Unusual reversal of ruling

[RickKY]

Auburn @ S Carolina.
2/7, Auburn QB drops back, scrambles, throws ball away across the sideline just behind the LOS.  R flags for IG.  After spotting the ball and the RFP, another whistle stops action.  Then the unusual happens.

Another official with an R on his back, but wearing a black hat, comes onto the field to converse with the WH.  The second R is holding a cell phone, obviously talking with someone, presumably the RO.  After a couple minutes of delay, the WH announces there was no foul on the previous play, and they respot the ball at the previous spot.

So whgat is that about?  There never was an announcement that the play waas being reviewed.  Both coaches appeared as confused and I was.

[RickKY]

The explanation for the reversed ruling was that the pass crossed the extended line of scrimmage.  It appears to have done so to me also.

[NVFOA_Ump]

But I believe that RickKY's question is why is the "2nd R" who is on the sideline blowing his whistle, obviously talking on cell phone, and then after a discussion the real R changes the call without any further reference to replay correcting the call.  It looked like the "2nd R" made the call?

If replay changed the call shouldn't the R announce that fact?  The whole thing looked very strange and took an awfully long time to sort out for some reason.  Maybe the headset link to RO was not working?

[NoVaBJ]

The second R is the unique-to-the-SEC on-field clock operator/alternate official, who stands behind the line judge at the snap and is stationary during the down.  You will see varying letters on the back of the AO, depending on his primary position.  The placement behind the line judge renders the alternate ideal for a second reference on line of scrimmage calls. 

The cell phone beats me, though.

[Atlanta Blue]

The "2nd R" is the alternate official and ECO.  In the SEC, the clock is run from the sideline, by the alternate official.  The alternate official always wears a black hat, but wears the shirt of his normal position, so it might be any letter.

The alternate official "advises" the crew on plays relating to the LOS, such as whether the passer was over the line when throwing, or whether a pass crossed the LOS, so this is exactly the kind of call on which he will advise the crew.

As to the cellphone, I have no idea, unless he was talking to the RO (he is not on a head set, so a cell phone would be his only way of communication with him).  But in this case, it wasn't the RO, and the alternate official didn't "overturn" the call, he just gave the crew more information so that they could make a more informed decision.

[RickKY]

Is it the AOs job to call for a review, or overrule the decision on the field?  That is what appeared to happen.  In this case he was out on the field, with cell phone in hand, and an ear piece in his ear, talking with someone.

[TxSkyBolt]

Maybe he was using a lifeline and phoning a friend?

[TXMike]

1-800-refstripes

[TxSkyBolt]

He was probably checking in with the TXMike command center.

[Atlanta Blue]

Is it the AOs job to call for a review,

No, on-field officials (even the alternate) cannot request a review.

or overrule the decision on the field?  That is what appeared to happen.

He didn't "overrule" the call, he let the R know some "additional information" of which he may not have been aware.  The R reversed his own call.  This is no different than any other member of the crew letting the R know additional information, such as ball was tipped by a lineman on a DPI call, it just wasn't quite as timely.

  In this case he was out on the field, with cell phone in hand, and an ear piece in his ear, talking with someone.

Are you sure it was a cell phone?  He is the ECO, could it have been the clock control?  He holds that throughout the game.

If it was a cell phone, I have no idea what he was doing with that.

[RMR]

Blue,

I've noticed the CO always has an earpiece - who's in his ear?

[Grant - AR]

In the SEC, the alternate official has a walkie-talkie with an ear piece.  This is used for communication with the replay booth.  It is also used as a backup if the IR headset goes out.  I guess they could have been without an earpiece so the walkie-talkie looked like a cell phone.  I haven't seen the play so I'm not sure what happened.

[Atlanta Blue]

In the SEC, the alternate official has a walkie-talkie with an ear piece.  This is used for communication with the replay booth.  It is also used as a backup if the IR headset goes out.  I guess they could have been without an earpiece so the walkie-talkie looked like a cell phone.  I haven't seen the play so I'm not sure what happened.

That is usually clipped to his belt, as the clock control is in his hand.  If he was holding the walkie talkie, where was the clock control?  Other hand maybe?

I was in the car listening on XM as we had just finished the UGA-MSU game.  I didn't see any video until the second half.  If I recall, the R announced the ball crossed the extended LOS out of bounds, so there was no foul.  Of course, that came AFTER he had already announced Intentional Grounding.

[RickKY]

Looked like a cell phone, could have been a walkie talkie.  I only saw it for a second.  The wire to the ear lead me to believe cell phone.  Either way, I think it is highly improper for other than a game official or RO to provide such information to the R and have him reverse his own call.

[RMR]

Why is it "highly improper" to use a member of the crew in such a way?

