in your part of the world allowed to lift the ball off the ground and place it back down prior to snapping it?
-
Sorry but we'll disagree here. The officials on the field clearly made an obvious decision and the multiple loud and clear whistles that sounded immediately indicated such. IMHO at an absolute minimum, the clock could, and probably should have been stopped when B clearly interfered with a ball that had previously been blown dead. Stopping the clock would have in no way impacted the possibility of IR reviewing the play for a look at a "continuing action" recovery of a fumble.
Not disagreeing about stopping the clock but it is way over officious to think about penalizing B in this obviously confusing situation.
-
Pointing something out that is pretty evident in the video is now making stuff up to justify a mistake? Really?
Are snappers in your part of the world allowed to lift the ball off the ground and place it back down prior to snapping it?
If you're talking about the 2nd snap, and not the first one, by rule the 2nd snap never happened since the game was already ruled over by then. If there was actually a play, then the 2nd snap would be a judgment call based on what the U and wings had been allowing all game.
-
If you're talking about the 2nd snap, and not the first one, by rule the 2nd snap never happened since the game was already ruled over by then. If there was actually a play, then the 2nd snap would be a judgment call based on what the U and wings had been allowing all game.
Yes, I'm talking about the second snap. In your opinion (assume for the sake of discussion that there is time to get it off, etc.) , did that look like a legal snap to you?
-
So we've seen plenty of discussion about how not to do it - how about an illustration of the proper way to do it?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BJbPjX9B-IQ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BJbPjX9B-IQ)
-
I'm just a fan trying to understand the rules. I've read the thread and lots of non-ref postings on other boards, but am still confused and hope you will indulge my questions.
1. Is everyone in agreement that QB's knee either touched ground or at a minimum simulated taking a knee such that it was appropriate to call the play over and rule the ball dead?
2. I've read justifications of ASU players jumping on ball as a possible fumble after the whistle had blown because of "immediate continuing action." The players did not jump on the ball until about 3 seconds after the QB placed the ball on the ground and 2 seconds after the ref blew the whistle. What's the standard for determining whether something qualifies as "immediate continuing action" and IF this had been a fumble would the ASU player's actions have met the standard?
3. Why is delay of game not appropriate here? I get ASU players could have legitimately thought this was a fumble and were just trying to recover the ball. But, it took one ASU player about 8 seconds to get off the ball with official over him presumably telling him to get up (the other two ASU players were off the ball in a couple of seconds). If the ref urgently ordered the player to get off the ball and he was that slow to do so with game on the line, why no delay of game? And, if ref wasn't urgently telling player to get off ball with clock ticking down, isn't this a failure of the ref?
4. What's the rule for a ref to stop the clock on his own? Is this something any of the refs can do or is it just the head ref's call to make?
5. After ASU players were off ball and the official placed it down, why did he hold up his hand a couple of seconds to prevent Wisconsin from snapping it?
-
If someone could find out what consequences have followed the "reprimand," I'd be interested.
-
I'm just a fan trying to understand the rules. I've read the thread and lots of non-ref postings on other boards, but am still confused and hope you will indulge my questions.
I'll do an easy one.
4. What's the rule for a ref to stop the clock on his own? Is this something any of the refs can do or is it just the head ref's call to make?
There is only one referee in the game. He wears a white hat. The other officials wear black hats. In general any official can signal and stop the clock if a clock-stopping situation occurs in his area.
-
I'm just a fan trying to understand the rules. I've read the thread and lots of non-ref postings on other boards, but am still confused and hope you will indulge my questions.
1. Is everyone in agreement that QB's knee either touched ground or at a minimum simulated taking a knee such that it was appropriate to call the play over and rule the ball dead?
I'll take a stab..
Yes
-
I'll take #3:
3. Why is delay of game not appropriate here? I get ASU players could have legitimately thought this was a fumble and were just trying to recover the ball. But, it took one ASU player about 8 seconds to get off the ball with official over him presumably telling him to get up (the other two ASU players were off the ball in a couple of seconds). If the ref urgently ordered the player to get off the ball and he was that slow to do so with game on the line, why no delay of game? And, if ref wasn't urgently telling player to get off ball with clock ticking down, isn't this a failure of the ref?
In my opinion as I have stated earlier, DOG would have been supportable here, As you note, there was no reason for the ASU player to stay down on the ball as he did for a full 7-8 seconds unless it was an intentional act intended to eat up time.
