I think the officiating throughout the country is getting worse and worse - and can't seem to get it right with replay. Examples from yesterday:

North Carolina on-side kick. There was no offsides. No crossing the plane of the 35 yd. line. Nothing. NC recovers and has a chance to tie the game and force OT. Ref throws the flag and calls offside. Replays show it is incorrect call. Can't reverse it. Next onside from 5 yards further back is recovered by Clemson. Game over.

The others were related to non-calls in B10 championship game. MSU defensive player clearly has helmet to helmet contact with Iowa player that results in fumble recovered by MSU. No call. Replays show it clearly has helmet to helmet. I can't hear the sound of the game where I was at, so I don't even know if they discussed it.

Why no reversal based on the replay evidence as happened in our game against WMU?

BTW - has anyone heard the official explanation from the rules as to how the officials could throw a flag on the Russell play well after the play was over and base it on replay? Not saying it couldn't have or shouldn't have been called - but it wasn't. Then it was. The invisible flag that was in plain sight of no one at the game. I've heard it described as being something that could be called from the replay "because of the vicious nature of the hit". Is that true? Is there such a rule that exists?

(12-06-2015 09:19 AM)MotoRocket Wrote:  I think the officiating throughout the country is getting worse and worse - and can't seem to get it right with replay. Examples from yesterday:

North Carolina on-side kick. There was no offsides. No crossing the plane of the 35 yd. line. Nothing. NC recovers and has a chance to tie the game and force OT. Ref throws the flag and calls offside. Replays show it is incorrect call. Can't reverse it. Next onside from 5 yards further back is recovered by Clemson. Game over.

The others were related to non-calls in B10 championship game. MSU defensive player clearly has helmet to helmet contact with Iowa player that results in fumble recovered by MSU. No call. Replays show it clearly has helmet to helmet. I can't hear the sound of the game where I was at, so I don't even know if they discussed it.

Why no reversal based on the replay evidence as happened in our game against WMU?

BTW - has anyone heard the official explanation from the rules as to how the officials could throw a flag on the Russell play well after the play was over and base it on replay? Not saying it couldn't have or shouldn't have been called - but it wasn't. Then it was. The invisible flag that was in plain sight of no one at the game. I've heard it described as being something that could be called from the replay "because of the vicious nature of the hit". Is that true? Is there such a rule that exists?

Again the replay can't create a foul where a flag is not thrown. The replay is for the framing of the hit when a foul is called.

(12-06-2015 09:27 AM)Boca Rocket Wrote:  

(12-06-2015 09:19 AM)MotoRocket Wrote:  I think the officiating throughout the country is getting worse and worse - and can't seem to get it right with replay. Examples from yesterday:

North Carolina on-side kick. There was no offsides. No crossing the plane of the 35 yd. line. Nothing. NC recovers and has a chance to tie the game and force OT. Ref throws the flag and calls offside. Replays show it is incorrect call. Can't reverse it. Next onside from 5 yards further back is recovered by Clemson. Game over.

The others were related to non-calls in B10 championship game. MSU defensive player clearly has helmet to helmet contact with Iowa player that results in fumble recovered by MSU. No call. Replays show it clearly has helmet to helmet. I can't hear the sound of the game where I was at, so I don't even know if they discussed it.

Why no reversal based on the replay evidence as happened in our game against WMU?

BTW - has anyone heard the official explanation from the rules as to how the officials could throw a flag on the Russell play well after the play was over and base it on replay? Not saying it couldn't have or shouldn't have been called - but it wasn't. Then it was. The invisible flag that was in plain sight of no one at the game. I've heard it described as being something that could be called from the replay "because of the vicious nature of the hit". Is that true? Is there such a rule that exists?

Again the replay can't create a foul where a flag is not thrown. The replay is for the framing of the hit when a foul is called.

There was no flag on the field. Nothing. How did they get away with it? Why no uproar over that call? Can you imagine that happening in a P5 "championship" game? That would be debated for a whole week and then brought up on every Game Day discussion. Refs would be reprimanded.

(12-06-2015 09:27 AM)Boca Rocket Wrote:  

(12-06-2015 09:19 AM)MotoRocket Wrote:  I think the officiating throughout the country is getting worse and worse - and can't seem to get it right with replay. Examples from yesterday:

North Carolina on-side kick. There was no offsides. No crossing the plane of the 35 yd. line. Nothing. NC recovers and has a chance to tie the game and force OT. Ref throws the flag and calls offside. Replays show it is incorrect call. Can't reverse it. Next onside from 5 yards further back is recovered by Clemson. Game over.

The others were related to non-calls in B10 championship game. MSU defensive player clearly has helmet to helmet contact with Iowa player that results in fumble recovered by MSU. No call. Replays show it clearly has helmet to helmet. I can't hear the sound of the game where I was at, so I don't even know if they discussed it.

Why no reversal based on the replay evidence as happened in our game against WMU?

