RefStripes.com
Football Officiating => NCAA Discussion => Topic started by: FLbackjudge on November 06, 2013, 07:57:07 AM
-
This morning I was asked by a neighbor, "Why didn't they review the safety in the game last night?" Since I didn't see a game last night I was at a loss. Here's what his story is: In the Buffalo vs Ohio game one of the QB's (he didn't remember which school) "was tackled for a loss around the 5 yard line and the refs gave them a safety. The officials stood around for a while and then the ref went to the sideline and announced that the play was not reviewable." OK, if it happened as he described it, someone on the field should have corrected the error, and it is certainly reviewable. Did anyone of you more reputable observers see the game? Does TXMike have video?
-
Just checked the box score, as I should have done before posting. A safety was awarded to Buffalo at 13:49 of the third quarter.
-
Uh oh......http://www.sportingnews.com/ncaa-football/story/2013-11-05/buffalo-ohio-safety-call-not-in-end-zone-referee-video-tyler-tettleton (http://www.sportingnews.com/ncaa-football/story/2013-11-05/buffalo-ohio-safety-call-not-in-end-zone-referee-video-tyler-tettleton)
And by the way.....Football on a TUESDAY night!? !? ? Did not even know it was on!!
-
As I understand it, this is not a reviewable play as it involves a spot of the foul, and the foul for illegal forward pass is not specifically reviewable. A bad call, in any case.
-
What was called -- IG in the EZ?
-
What was called -- IG in the EZ?
Yes. The correct spot of the foul was around A-3.
-
The phrase "egregious error" comes to mind..... just saying....
-
The phrase "egregious error" comes to mind..... just saying....
... and it should be immediately followed by a new one: "not specifically reviewable."
-
Obviously, it did not happen as it was described to me. Unfortunately, the spot of a foul is not reviewable and the award of a safety by foul is not reviewable. Apparently the L was not in a position to see the play and try to take the R off the call.
-
Has anyone ever seen an IR review for "egregious error"? If this does not fit that bill then what does ? ? ?
-
Has anyone ever seen an IR review for "egregious error"? If this does not fit that bill then what does ? ? ?
The rule is pretty specific that even an egregious error relating to a foul is not reviewable (unless the foul itself is reviewable).
-
NCAA 12-3-6:
"No other plays or officiating decisions are reviewable. However, the replay official may correct egregious errors, including those involving the game clock, whether or not a play is reviewable. This excludes fouls that are not specifically reviewable (Reviewable fouls: Rules 12-3-2-c and d, 12-3-4-b and 12-3-5-a)."
Since this foul is not specifically reviewable, IR's hands are tied.
Somebody might have fixed it anyway...
-
Isn't the spirit of "this excludes fouls..." mean that replay can never be used to double check the validity of a holding or a pass interference flag?
I would think that in this case, they could still correct this with replay. The RO couldn't review whether IG was the right call, but they could review where the ball was when the IG occurred, right?
-
I think we are reading the words differently. The fact that it says they can address it whether or not it is reviewable suggests to me they can (and they should) review.
Instant Replay CaseBook Play 113
113. Advance of fair catch – Egregious error
Fourth and 7 on the A-35. B45 signals for a fair catch while the punt is in
the air. B27, unaware of the signal by B45, catches the punt at the B-25 and
returns it for a touchdown. No official signals the ball dead when caught.
Ruling: Not reviewable. However, such an egregious error may be corrected.
Delay of game, B 1-10 on B-20, reset clock (Rule 12-3-6).
-
I would think that in this case, they could still correct this with replay. The RO couldn't review whether IG was the right call, but they could review where the ball was when the IG occurred, right?
There is no rule allowing the review of a spot of a foul. I think this should be allowed if it relates to the goal line or the line to gain.
-
113. Advance of fair catch – Egregious error
This does not relate to a foul, so rule 12-3-6 does apply. But, that same rule says "This excludes fouls" - I don't really see how that can be read to say "this includes fouls".
-
It does appear this is not reviewable. But at what point does the IR official fall on the sword and do the right thing and fix this? Would he have been downgraded or suspended if he corrected it? Similar to the San Jose State play a few weeks ago when the crew corrected a penalty enforcement after another play had been run. They didn't do things right, but they did the right thing (in the minds of some).
-
This only my second year as an RO, so I'm certainly no expert, bu in both of the National Replay Clinics I've attended, it was clear that the use of "egregious error" to review a play that is otherwise not reviewable should be used very very sparingly. The TD that was allowed after a fair catch signal a couple of years ago was, I believe, the impetus for the rule. Some of the examples given at replay clinics include allowing the clock to run for a minute or so when it should have been stopped, missing a spot by 7 or more yards (though I don't see how that would happen), and, of course, allowing a score after a fair catch signal. I would not have reviewed the play in question under the category of egregious errors. This one should have been corrected on the field; sometimes Replay cannot save the officials from themselves.
-
It does appear this is not reviewable. But at what point does the IR official fall on the sword and do the right thing and fix this? Would he have been downgraded or suspended if he corrected it? Similar to the San Jose State play a few weeks ago when the crew corrected a penalty enforcement after another play had been run. They didn't do things right, but they did the right thing (in the minds of some).
That is a great point. FG's used to NOT be reviewable until Rom Gilbert (I think it was him) did it because he knew it was the right thing to do in that situation and changed the call on the field. I do not recall if it was a FG that was ruled good on the field or was ruled bad but it was obvious to everyone that the guy on the upright missed it. Even if RR eventually says this was not reviewable I am pretty confident there will be a change next season that makes it reviewable.
Suggested rule change language for 12-3-1-a
Reviewable plays involving a potential score include:
A potential touchdown or safety. [Exception: Safety by penalty for fouls that are not specifically reviewable may only be reviewed to determine the correct spot of the foul called]
-
Another addition to the list of reasons why certain penalties should be reviewed.