-
Isn't it the other way around? The 3-second rule applies only when the clock will start on the ready? (3-2-5-a). But, agree, this rule wouldn't apply anyway as clock was running at the time.
Exactly right, my fault for dashing that off and not proofreading.
-
Let me think out loud, had the ball be in a side zone, and the relay between officials back to the hash mark had been dropped, kicked or otherwise delayed, wouldn't the white hat stop the clock, get the ball set on the ground and then started the clock? The officials in that instance screwed up the deal, they need to make it right. . Same reasoning in the game in question, stop clock, unpile, set ball, roll clock. Problem would have never happened and, the confusion at the pile could have been a quick fix, ball dead here, no fumble, a ball, clock rolls on my whistle. I don't see this as being that complicated
-
As the game ends, the H or L, the one on the far side of the field, comes in waving his arms as if to kill the clock. I don't believe this is the normal mechanic for the end of the game. It seems as if he knew something was not quite right, however the video does not show any conference with the officials. Just something I thought was interesting.
-
Let me think out loud, had the ball be in a side zone, and the relay between officials back to the hash mark had been dropped, kicked or otherwise delayed, wouldn't the white hat stop the clock, get the ball set on the ground and then started the clock? The officials in that instance screwed up the deal, they need to make it right. . Same reasoning in the game in question, stop clock, unpile, set ball, roll clock. Problem would have never happened and, the confusion at the pile could have been a quick fix, ball dead here, no fumble, a ball, clock rolls on my whistle. I don't see this as being that complicated
Of course we all know that now. The question none of us can likely answer though is if we would have had that presence of mind IN THAT MOMENT. Hopefully this is one of the reason most folks are here...go through these things form the comfort of the easy chair and get a response ready so when our "Waterloo" happens, we respond accordingly.
-
Let me think out loud, had the ball be in a side zone, and the relay between officials back to the hash mark had been dropped, kicked or otherwise delayed, wouldn't the white hat stop the clock, get the ball set on the ground and then started the clock? The officials in that instance screwed up the deal, they need to make it right. . Same reasoning in the game in question, stop clock, unpile, set ball, roll clock. Problem would have never happened and, the confusion at the pile could have been a quick fix, ball dead here, no fumble, a ball, clock rolls on my whistle. I don't see this as being that complicated
The only time they would kill the clock is if the ball could not be ready for play by 20 seconds. The game clock would have expired before the 20 seconds.
-
Why?
-
Fingers faster than brain.
Worked a game, 4th down measurement, I pull the chain, 3inches short, white hat in a hurry and points the wrong direction, I don't notice until chains released, white hat too proud, and too arrogant to come back and get it right. Playoff game, 4th round, game within 3 points.
There was a chance to fix it right and we didn't. Getting it right is more important than looking good to the evaluators, and the crew did neither and took a hit from the conference on top of it. Hind sight is always 20/20 just slow down a little and foresight might be 20/30
-
Of course we all know that now. The question none of us can likely answer though is if we would have had that presence of mind IN THAT MOMENT.
Respectfully disagree. We should be attuned to the game situation. A trails by 2 with 18 seconds left. 1/10 at B-13 right hash. When the QB takes a snap and moves to the center of the field and takes a knee, isn't it obvious that they're setting up the placement of the FG attempt?
(Granted, the QB didn't do himself any favors the way he took the knee and left the ball there.)
He takes a knee at :16, and there's a whistle at :15. No official dropped a bag for a fumble.
If B doesn't jump on the ball, what happens next? The umpire would set the ball around :10 or :09, and A would spike it and then bring the FG unit on. I don't think one needs hindsight to know that. I think it's a rather common procedure. But honestly, it looks like neither the R nor the U is aware that this is what A is trying to do.
But instead we've got B lying on top of a dead ball. Whether or not B thought it might be a fumble is, to me at least, immaterial. The officials knew it wasn't a fumble.
Put it this way: say B picked up the ball and started running with it. What would the R do? Would he let the clock run down? No, he'd stop the clock and say "That's not a fumble, you can't have it. Give me the ball. We're going to place it and wind on the ready."
So why do it any differently just because B was lying on top of the ball??
-
You are assuming facts not in evidence. We know for a fact that at least 1 official did not know it was not a fumble. There is no evidence that the U immediately knew what happened either. From his viewpoint it would have been hard to impossible to know to if the QB had been down before the ball was loose.
