+- CSNbbs (https://csnbbs.com)
+-- Forum: Active Boards (/forum-769.html)
+--- Forum: AACbbs (/forum-460.html)
+---- Forum: Archives (/forum-400.html)
+----- Forum: AACbbs Archives (/forum-418.html)
+------ Forum: Cincinnati Archives (/forum-932.html)
+------ Thread: B10 Calls UC...Admits to Error (/thread-649257.html)
B10 Calls UC...Admits to Error - Bearcats#1 - 09-12-2013 08:39 PM
Apparently the B10 called UC and admitted that both the Munchie TD run and the Nick Temple fumble recovery play were called incorrectly.
Gee thx B10
RE: B10 Calls UC...Admits to Error - Flying Bearcat - 09-12-2013 09:33 PM
Of course they are not affraid to say it after the fact... when they know there would be no consiquences.
RE: B10 Calls UC...Admits to Error - socTHEgreat - 09-12-2013 09:38 PM
At the game I couldn't believe that both of those calls were against us. I didn't know they were b10 refs either. Thought they had neutral conference refs OC games. Makes all the sense in the world now.
RE: B10 Calls UC...Admits to Error - Ring of Black - 09-12-2013 10:00 PM
Does a shitload of good now.
RE: B10 Calls UC...Admits to Error - Billy_Bearcat - 09-12-2013 10:36 PM
Would have changed the whole game.
RE: B10 Calls UC...Admits to Error - bearcatmark - 09-12-2013 10:38 PM
(09-12-2013 10:36 PM)Billy_Bearcat Wrote: Would have changed the whole game.
At the game they showed the replay over and over again. I was absolutely stunned by the calls, so were the Illini fans near us. They just started cracking up.
RE: B10 Calls UC...Admits to Error - SuperFlyBCat - 09-13-2013 06:36 AM
(09-12-2013 08:39 PM)Bearcats#1 Wrote: Apparently the B10 called UC and admitted that both the Munchie TD run and the Nick Temple fumble recovery play were called incorrectly.
Gee thx B10
link?
RE: B10 Calls UC...Admits to Error - CliftonAve - 09-13-2013 06:39 AM
(09-12-2013 10:38 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:(09-12-2013 10:36 PM)Billy_Bearcat Wrote: Would have changed the whole game.
At the game they showed the replay over and over again. I was absolutely stunned by the calls, so were the Illini fans near us. They just started cracking up.
In addition to those two plays they missed a number of holding calls. I saw our guys get completely tackled on a couple of their big gains.
RE: B10 Calls UC...Admits to Error - @ES Trader - 09-13-2013 06:48 AM
(09-13-2013 06:39 AM)CliftonAve Wrote:x2(09-12-2013 10:38 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:(09-12-2013 10:36 PM)Billy_Bearcat Wrote: Would have changed the whole game.
At the game they showed the replay over and over again. I was absolutely stunned by the calls, so were the Illini fans near us. They just started cracking up.
In addition to those two plays they missed a number of holding calls. I saw our guys get completely tackled on a couple of their big gains.
RE: B10 Calls UC...Admits to Error - mac6115cd - 09-13-2013 06:49 AM
Even one of the TV announcers said that there was no conclusive video evidence that the TD should be overturned. And the fumble was equally obvious.
Getting "homered" is nothing new, especially in the B10. It would have changed the game, but if UC had played to their ability, it wouldn't have mattered.
RE: B10 Calls UC...Admits to Error - ucdsk - 09-13-2013 07:08 AM
(09-13-2013 06:49 AM)mac6115cd Wrote: Even one of the TV announcers said that there was no conclusive video evidence that the TD should be overturned. And the fumble was equally obvious.
Getting "homered" is nothing new, especially in the B10. It would have changed the game, but if UC had played to their ability, it wouldn't have mattered.
RE: B10 Calls UC...Admits to Error - ucdsk - 09-13-2013 07:12 AM
Now see, I deliberately did not post anything all week or after the game, because these were my thought is the first quarter when the calls against UC stalled UC's offensive momentum. Then I remembered the axiom that "You can' blame the refs". But I feel in this case these s**theads may have stolen or severely changed UC season.
