Illinois/Nebraska Down Mess Up

[ktffan]

I haven't seen it reference here and I'm interested in opinions, as I don't know what to think about this.

On Illinois' first drive of the second half, they started after a touchback on the 25.  Their first play went 9.5 yards, and there's no visible first down indication, but the chains move to the 35 yard line.  The next play "2nd down" is run up to the 38 where everybody on the field, except maybe one of the chain gangs indicate first down.  They lose yardage, on the next play, run a slant on what everybody thinks is third down, which is just short of the 45, or the line to gain according to the chains.  Everybody on the field gets ready for 4th down, but the Nebraska sidelines stop the play and the officials discuss it and they go to replay and replay says that the 3rd down play was actually fourth down and Illinois turns it over on downs.

This guy gives you a breakdown with pictures:

http://illiniboard.com/2015/10/04/what-happened-on-that-play/

Also, video of the full game is here, the sequence starts at about 1:13:00, but is very long due to reviews:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RwP2hVLuQWo

Okay, this is released on ESPN about the group who oversees Big Ten officiating:

http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/13815357/illinois-fighting-illini-denied-game-breakdown-crew

I'm unsure about who to blame here, or how to fix it in the future.  This seems like a case where everything was rolling smoothly until replay came along and messed it up.  One thing is clear to me is that Illinois was forced to play for an officiating screw-up that was deeper than just a mistake on a bang-bang play.  Ultimately, Illinois got the ball back and this seemed to stir them up, so I think they benefited in the long run, so I'm not sure Illinois should complain.

The "review" article takes the position that the on-field officials messed up the down and replay fixed it.  I don't buy that, but it is what it is and the article also mentions that "if properly officiate", Illinois would have had another down, so this is clear as mud.

The first thing I'm unclear about is this (from the "review" article):

A 10-yard gain on a first down was spotted incorrectly, leading the Illini to believe they were running a second-down play on the next snap.

How can a "10-yard gain" be "spotted incorrectly"?  Doesn't the ball get spotted and then the yardage get calculated off that?  Who determined that it was a "10-yard gain" in the first place?

The next thing I'm wondering about, from the same article:

While officials on the field are responsible for the correct down, distance and oversight of the chain crew, it is also the responsibility of the replay officials to monitor the game administration and correct the number of a down and distance if inaccurate

Okay, I get that replay monitor's stuff.  However, replay can not go back and change a play that happened in the previous quarter.  Replay's authority over plays ends after the next play is run.  Okay, this situation might be a little different, but Illinois was basing their play calling (most importantly not punting on fourth down) based on the downs that are shown not only on the yard markers, but the officials are stating as well.  Isn't this a case where the mistake should not be corrected because several plays have passed?  What happens if the officials rule it's fourth down and a team punted and the next team is 3 plays into their drive?  Can they go back and fix the down marker then?  Of course it's too late, but I think it's too late 3 plays later.  The (supposed) mistake was made and you can't go back and fix it after a team had played 2-3 downs under the conditions of the mistake.

The final thing I want to ask about is the article mentions possible discipline for the crew.  IMO, that would be rough.  Somebody needs to explain to me what the crew did wrong, other than the chain crew.  Did the official wave that the chain should be moved?  I can't answer that, but maybe one official did, and the rest were not on the same page.  I'm hoping someone can clear that up for me.

Also, I think this is a fall-out from the hurry-up no huddle offenses.  Officials are now being pushed to spot the ball so quick and run the chains up so fast that these kinds of mistakes are more likely to happen.

Anyway, thoughts would be appreciated.

[mishatx]

How can a "10-yard gain" be "spotted incorrectly"?  Doesn't the ball get spotted and then the yardage get calculated off that?  Who determined that it was a "10-yard gain" in the first place?

Statisticians determine whether it is a 10-yard gain, which can be anywhere from just over 9 yards and a foot and half to anywhere just under 10 yards and a foot and half.

From the pictures, it looks like the correct spot is the 35, not short of it.  So "spotted incorrectly" could mean "should have been a first down but was spotted just short of the 35, making it appear short of the line to gain."