The problem is now that we all "know" what happened and the aftermath, it is near impossible to rewind our brain recorders to a point where it does not have that info recorded. If we could do that then we would see how many guys could have made the immediate quick response that was required.
One thing this mess suggests to me is that now whenever we are in a time critical situation and something strange happens, maybe we ought to immediately stop the clock until we can sort it out. That is going to give an advantage to one them though.
-
You are assuming facts not in evidence. We know for a fact that at least 1 official did not know it was not a fumble. There is no evidence that the U immediately knew what happened either. From his viewpoint it would have been hard to impossible to know to if the QB had been down before the ball was loose.
IMO the whole "it was a fumble" idea does nothing to justify allowing 10+ seconds to run off the clock. If anyone thought for a moment that there was a fumble, then it was 100% clear that B had immediate and uncontested possession of the "loose" ball with still more than 10 seconds on the clock. At that point there would be no reason not to follow the rules and immediately kill the clock for a change of possession. IR could then have stepped in and confirmed that the QB had taken a knee and that there was not a fumble.
-
Also this year if there is less than 3 seconds remaining in the period with clock running and the qb spikes the ball the period is over.
-
Also this year if there is less than 3 seconds remaining in the period with clock running and the qb spikes the ball the period is over.
Not true, and already addressed in the thread:
http://www.refstripes.com/forum/index.php?topic=10335.msg99704#msg99704
-
Also this year if there is less than 3 seconds remaining in the period with clock STOPPED and the qb spikes the ball the period is over.
Fixed it for you
-
sorry guys, where does it say that if the QB simulates to kneel, the play should be blown dead?
-
4-1-3o "o. When a ball carrier simulates placing his knee on the ground."
-
Plus there are angles showing his knee on the ground, or as close to it as you can get. The angle in the video is bad, but there were two whistles as well. Someone with a whistle thought he was down too.
-
If someone could find out what consequences have followed the "reprimand," I'd be interested.
http://pac-12.com/article/2013/09/17/pac-12-football-officiating-coordinator-tony-corrente-elaborates-asu-wisconsin
-
http://pac-12.com/article/2013/09/17/pac-12-football-officiating-coordinator-tony-corrente-elaborates-asu-wisconsin
Yeah, that's not it. I want to know what's going to happen to the crew, not how they were evaluated on a 5 point scale.
-
Thanks for the responses to 1, 3, and 4. Anyone care to take a shot at 2 and 5?
Also, can someone explain the new 3 second rule please? I had thought that if the ball was spiked with less than 3 seconds in the half, then the half was over. I gather now, that's NOT the rule if the clock was running when snapped. Does this new rule apply only if the clock is stopped when the ball is snapped? What in the world is the purpose of such a rule and when would it ever apply (i.e., why would anyone spike the ball if the clock is already stopped--the whole purpose of spiking the ball is to stop the clock)?
-
The three second rule applied if the clock was stopped for some reason (i.e. first down, penalty enforcement) and would start on the ready for play. If that happens and there are at least 3 seconds left, they have the possibility of spiking it. They aren't guaranteed getting another play though if there is a delay in snapping the ball. If the clock is already running or the clock will not start until the snap the rule does not apply.
-
The three second rule applied if the clock was stopped for some reason (i.e. first down, penalty enforcement) and would start on the ready for play. If that happens and there are at least 3 seconds left, they have the possibility of spiking it.
Important to be clear about this: Magician has it correct, in that the rule prohibits a spike only if LESS THAN 3 seconds are on the clock. 3 seconds or more, and the rule doesn't apply.
Also, can someone explain the new 3 second rule please? I had thought that if the ball was spiked with less than 3 seconds in the half, then the half was over.
And, it applies at the end of any quarter, not just the end of a half.
-
Important to be clear about this: Magician has it correct, in that the rule prohibits a spike only if LESS THAN 3 seconds are on the clock. 3 seconds or more, and the rule doesn't apply.
And, it applies at the end of any quarter, not just the end of a half.
I know your intent, but he rule doesn't ever prohibit a spike. Just says it would be the last play of the period.
-
I know your intent, but he rule doesn't ever prohibit a spike. Just says it would be the last play of the period.
True enough.
-
Made today's CFO Video Review.
RR says stop the clock , unpile the players, then wind. Did say defense could have been penalized for delay and crew was not assertive enough to handle the situation.