RE: B10 Calls UC...Admits to Error - JackieTreehorn - 09-13-2013 07:36 AM
(09-13-2013 06:36 AM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:(09-12-2013 08:39 PM)Bearcats#1 Wrote: Apparently the B10 called UC and admitted that both the Munchie TD run and the Nick Temple fumble recovery play were called incorrectly.
Gee thx B10
link?
TT discussed it on his radio show last night. Also said there were B10 officials for the Purdue game.
RE: B10 Calls UC...Admits to Error - CliftonAve - 09-13-2013 07:38 AM
(09-13-2013 07:12 AM)ucdsk Wrote: Now see, I deliberately did not post anything all week or after the game, because these were my thought is the first quarter when the calls against UC stalled UC's offensive momentum. Then I remembered the axiom that "You can' blame the refs". But I feel in this case these s**theads may have stolen or severely changed UC season.
Another axiom in football is that it is "a game of inches". If an inch can make a difference in a football game, taking away a score (possibly two) is catastrophic.
The psyche of a football player/team is a huge part of the game. Prior to the game, that Illinois team did not have a lot of confidence. Their confidence level was risen by jumping out 21-0. If UC would have made it 24-21 in a matter of minutes in the third quarter, it would likely significantly deflated that team. By the same token, it would have risen the confidence the UC players had.
RE: B10 Calls UC...Admits to Error - FLIP - 09-13-2013 07:42 AM
Quite honestly, doesn't surprise me at all, I kind of expect it.
I recall seeing some BS calls up at some UC games against OSU in the Minter years.
It's one of the reasons that all OOC games should have neutral referees.
Those 2 two errors (F-ups) changed the complextion of the game at that time of the game. Not saying they cost UC the game, but definately changed the momentum.
You know it's bad when head of referees DURING the game commented that both calls were wrong. I'd like to see fines or suspensions for referees that are found to be inept, it would definatly curtail the "homer" calls.
RE: B10 Calls UC...Admits to Error - nachoman91 - 09-13-2013 08:07 AM
I'm probably not educated enough on how the review booth is setup. Is there just one person in there making the call? Is that person a referee? Is that person an expert on the rules? Is that person employed by the home team or employeed as a referee? Do they have tv viewing angles that we don't see at home? Does their equipment allow them to do or see things we don't see at home?
I don't see how 99.9999% of the fans, announcers, tv viewers, and espn rules experts can watch a replay and call it one way and then the review booth call it the other way.
Its very frustrating because that guy is not supposed to affect the game, just fix glaring errors by the refs on the field. The review booth shouldn’t be making judgement calls, just calls based on 100% fact.
RE: B10 Calls UC...Admits to Error - Bearcat2012 - 09-13-2013 08:08 AM
(09-13-2013 07:36 AM)JackieTreehorn Wrote:(09-13-2013 06:36 AM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:(09-12-2013 08:39 PM)Bearcats#1 Wrote: Apparently the B10 called UC and admitted that both the Munchie TD run and the Nick Temple fumble recovery play were called incorrectly.
Gee thx B10
link?
TT discussed it on his radio show last night. Also said there were B10 officials for the Purdue game.
Lance McAlister @LanceMcAlister 12h
Tuberville says Big 10 notified him this week that the incorrect call was made on Munchie TD reversal at goal line. #Bearcats 700 WLW
RE: B10 Calls UC...Admits to Error - bearcatlawjd - 09-13-2013 08:21 AM
Officials in college football should not be tied to a conference. If we are still using the outdated model of conference officials every non-conference games needs to contracted to neutral crew.
One thing that bugs me about college sports in general is that the refs always seem to be biased, slow, out of position, and flat out bad.
RE: B10 Calls UC...Admits to Error - nachoman91 - 09-13-2013 08:40 AM
This article sums up my exact feelings on the replay system. I like replay in general, but hate how they make judgement calls.
The Problem with College Football's Review System
Indisputable video evidence. Clearly beyond a doubt. Irrefutable. Words and phrases I thought I understood until college football meddled in reviewing and overturning calls made by officials on the field using instant replay. Let me begin by saying that, in theory, I love the concept of review in sports. Referees are fallible, and as such, we shouldn’t limit ourselves solely to their discretion when we have technology to make the correct call. The two main components of college football’s review system are: 1) that every play during the game is reviewable and 2) that a referee’s call on the field can only be overturned by indisputable video evidence clearly showing the referee’s call to be incorrect. Unfortunately, college football replay officials don’t adhere to either of these standards which compromises the review system’s integrity and effectiveness.