From the video, don't see anyone signal first down or second down. No one appears to stop the clock on any play except the play where the ball went out of bounds.  The clock is stopped after the second play (by the clock operator - no official in the picture starts the clock),  but the R does not start the clock when ready - you can see him back away and hold up his hand as though to indicate the down, but the L signals to start the clock when he notices it is not running.  At this point, it appears like the officials are proceeding as though the chains are correct, and the TV and aux box are wrong.  But then after what becomes the 4th down play, I still see no officials stop the clock or move as though there was a turnover on downs, and it appears as though the umpire might be signaling fourth down, so it's somewhat unclear what down the officials thought it was.

[ktffan]

The officials, and all the players clearly were acting like the next play would be fourth down.  I don't know if they started with the "correct" sequence in their head and got mixed up, but there's no question they thought there was another down.

As for the spot, I agree that the spot looked like it should have been beyond the 35, however, is that relevant to what it was?  I was under the impression that where the ball spotted would be where the statistician goes from.

[mishatx]

Where the ball ended up being spotted was statistically a 10 yard gain. 

[JasonTX]

Replay's authority over plays ends after the next play is run.

Actually that is not correct.  The rules for replay allow for the down to be corrected at any time within that series of downs or before the ball is legally put into play after that series.  Rule 12-3-5-d-2.

[ktffan]

Actually that is not correct.  The rules for replay allow for the down to be corrected at any time within that series of downs or before the ball is legally put into play after that series.  Rule 12-3-5-d-2.

Well, yeah, I get that there's an exception for downs, which is why that happened.  I was speaking on general principle of replay, which basically gives up the authority over plays after the next one happens.   What I'm getting at is, why shouldn't the same principle apply here?  If a coach is calling a second down play because he thinks it's second down, then later they tell him it was actually third down, I think that's a problem and unfair to that coach.  Maybe I'm wrong.

[ktffan]

Where the ball ended up being spotted was statistically a 10 yard gain.

That's what I thought, though I didn't know for sure.  Since the ball was still in contact with the 25 to start, it was statistically at the 25.  Since it was no longer in contact with the 34 after that, it was officially at the 35.  Statistically, it would be a 10 yard game, by my understanding, but clearly you can get 10 yards without getting the 10 yards needed to move the chains.  I think.  I'm asking these questions because I don't know.

Also, when did the emphasis come on spotting the ball exactly on the yard line after a first down?  Is this in the rule book?  Is it pushed in meetings?  I personally think it's brilliant, but I'm not sure who is pushing it.

[mishatx]

Also, when did the emphasis come on spotting the ball exactly on the yard line after a first down?  Is this in the rule book?  Is it pushed in meetings?  I personally think it's brilliant, but I'm not sure who is pushing it.

It's a quality of life thing.  I don't know if it is "officially" written down anywhere, but just about every organization with any sort of codified philosophy uses it.

[medi-ogre]

Who cares what the statisticians say about the play.  After the 1st play in the series, the ball is clearly spotted short of the line to gain and should be 2nd and less than a yard.  This is a horrible break down of mechanics.

The line judge's responsibility is to be very clear to the white hat whether or not there is a first down on the play or if it's close or anything like that.  He knows where he spots it and should know the LtG is the hard line of the 35 making it very easy for him to determine first down.  He should be signaling 2nd down and verifying the chains and box are correct as he can clearly see them across the field.  The H should never tell the chains to move until he sees the signal from the white hat; he should also be double checking down and distance and where the chains are, so not sure how and why the chains got moved here.  Possibly an over ambitious chain gang thinking they know what's going on so they'll just go ahead and move.  Another reason to emphasize to your gang to never move until I tell you to and to chastise them (respectfully of course) when they do move prior to authorization.

Those are the big mechanic problems here, but there are more.  No one one else on the crew steps up as a crew saver.  Since we have an auxiliary chain and box for this game, an easy observation is they are different!!!  We probably have an issue.  Did the R or the U not look at both sides prior to the play?  if not, that's just lazy.  It's easy to glance side to side and verify both are set the same.  Our pool leader always asks us "who's responsibility is it to get the call right?"  invariably the answer is everyone.  Any bad call is the responsibility of the entire crew and all members are empowered to step in and correct a problem.  So either this crew got complacent and wasn't checking and double checking the situation or they assumed it was right or some other such thing. 

Unfortunately, the safety net of replay did not help either which is a whole other conversation.  At the end of the day, everyone involved looks bad and deserves sanctions.  If it's me on this crew, I say yep we screwed up and get what we deserve.