[Atlanta Blue]

Looked like a cell phone, could have been a walkie talkie.  I only saw it for a second.  The wire to the ear lead me to believe cell phone.  Either way, I think it is highly improper for other than a game official or RO to provide such information to the R and have him reverse his own call.

Would it be improper for the LJ to have come tell him the ball crossed the extended LOS?  The alternate official is just as much a part of the crew as the Back Judge or the Linesman.  He is in uniform, runs the clock, rules on plays at the LOS, attends the crew meetings and draws a game check.  He can't drop a flag himself, but he can advise any other official on fouls regarding the LOS as well as personal fouls and USCs.

[RickKY]

Why is it "highly improper" to use a member of the crew in such a way?

1.  It looks bad.
2.  There is already a review process in place.
3.  The AO came onto the field of play.
4.  I've never seen this before and it caught me by surprise.  Has this process been publicized like the booth review process has?

I'll concede 'highly improper' is too strong of a phrase in this case.

[TxSkyBolt]

More like "highly unusual."  But then again, this is the SEC and they've never been accused of conforming to the rest of the country.

[ref6983]

1.  It looks bad.
2.  There is already a review process in place.
3.  The AO came onto the field of play.
4.  I've never seen this before and it caught me by surprise.  Has this process been publicized like the booth review process has?

I'll concede 'highly improper' is too strong of a phrase in this case.

There is nothing wrong with an alternate official providing information that may help the onfield officials get a play correct.

However, it is not only highly improper but absolutely illegal for him to be in contact with the replay official and receive information to help him do so. The rules for the replay official are explicitly spelled out and may not be used for any other purpose.

Moreover, determining whether a pass crosses the line for potential intentional ground is simply not reviewable. So the replay official could not have injected himself into this play.

[Atlanta Blue]

1.  It looks bad.

Not if you realize there is actually an eight man crew, and this is just one more crew member getting information to the R.  The mistake here was the R dropping the flag without first glancing to the AO to see if the ball crossed the LOS.

2.  There is already a review process in place.

True, but this didn't circumvent that.

3.  The AO came onto the field of play.

I'm GUESSING it was only because he couldn't get the R's attention.  This was a call that involved the LOS, the R should have looked to him.

4.  I've never seen this before and it caught me by surprise.  Has this process been publicized like the booth review process has?

Ah, now we get to the issue, it's new to you!  Publicized?  I don't know, but anyone working in the SEC knows the AO has two major duties, the clock and calls regarding the LOS.  This one got more visibility because the R dropped his flag without checking with the AO first.

Think of it like an intentional grounding call from the pocket.  That's a flag that often takes coordination between the R and the wings.  The R knows if the QB "dumped" the ball, but he often has to get information from the wings as to whether there was an eligible receiver in the area, as he is watching play with the QB and not looking downfield.

So, is it better to drop the flag first, then check with the wings and pick it up if need be, or check with the wings and then drop the flag?  That is a debated mechanic and I'm not sure there is a clear answer for all plays.

I'll concede 'highly improper' is too strong of a phrase in this case.

It wasn't improper at all, just not as clean as it should have been.  "Blame" the R.

[ref6983]

Not if you realize there is actually an eight man crew, and this is just one more crew member getting information to the R.  The mistake here was the R dropping the flag without first glancing to the AO to see if the ball crossed the LOS.

True, but this didn't circumvent that.

I'm GUESSING it was only because he couldn't get the R's attention.  This was a call that involved the LOS, the R should have looked to him.

Watching the video, this is not how it happened at all. The AO *never* looks behind him so he has no idea whether the ball crossed the line extended. It also appears he gives some type of signal that it did not cross immediately after the play. We also see the referee looking in his direction just before the flag is thrown.

The penalty was then enforced and the teams lined up for the next play and THEN the play was stopped. You want us to believe that after thinking about this for a minute (and never seeing where the ball hits), the AO, on his own decided to stop the play?

It just didn't happen that way. If, as you say, he has contact with replay, then it's painfully obvious that this is where the correction came from. Can't be proved, but the circumstantial evidence is overwhelming.

[RickKY]

I learned alot in this discussion.  I've never known an alternate official to interject himself into a ruling during a game.  Apparently the SEC allows this.  The AO in this case was holding a communication device that looked like a cell phone, complete with wired earpiece.  He may or may not have been using it during this situation.

Also, of lesser concern, the TV crew had no idea what was going on. (You may say that is typical, but they are generally familiar with the replay process after a few years.) If the AO was properly involved in this ruling, the TV guys could not explain it, leaving fans to only guess as to what was going on. They thought a play review was underway, but had no idea who the second R was on the field.

Still have not seen any video of this online.

[jimcore]

Just curious, what does the Line Judge watch for and does he stay on the LOS?