Down or Not?

[tow]

Interesting take on two plays, http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/blog/dr_saturday/post/No-Michael-Dyer-wasn-t-down-unless-he-was-de?urn=ncaaf-306198

[cincybearcat]

Wasn't there a clarification by the CFO this year on wrist vs. forearm?  Just went through the website twice and couldn'd find it.  Am I going crazy?

[VALJ]

For what it's worth, I thought that was a hell of a great no-call.  Then again, I'm not up to speed on NCAA code, either.

[LAZebra]

The Rivals article asserts that the two plays, Williams vs. Dyer, are virtually identical, when, in fact, they are not.  The back of the wrist, attached to the forearm is different than the inside of the wrist, attached to the palm.  Is it enough of a distinction to account for the difference in ruling?  I don't know. What do you guys think?

[JasonTX]

The Rivals article asserts that the two plays, Williams vs. Dyer, are virtually identical, when, in fact, they are not.  The back of the wrist, attached to the forearm is different than the inside of the wrist, attached to the palm.  Is it enough of a distinction to account for the difference in ruling?  I don't know. What do you guys think?

I'm no doctor, but just doing some google research I found that from the medical standpoint that the wrist is part of the hand.  Of course that don't mean anything in regards to football rules interpretation, but as with anything, we need to make sure each call we make (to include replay) is huge and doesn't come down to threading needles.  In my opinion, both plays should have been live and neither one ruled down.

[Etref]

Is it a conference philosophy difference?

[Diablo]

I'm no doctor, but just doing some google research I found that from the medical standpoint that the wrist is part of the hand.  Of course that don't mean anything in regards to football rules interpretation, but as with anything, we need to make sure each call we make (to include replay) is huge and doesn't come down to threading needles.  In my opinion, both plays should have been live and neither one ruled down.

Now that you have brought it up.
After the Sugar Bowl, I asked a friend of mine who teaches gross anatomy at a prominent medical school.  He was adamant that wrist is part of the hand and was sure all anatomists felt this way. 

[Bullycon]

The Rivals article asserts that the two plays, Williams vs. Dyer, are virtually identical, when, in fact, they are not.  The back of the wrist, attached to the forearm is different than the inside of the wrist, attached to the palm.  Is it enough of a distinction to account for the difference in ruling?  I don't know. What do you guys think?

I think both plays should have stood.

The play in the Arkansas-Fayetteville game should have been confirmed.
I thought the play in the Auburn game was a little closer. His leg seemed awfully close to touching. So I will say the ruling stands on this one. As far as the wrist only goes, the ruling is confirmed.

[RickKY]

The Rivals article asserts that the two plays, Williams vs. Dyer, are virtually identical, when, in fact, they are not.  The back of the wrist, attached to the forearm is different than the inside of the wrist, attached to the palm.  Is it enough of a distinction to account for the difference in ruling?  I don't know. What do you guys think?

The wrist is neither hand nor arm, but the joint where those 2 body parts meet.  Not sure how that affects rulings on the field, but I'm sure we'll have that discussion now.  This is another reason why I dislike video replay.

[FatboyHL]

Both plays were very well officiated on the field.  This is a great lesson to teach young officials to replay the play two or three times in our mind before reacting and blowing a whistle.  The difference and the advantage the on field officials had in each of these cases is replay.  We are splitting hairs as to which side of the wrist touched.  I am no replay official or college official for that matter, but have been around the game all my life and in each play they had to make a call.  The call they made I feel was based on their judgement and interpretation of the rules.  The replay officials made a call and have to stand by it.  Although very similar the perception by the outside world is of inconsistency.  I disagree with that perception and give kudos to every official in both games. 

[TXMike]

How can both calls be "right"?  One was down and one was not according to replay

[FatboyHL]

How can both calls be "right"?  One was down and one was not according to replay

Did not say both were right or wrong.  Just that I support the judgement of the officials on both plays.  Every official whether people like it or not use their own set of criteria to make a call.  We as officials strive for consistency first within our own judgements and second between our fellow officials.  These officials were at the highest level working on big stages and made a call.  Who are we to second guess either one?

[zebra99]

Did not say both were right or wrong.  Just that I support the judgement of the officials on both plays.  Every official whether people like it or not use their own set of criteria to make a call.  We as officials strive for consistency first within our own judgements and second between our fellow officials.  These officials were at the highest level working on big stages and made a call.  Who are we to second guess either one?

I don't think anyone is second guessing - we simply, debate, discuss, agree, disagree and, most importantly, learn from such discussion.  We all have been there no matter what level and understand that reasonable, well trained officials can and will come up with different judgments on the same visual facts.

With that said, TXMike has a valid point - to the average eye, and even to trained eyes - there appears to be inconsistent results.

Now if the rules committees further defines the hand as including the wrist (which I think they should) that will help a great deal for both on field and instant replay officials.  However, nothing is perfect unless we can all agreed on where the wrist ends and the forearm starts! 

[TXMike]

I don't think anyone is second guessing - we simply, debate, discuss, agree, disagree and, most importantly, learn from such discussion.  We all have been there no matter what level and understand that reasonable, well trained officials can and will come up with different judgments on the same visual facts.

Exactly!!

There are a few guys here who automatically reject any discussion of how a play was ruled or judged as criticism of the calling official.  Unwillingness to accept the legitimacy of discussions over calls that were made, how they were made and why they were made means you are unwilling to learn and understand.  It is even more appropriate to discuss calls like this, (regardless of how big the stage is that they were made on), because there have been 2 apparently directly opposite "final answers".  If someone can help explain how that could be possible, most of us are all ears. 

And when we decide once and for all if the wrist (front side or backside) is or is not part of the hand, then we can turn our attention to the next logical question....is the ankle part of the foot?

[FatboyHL]

Exactly!!

There are a few guys here who automatically reject any discussion of how a play was ruled or judged as criticism of the calling official.  Unwillingness to accept the legitimacy of discussions over calls that were made, how they were made and why they were made means you are unwilling to learn and understand.  It is even more appropriate to discuss calls like this, (regardless of how big the stage is that they were made on), because there have been 2 apparently directly opposite "final answers".  If someone can help explain how that could be possible, most of us are all ears. 

And when we decide once and for all if the wrist (front side or backside) is or is not part of the hand, then we can turn our attention to the next logical question....is the ankle part of the foot?

I would not have posted anything if I rejected to discussion of these plays.  You are correct by looking at video and discussing play makes all of us better that truly want to get better.  My original comments were one directed at the tone of the article that this post began with and second was to point out the mechanics that were used by the on field officials.  If any whistle had sounded on either one of these plays this thread would be totally different.  I agreed with both calls as they happened sitting in my armchair position and too would like to know how each official came to the conclusion that they did.  I can reason that since one was the top of the wrist and the other was the bottom that is the difference.  Obviously the NCAA rule book does not clearly define that and there in lies are discussion.

[busman]

You are both wrong.  Every little league baseball coach and every tv announcer will tell you - the hands are part of the bat.  Right, AB?

[zebra99]

You are both wrong.  Every little league baseball coach and every tv announcer will tell you - the hands are part of the bat.  Right, AB?

huh?

[chymechowder]

You are both wrong.  Every little league baseball coach and every tv announcer will tell you - the hands are part of the bat.  Right, AB?

and part of the ball in basketball