Author Topic: Buffalo vs Ohio (Read 28982 times)

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?

FLbackjudge · « **Reply #1 on:** November 06, 2013, 08:06:16 AM »

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.

TXMike · « **Reply #2 on:** November 06, 2013, 08:14:23 AM »

Uh oh......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!!

Kalle · « **Reply #3 on:** November 06, 2013, 08:21:42 AM »

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.

bama_stripes · « **Reply #4 on:** November 06, 2013, 08:24:40 AM »

What was called -- IG in the EZ?

Kalle · « **Reply #5 on:** November 06, 2013, 08:28:39 AM »

Quote from: bama_stripes on November 06, 2013, 08:24:40 AM

What was called -- IG in the EZ?

Yes. The correct spot of the foul was around A-3.

TXMike · « **Reply #6 on:** November 06, 2013, 08:29:44 AM »

The phrase "egregious error" comes to mind..... just saying....

maven · « **Reply #7 on:** November 06, 2013, 08:31:57 AM »

Quote from: TXMike on November 06, 2013, 08:29:44 AM

The phrase "egregious error" comes to mind..... just saying....

... and it should be immediately followed by a new one: "not specifically reviewable."

FLbackjudge · « **Reply #8 on:** November 06, 2013, 08:39:13 AM »

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.

TXMike · « **Reply #9 on:** November 06, 2013, 08:51:16 AM »

Has anyone ever seen an IR review for "egregious error"? If this does not fit that bill then what does ? ? ?

Kalle · « **Reply #10 on:** November 06, 2013, 08:54:28 AM »

Quote from: TXMike on November 06, 2013, 08:51:16 AM

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).

maven · « **Reply #11 on:** November 06, 2013, 08:56:49 AM »

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...

chymechowder · « **Reply #12 on:** November 06, 2013, 09:04:27 AM »

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?

TXMike · « **Reply #13 on:** November 06, 2013, 09:13:58 AM »

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).

Kalle · « **Reply #14 on:** November 06, 2013, 09:16:07 AM »

Quote from: chymechowder on November 06, 2013, 09:04:27 AM

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.

Kalle · « **Reply #15 on:** November 06, 2013, 09:17:46 AM »

Quote from: TXMike on November 06, 2013, 09:13:58 AM

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".

Magician · « **Reply #16 on:** November 06, 2013, 09:29:53 AM »

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).

FLbackjudge · « **Reply #17 on:** November 06, 2013, 10:03:44 AM »

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.

TXMike · « **Reply #18 on:** November 06, 2013, 10:22:35 AM »

Quote from: Magician on November 06, 2013, 09:29:53 AM

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]

StudyingFutureZebra · « **Reply #19 on:** November 06, 2013, 11:27:58 AM »

Another addition to the list of reasons why certain penalties should be reviewed.

SouthGARef · « **Reply #20 on:** November 06, 2013, 11:39:47 AM »

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.

TXMike · « **Reply #21 on:** November 06, 2013, 11:45:34 AM »

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

maven · « **Reply #22 on:** November 06, 2013, 11:58:18 AM »

Quote from: TXMike on November 06, 2013, 11:45:34 AM

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!

TXMike · « **Reply #23 on:** November 06, 2013, 12:47:03 PM »

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?

bama_stripes · « **Reply #24 on:** November 06, 2013, 04:59:29 PM »

Quote from: FLbackjudge on November 06, 2013, 10:03:44 AM

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.

Author Topic: Buffalo vs Ohio (Read 28982 times)

maven

maven

chymechowder

StudyingFutureZebra

maven