RefStripes.com
Football Officiating => NCAA Discussion => Topic started by: TXMike on December 21, 2012, 04:18:20 PM
-
Much as I hate to admit it is not something we B's have to rule on, I think the ruling on whether the QB passed or fumbled the ball may be the toughest call on the field (to say nothing of the criticality of the call). This is one from last night. You make the call.
http://youtu.be/s_QQEbatXHI
-
My only comment would be that if the replay official had the same quality gear that many of us have in our homes (40 inch and higher HD screens) that review may have been different. In the attached clip I couldn't say for sure either way, but during the game last night the view on a big screen was much better.
-
The first camera is inconclusive.
In the other camera views I can just see the arm and ball moving forward but enough to call incomplete.
On the field it would have been a tough call for the White Hat as it looks like the Team B player got in between him and the QB blocking his view.
Whats the if in doubt philosophy on this play ?
-
The first camera is inconclusive.
In the other camera views I can just see the arm and ball moving forward but enough to call incomplete.
On the field it would have been a tough call for the White Hat as it looks like the Team B player got in between him and the QB blocking his view.
Whats the if in doubt philosophy on this play ?
what do you mean by saying "I can see the arm and ball moving forward but "not" (I added this word) enough to call incomplete?"
-
There are two "philosophies" at work here:
(1) When in doubt, it is an incomplete pass, not a fumble.
(2) No cheap turnovers / scores.
That said, the defense definitely beat the offense on this play, and the R can see an "empty hand". I'll bet the R was 100% in his mind that it was a fumble.
And you're right, Mike -- this is the toughest call a R has to make.
-
CC
-
<message deleted>
-
Because of the controversy I went back and looked at it again and I am confused as to why you differ. Here are 2 screen shots - you tell me what you see.
(https://dl.dropbox.com/u/11973537/ball%20moving%20forward.jpg)
-
Just be sure you are using the 'philosophy' that your boss wants used. If you go by the CCA manual the actual philosophy is to rule this play a fumble rather than a pass when in question. This seems appropriate when we have replay to back us up. However for majority who have to offciate without IR, your supervisor likely would want you to err in the direction of an incomplete pass.
-
I agreed watching this on my HD screen at home and this doesn't change anything.
-
I look at 1:08 to 1:09 of the video and clearly see the ball coming forward in the passer's hand. It shows in other angles as well. I was surprised this was not overturned.
-
I look at 1:08 to 1:09 of the video and clearly see the ball coming forward in the passer's hand. It shows in other angles as well. I was surprised this was not overturned.
yEs:
............... and the R can see an "empty hand". I'll bet the R was 100% in his mind that it was a fumble.
From looking at the positions of the block and where the R enters the screen, it is very likely that could not have had a clear an unobstructed view of the QB's arm.
-
There seems to be some confusion here about the when in question philosophy. :sTiR:
When in doubt, it is an incomplete pass, not a fumble.
If you go by the CCA manual the actual philosophy is to rule this play a fumble rather than a pass when in question.
-
There seems to be some confusion here about the when in question philosophy. :sTiR:
The current philosophies represent a change in recent years most likely because of IR. In pre-IR times we would favor runner down and incomplete pass (no cheap turnovers) but that now takes IR out of being able to totally fix things.
My personal opinion is that these philosophies relate to on-field officials and how we rule the plays when we are "in question." IR officials, on the other hand, need to make their decisions based on IVE regardless of these two specific philosophies. Related but not directly on point is IR's indisputable video evidence standard whereby "when in question" they defer to the ruling on the field -- not to it being either a fumble or incomplete pass.
-
That is a great point (what the replay officials should be using). It speaks to what I understand may be a simmering issue at the Big Boy level, video officials who may be using their own philosophies/experiences/biases, etc instead of just going with the facts. If the video is not "indisputable" then leave it in the hands of the on field guys.
Maybe they should look at pulling in a select group of females to be the "reviewers". It is my experience that many women have an incredible eye for detail. They can look at the video and tell another member of the review crew what they saw. That other person would be the rules guy and based on what the gal says she saw, the rules official makes the ruling.