-
Can't there be a decent argument made that the intent of the "excludes fouls that are not specifically reviewable..." provision was meant to make clear that "egregious errors" was not meant to *ever* be used to determine whether a foul should or shouldn't have been called. Can't it be argued that the "excludes fouls..." provision wasn't intended for this type of situation?
I just think this is such an egregious error - it results in two whole points - that it's something replay could have saved us from. Call it "falling on the sword" or whatever, but I feel like this could have been saved.
-
http://espn.go.com/video/clip?id=espn:9933566 (http://espn.go.com/video/clip?id=espn:9933566)
And was it really even intentional grounding ? There is a receiver in the same zip code
-
http://espn.go.com/video/clip?id=espn:9933566 (http://espn.go.com/video/clip?id=espn:9933566)
And was it really even intentional grounding ? There is a receiver in the same zip code
Oh please, that R is already suicidal!
-
Seems to me an astute RO could have buzzed down, told the R that he stopped it to get a good count of the Team B players and confirmed there were 11. And oh , by the way, didn't anyone on the crew see the ball thrown before the QB got to the EZ?
-
This one should have been corrected on the field; sometimes Replay cannot save the officials from themselves.
Not to be argumentative, but whether or not points are scored should ALWAYS be reviewable. This is part of the slope we slid down when IR was put in.
-
Is this reviewable? Team A runner is 5 yards beyond the NZ and throws a forward pass that is caught for a TD. No flag is thrown.
-
Part of the problem is the freaking rule lets all TD's be reviewable but seems to set limits on the safetys that can be reviewed
More complete video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ThmG5KSpP0
-
So what was he talking to the RO about? Surely the RO told him he screwed the pooch.
-
Oh please, that R is already suicidal!
I don't blame R for the IG call. The L turned to run at him right away without looking for an eligible receiver and the F had his key in the vicinity. I could not find the F in the clips, could someone point to what yard line has was at?
-
We've been down this road before, including this thread from last year where someone threw out a hypothetical IG from the 4 yard line that was somehow ruled a safety.
Mind. Blown.
http://www.refstripes.com/forum/index.php?topic=9751.25
-
Not that they had much choice but MAC admits the error
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/mac/2013/11/06/buffalo-ohio-missed-call-on-safety-frank-solich-jeff-quinn/3456003/
-
RR has tweeted that "It should have been reviewed. The rule allows for review of egregious errors."
https://twitter.com/CFBRulesExpert/status/399288443596857344
-
I hope this is legit as it supports my comments on the rule but how do we know it is legit. Really does not seem RR would use this technique to put info out
-
I hope this is legit as it supports my comments on the rule but how do we know it is legit. Really does not seem RR would use this technique to put info out
Mike Pereira says it is Rogers.
Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk
-
I hope this is legit as it supports my comments on the rule but how do we know it is legit. Really does not seem RR would use this technique to put info out
Maybe he's branching out to new media.
Last night on the Louisville game he said during the first review they were looking to see if the runner was down or his forward progress was stopped before the ball was pried out.
And it really sounded like him.
-
David Cutaia is the owner of this account and he said he was leaving the account to RR today. Mike Pereira said so too. I think it's legit
-
Replay aside, I know exactly why this happened, and its happened to me before: the R is following the QB and doesn't know until he turns his head downfield whether this is IG or not -- most likely, he needs help to make that determination. By the time all that is done, he doesn't know for sure where the spot of the pass is. In this case, the result is devastating and looks absolutely ugly but its easy to see why it occurred.
Any suggestions on a mechanic that could prevent this sort of thing? When I now have a possible IG situation, I go to the spot immediately and make my wing come to me. If we determine IG, then I drop the flag.
-
Replay aside, I know exactly why this happened, and its happened to me before: the R is following the QB and doesn't know until he turns his head downfield whether this is IG or not -- most likely, he needs help to make that determination. By the time all that is done, he doesn't know for sure where the spot of the pass is. In this case, the result is devastating and looks absolutely ugly but its easy to see why it occurred.
Any suggestions on a mechanic that could prevent this sort of thing? When I now have a possible IG situation, I go to the spot immediately and make my wing come to me. If we determine IG, then I drop the flag.
We had a discussion about this the other night. Most of the experienced white hats seemed to feel it was unforgivable not to know from where the pass was thrown - "the spot is the most important thing the R needs to know, he should go there immediately!," seemed to be the consensus. As a less experienced official, I tend to agree with your analysis. It's easy for any official to become disoriented on where some certain action took place during the flow of the play. In most cases we have either a flag or a bean bag down to assist us as live action continues. My initial thought was that the R could drop a bean bag... this idea was resoundingly rejected.
-
It's easy for any official to become disoriented on where some certain action took place during the flow of the play. In most cases we have either a flag or a bean bag down to assist us as live action continues. My initial thought was that the R could drop a bean bag... this idea was resoundingly rejected.
I think dropping a hat would be better. This situation is similar to when an eligible Team A receiver or gunner on a punt steps out of bounds.
-
I do wonder how, as football officials, any of us ever arrived at the point where we're carrying little things that are specifically designed to be thrown on the ground, and are now thinking "nah, better to throw the hat instead".
-
Replay aside, I know exactly why this happened, and its happened to me before: the R is following the QB and doesn't know until he turns his head downfield whether this is IG or not -- most likely, he needs help to make that determination. By the time all that is done, he doesn't know for sure where the spot of the pass is. In this case, the result is devastating and looks absolutely ugly but its easy to see why it occurred.
OK, I'll give you that an R might not know exactly where the pass was thrown from. But he better dam sure know whether or not it was from the EZ.