BTW - has anyone heard the official explanation from the rules as to how the officials could throw a flag on the Russell play well after the play was over and base it on replay? Not saying it couldn't have or shouldn't have been called - but it wasn't. Then it was. The invisible flag that was in plain sight of no one at the game. I've heard it described as being something that could be called from the replay "because of the vicious nature of the hit". Is that true? Is there such a rule that exists?

Again the replay can't create a foul where a flag is not thrown. The replay is for the framing of the hit when a foul is called.

I'm not disagreeing with you, but the refs threw a flag in the WMU game for targeting 10 minutes after the play after they reviewed the play. I still don't understand how they did that.

That offsides call was one of the worst I've ever seen in my life.

(12-06-2015 09:19 AM)MotoRocket Wrote:  North Carolina on-side kick. There was no offsides. No crossing the plane of the 35 yd. line. Nothing. NC recovers and has a chance to tie the game and force OT. Ref throws the flag and calls offside. Replays show it is incorrect call. Can't reverse it. Next onside from 5 yards further back is recovered by Clemson. Game over.

Now that "college football" is all about the BIG $$$$$, one might logically expect that the conferences are fully aware of the money and prestige ramifications riding on these games. For example Clemson is currently ranked #1 and therefore assured of a shot at the National Championship playoff IF THEY BEAT CAROLINA. However, UNC was only ranked 10th so while an upset of Clemson would definitely knock Clemson out of the National Championship picture, the win would not likely be enough to propel Carolina into the championship mix, hence, the ACC would be the BIG LOSER if Clemson did not defeat Carolina.

Make no mistake about the power of BIG $$$$$ to corrupt and there is no way that those ACC officials did not know about the high stakes riding on the ACC Championship Game and I believe it is quite possible (and perhaps likely) that sub-consciously or maybe even consciously that affected the way a game was called.

I totally agree. The favorite should not receive favors from the officials.

Not to belabor the point - but I have to. Why isn't that issue in the UT-WMU being discussed or debated or argued anywhere? I just want to understand how they can make a call after watching a replay. I know they can take a penalty away if targeting is called and they get it wrong. Happened this year with Rogers (or Whitaker?). But, I did not know you could ever call a penalty by watching a replay. If that is the case, where is it stipulated in the rules? Why not do the same on the missed PI in the NIU game. Where do you draw the line on making a call or reversing a call after watching a replay.

And even with that - it is a judgment call on whether it was targeting since there was only one angle shown. Don't know if there were more since the cameras were likely following the play. I've seen guys get "de-cleated" plenty of times on kick-offs and punts when they are pursuing a play and don't have their head "on a swivel".

I guess I am more disappointed that no one at UT is pursuing an explanation - or it has already been given to their satisfaction - and we don't know how it was justified throwing the flag 10 minutes later.

(12-06-2015 01:25 PM)MotoRocket Wrote:  Not to belabor the point - but I have to. Why isn't that issue in the UT-WMU being discussed or debated or argued anywhere? I just want to understand how they can make a call after watching a replay. I know they can take a penalty away if targeting is called and they get it wrong. Happened this year with Rogers (or Whitaker?). But, I did not know you could ever call a penalty by watching a replay. If that is the case, where is it stipulated in the rules? Why not do the same on the missed PI in the NIU game. Where do you draw the line on making a call or reversing a call after watching a replay.

And even with that - it is a judgment call on whether it was targeting since there was only one angle shown. Don't know if there were more since the cameras were likely following the play. I've seen guys get "de-cleated" plenty of times on kick-offs and punts when they are pursuing a play and don't have their head "on a swivel".

I guess I am more disappointed that no one at UT is pursuing an explanation - or it has already been given to their satisfaction - and we don't know how it was justified throwing the flag 10 minutes later.

Maybe UT is afraid that if they rile up the MAC office too much, the team might get shipped off to Boise, Idaho for their bowl game.

Why can't a Coach put the refs on notice at the time of totally boneheaded call that the game will be protested? The Syracuse game and the wmu game are two that would have had to be ruled on.

Again, the referee announced "the call of targeting is under further review". That means they decided on the field that it was targeting prior to any review. I'm not positive that physically throwing a flag on the ground is required if the play was already stopped...although they normally do. And they have until the snap of the next play to call a penalty on the prior play. They had more time due to the injury.

I still had the game and just watched it again. Right after the WMU player is put on the gurney, you can hear the ref announce "on the previous play, personal foul, targeting #9. The previous play is under review."

My guess is that the officials decided there was no harm in calling the penalty because if review showed no targeting, nothing would happen if it wasn't. And after the review, the official says "the call of targeting is confirmed."

(12-06-2015 06:22 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  I still had the game and just watched it again. Right after the WMU player is put on the gurney, you can hear the ref announce "on the previous play, personal foul, targeting #9. The previous play is under review."

My guess is that the officials decided there was no harm in calling the penalty because if review showed no targeting, nothing would happen if it wasn't. And after the review, the official says "the call of targeting is confirmed."

