RefStripes.com

Football Officiating => NCAA Discussion => Topic started by: TXMike on October 28, 2010, 11:14:01 AM

Title: REVISED!! Suspension for a Safety
Post by: TXMike on October 28, 2010, 11:14:01 AM

REVISED!!!!!!!!!!!!! The current suspension was for incorrectly awarding a safety:

http://billingsgazette.com/sports/college/blogs/catgrizinsider/article_0b09692c-e206-11df-8042-001cc4c002e0.html
Title: Re: Suspension for an IW
Post by: JasonTX on October 28, 2010, 11:56:15 AM
3 Years?  And what are "National Rules" ?
Title: Re: Suspension for an IW
Post by: blindref757 on October 28, 2010, 12:03:08 PM
What rule change 3 years ago is he referring to that was supposedly changed where a defender can't advance a backwards pass/snap?
Title: Re: Suspension for an IW
Post by: mishatx on October 28, 2010, 12:11:07 PM
Was the rule changed in 1998?  Because that's 3 years ago from the date of the article.
Title: Re: REVISED!! Suspension for a Safety
Post by: TXMike on October 28, 2010, 12:27:49 PM
What a dumbarse am I!!! 

I was looking at an old article

This is the latest incident:
http://billingsgazette.com/sports/college/blogs/catgrizinsider/article_0b09692c-e206-11df-8042-001cc4c002e0.html
Title: Re: REVISED!! Suspension for a Safety
Post by: Atlanta Blue on October 28, 2010, 12:44:32 PM
 ^flag

One week suspension for an Inadvertent Posting
Title: Re: REVISED!! Suspension for a Safety
Post by: TXMike on October 28, 2010, 12:59:08 PM
In my  defense....what I did was similar to what officials frequently do when they flag an act as a holding but when we look at the film, it was a block in the back.  The penalty was still legit (10 yards). Just an inconsequential technical factual error.
   :bOW
Title: Re: REVISED!! Suspension for a Safety
Post by: Getting Fat on October 28, 2010, 01:10:26 PM
"Just an inconsequential technical factual error." - that line didnt work with my girlfriend either.
Title: Re: REVISED!! Suspension for a Safety
Post by: Sonofanump on October 28, 2010, 01:23:18 PM
"we have since learned, was incorrect."

I am still dumbfounded that the other 6 did not bail him out.
Title: Re: REVISED!! Suspension for a Safety
Post by: TXMike on October 28, 2010, 01:26:41 PM
The R was sort of throwing the others under the bus when he said "we" messed up.  But the conference apparently only acted on him so makes you wonder what really went on.
Title: Re: Suspension for an IW
Post by: JasonTX on October 28, 2010, 01:26:51 PM
Was the rule changed in 1998?  Because that's 3 years ago from the date of the article.


Nice catch. :bOW
Title: Re: REVISED!! Suspension for a Safety
Post by: TXMike on October 28, 2010, 01:32:05 PM
And it was 1998

http://football.refs.org/rules/NCAA98pr.html
Title: Re: REVISED!! Suspension for a Safety
Post by: Reff54 on October 28, 2010, 01:50:57 PM
we had a play several years ago where the kicking team twice kicked it out of bounds to avoid a run back.  The receiving team made them kick  it again each time.  on the third time...the kicked it to the return man on yard outside of the goal line.  he was stradling the hash mark...apparently thinking he was strandling the goal line he took one more step back into the end zone and took a knee....   he clearly caught the ball in the field of play away from the goal line.  it was ruled a safety.  you think his coach wasn't one upset person....   but it was he who insisted they repeat the kick each time...
Title: Re: REVISED!! Suspension for a Safety
Post by: Etref on October 28, 2010, 02:38:19 PM
we had a play several years ago where the kicking team twice kicked it out of bounds to avoid a run back.  The receiving team made them kick  it again each time.  on the third time...the kicked it to the return man on yard outside of the goal line.  he was stradling the hash mark...apparently thinking he was strandling the goal line he took one more step back into the end zone and took a knee....   he clearly caught the ball in the field of play away from the goal line.  it was ruled a safety.  you think his coach wasn't one upset person....   but it was he who insisted they repeat the kick each time...


Stupid is a stupid does!


Title: Re: REVISED!! Suspension for a Safety
Post by: txmustang68 on October 29, 2010, 01:12:25 PM
Ok.  Maybe he and the crew messed up.  No problem - do the suspension and move on.  I find it  to be disturbing, however, that the author of this writing and its editor would be so critical as to say that perhaps the zebra will get it straight on their end.  Should we do the same to the "professional" writer that has a typo in their article?  That was an unnecessary slam, IMO.
Title: Re: REVISED!! Suspension for a Safety
Post by: Atlanta Blue on October 29, 2010, 01:57:29 PM
The mistake by the official was not a "typo".

If the reporter misconstrued facts, I would consider that closer to an equal offense.

The mistake by the official in this case is the kind that ends college careers.  If he made that kind of mistake while being evaluated in a HS game, he never would have made the college conference.