-
That is a great point (what the replay officials should be using). It speaks to what I understand may be a simmering issue at the Big Boy level, video officials who may be using their own philosophies/experiences/biases, etc instead of just going with the facts. If the video is not "indisputable" then leave it in the hands of the on field guys.
Maybe they should look at pulling in a select group of females to be the "reviewers". It is my experience that many women have an incredible eye for detail. They can look at the video and tell another member of the review crew what they saw. That other person would be the rules guy and based on what the gal says she saw, the rules official makes the ruling.
As long as they are a married couple then everything will go very smoothly!! :)
-
Our just hand the ladies a rulebook?
-
Our just hand the ladies a rulebook?
Oh, hell no!!!! They are not logical thinkers and if you are not a logical thinker there is no way you make sense of that thing
-
Ha! I can see it now. "But he didn't MEAN to fumble! I don't think it should be a fumble"
-
And we wonder why there's a shortage of officials...
-
What if the rule changed to make this much easier to officiate? Suppose 2-19-2-b read as follows:
"When a Team A player is holding the ball to pass it forward toward the neutral zone, any intentional forward movement of his hand or arm starts a forward pass. If a Team B player contacts the passer player or ball after forward movement begins and the ball leaves the passer’s player's hand, a forward or backward pass is ruled regardless of depending on where the ball strikes the ground or a player."
Would this change the game for the worse? I doubt it. Instead I think it would change the game for the better. It would simply remove an occasional lucky break that the offense currently gets - a lucky break that basically depends on which way the R rules on a 50/50 call. Changing the criterion, so it's only a forward pass if the ball goes forward, isn't just visibly clearer, it's also arguably more fair. If Team A loses the ball, having failed to throw it in a forward direction, why shouldn't it be a free ball?
-
Doesn't this suggestion effectively just make the problem worse? Now we would have to be making the impossible call of was the ball actually 100% out of the passer's hand prior to be batted or was it still in his hand when it was batted? I'd take it the way it is now if that's the choice.
How about we consider what would happen if we adopted a standard that "when in question it was a pass ...." and then change the replay rules to allow the call to be reversed like the NFL does if replay determines that it was actually a fumble that was immediately recovered in the continuing action, with no advance allowed?
-
How about we consider what would happen if we adopted a standard that "when in question it was a pass ...." and then change the replay rules to allow the call to be reversed like the NFL does if replay determines that it was actually a fumble that was immediately recovered in the continuing action, with no advance allowed?
Isn't that the way it is right now?
-
My vote for toughest call on the field is a dive up the middle near the goal line when the offense snaps the ball from inside the 2.
-
I guess I shoulda said , the toughest call you can see. On the dives you are often physically unable to see anyuthing due to the mass of humanity. At least with my play, you can see, it is just a matter of how well you can process what you see.
-
Isn't that the way it is right now?
That's not what I've been reading. What I've read was when in doubt to call it a fumble, and let replay correct if required. I'm suggesting the "when in doubt" standard would be call it a pass, then let replay correct if required.
-
Its Pretty clear to officiate as it is now! The arm with ball moving forward. Now that is if you have the line of sight! In that play I would overturn it but do agree with the R going with the TD call in that situation with replay in your back pocket. However in HS I would have to lean towards Incomplete. But you never know until you see that in real time and its your call!
-
Can someone tell me what the reasoning of having the R set up on the throwing arm side of the QB is? I know there must be some reason. It's likely a 50/50 thing, but in this case, the view seems better from the other side. Don't mean to commit heresy by even suggesting such a thing, I'm just wondering.
-
The R will position himself to have the best view of the QB's arm to determine fumble/incomplete pass.
Same principal applies for the kicker.
-
My vote for toughest call on the field is a dive up the middle near the goal line when the offense snaps the ball from inside the 2.
Just guess where the ball goes, put your foot there, and run in from the sidelines like you know exactly what you're doing.