The two main conditions for reviewing a play are that the play is reviewable, and that there is reasonable evidence to believe an error was made in the initial on-field ruling. Even when both of these conditions are met, the replay booth still fails to review countless plays where there is more than sufficient evidence to believe an error was made on the field. In the 2006 Rose Bowl game between Texas and USC, Vince Young was leading the Longhorns down the field near the end of the first half. On a run play, Young was tripped up from behind and, while falling down, pitched the ball to a teammate who ran in for a touchdown. The only problem? Young’s knee was indisputably down at the time the ball was pitched, meaning he was down by contact at the moment his knee hit the ground. Would Texas have likely gone on to score in the drive? It’s possible. They were moving the ball with ease at the time this happened. But the fact that this wasn’t even looked at by the review officials showcases a huge flaw in the review system. If you’re not going to fail to review such a critical play in the biggest game of the year, wouldn’t it be better to move to a challenge system similar to that in the NFL?
This brings me to an even bigger flaw in the review system, which is the clear lack of understanding of review officials of the meaning of indisputable. According to the rule, a play should only be overturned if it was undeniably and unquestionably the wrong call on the field. It should be so clear to everyone that a person would be willing to stake their life savings on it. However, somewhere along the line, the review booth has seemingly switched to a “more-likely-than-not” basis, or a “75% sure” basis. When you have broadcasters, who are looking at the same replays that the review booth is looking at, with a different opinion than that of the review booth’s decision, then by definition, this is not indisputable. In last night’s Sugar Bowl between Michigan and Virginia Tech, Danny Coale caught what was ruled a touchdown in overtime on an incredible catch. As it was such an absurdly athletic catch, it clearly should have been reviewed, and thankfully it was. The review showed what looked like a catch, possession maintained, and Coale’s elbow down in bounds before sliding out of bounds. Would I bet my life savings that it was a catch? Of course not. It was a close play, and even after looking at every angle I was still only about 75% sure it was a catch. The announcers seemed to agree with this premise and agreed that, by requiring indisputable video evidence to overturn the touchdown, the play would stand as called on the field. Somehow, the replay official in the review booth disagreed and decided that without a shadow of a doubt that the ball was not caught, which brings me to another flaw in the review system.
Indisputable?
The decision that Coale’s catch wasn’t a touchdown was made by ONE replay official. In theory, the play should be indisputable and all you should require is one official to see something so blatantly obvious that he can overturn the call. However, last night while watching the game, four of my friends agreed with the two announcers that it was a catch, while one friend disagreed, but didn’t think that the evidence was sufficient enough to overturn the call. That’s 7-7 ruling the play should stand. Yet putting the decision in the hands of one replay official who is basing his decision on a “more likely than not” basis is absurd. The fact that the replay booth doesn’t consist of a committee of three referee’s that all have to unanimously agree a play has indisputable evidence sufficient to overturn a call made on the field undermines the review system and detracts from the integrity of the sport.
Do we want a system where replay decisions are made on a more-likely-than-not basis and only reviewed using a challenge system? Personally, I’d be fine with that. I don’t think that a possible error made by a referee should stand as the benchmark with which indisputable evidence is required to overturn. I would rather see college football use the available technology to make what it deems is more likely than not the correct call based on the evidence available than trust a fallible referee. However, college football needs to operate within the framework that is currently established by reviewing ALL reasonably questionable plays, and overturning them only when the evidence is indisputably and unquestionably clear to everyone.
http://uninformedamateurs.blogspot.com/2012/01/problem-with-college-footballs-review.html#!/2012/01/problem-with-college-footballs-review.html
RE: B10 Calls UC...Admits to Error - uccheese - 09-13-2013 09:11 AM
I honestly thought Temple's fumble was worse. The TD should have stood because you couldn't tell at all if he had crossed and when it came out. The fumble, wow, you could tell. It was plain as day that he completely took the ball from him long before he was down.