No flag or foul was called in response to the play. It was in response to the injury. The Officials missed the hit and conjectured what had occurred.

Replay has really hurt college football, that is the bigger discussion. Not only has it worsened officiating, it has slowed down the game and taken away a lot of the excitement of big plays as officials delay the game so some guy in a stadium suite can "make sure they got it right". It further takes football away from the fans in the stadium and makes it more of a TV show, while worsening the quality of officiating. The Russell play was kinda dirty and dumb but shouldn't have decided that game which it did due to replay.

(12-07-2015 04:03 AM)Boca Rocket Wrote:  

(12-06-2015 06:22 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  I still had the game and just watched it again. Right after the WMU player is put on the gurney, you can hear the ref announce "on the previous play, personal foul, targeting #9. The previous play is under review."

My guess is that the officials decided there was no harm in calling the penalty because if review showed no targeting, nothing would happen if it wasn't. And after the review, the official says "the call of targeting is confirmed."

No flag or foul was called in response to the play. It was in response to the injury. The Officials missed the hit and conjectured what had occurred.

That makes sense I suppose. The official standing right in front of the players had to know it was a hit that caused the injury. If he was thinking it could be targeting, why not throw the flag then and let the replay sort it out. If he did not see it and therefore felt he could not throw the flag, then do the rules allow you to search through the replays to see if it is a penalty and ejection? I don't think there is anything in the rules to allow for that.

If we're going to allow such reviews, how about reviewing every play to check for holding, which is done by all teams and seldom called. Can you imagine how many fans would never go to such a protracted game again.

(12-07-2015 07:05 PM)MotoRocket Wrote:  

(12-07-2015 04:03 AM)Boca Rocket Wrote:  

(12-06-2015 06:22 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  I still had the game and just watched it again. Right after the WMU player is put on the gurney, you can hear the ref announce "on the previous play, personal foul, targeting #9. The previous play is under review."

My guess is that the officials decided there was no harm in calling the penalty because if review showed no targeting, nothing would happen if it wasn't. And after the review, the official says "the call of targeting is confirmed."

No flag or foul was called in response to the play. It was in response to the injury. The Officials missed the hit and conjectured what had occurred.

That makes sense I suppose. The official standing right in front of the players had to know it was a hit that caused the injury. If he was thinking it could be targeting, why not throw the flag then and let the replay sort it out. If he did not see it and therefore felt he could not throw the flag, then do the rules allow you to search through the replays to see if it is a penalty and ejection? I don't think there is anything in the rules to allow for that.

Review cannot generate a penalty merely frame it.

(12-07-2015 07:05 PM)MotoRocket Wrote:  

(12-07-2015 04:03 AM)Boca Rocket Wrote:  

(12-06-2015 06:22 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  I still had the game and just watched it again. Right after the WMU player is put on the gurney, you can hear the ref announce "on the previous play, personal foul, targeting #9. The previous play is under review."

My guess is that the officials decided there was no harm in calling the penalty because if review showed no targeting, nothing would happen if it wasn't. And after the review, the official says "the call of targeting is confirmed."

No flag or foul was called in response to the play. It was in response to the injury. The Officials missed the hit and conjectured what had occurred.

That makes sense I suppose. The official standing right in front of the players had to know it was a hit that caused the injury. If he was thinking it could be targeting, why not throw the flag then and let the replay sort it out. If he did not see it and therefore felt he could not throw the flag, then do the rules allow you to search through the replays to see if it is a penalty and ejection? I don't think there is anything in the rules to allow for that.

That's actually what they did. They just for some reason didn't drop a flag on the field...but as I speculated, I don't think that's really necessary when the play is over like it was in this odd case with a long delay.

And as I said earlier, you can clearly hear over the speakers the ref calls the penalty for targeting on #9 and then says it will be reviewed. So somehow they at least knew it was Russell involved.

If anything nefarious at all took place, it would be that someone in the replay booth communicated with one of the refs and told him it was #9 and that is was targeting. To me, that seems pretty improbable.

To me, the only thing the refs did wrong was not to drop a flag on the field.

(12-08-2015 10:40 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(12-07-2015 07:05 PM)MotoRocket Wrote:  

(12-07-2015 04:03 AM)Boca Rocket Wrote:  

(12-06-2015 06:22 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  I still had the game and just watched it again. Right after the WMU player is put on the gurney, you can hear the ref announce "on the previous play, personal foul, targeting #9. The previous play is under review."

My guess is that the officials decided there was no harm in calling the penalty because if review showed no targeting, nothing would happen if it wasn't. And after the review, the official says "the call of targeting is confirmed."

No flag or foul was called in response to the play. It was in response to the injury. The Officials missed the hit and conjectured what had occurred.

That makes sense I suppose. The official standing right in front of the players had to know it was a hit that caused the injury. If he was thinking it could be targeting, why not throw the flag then and let the replay sort it out. If he did not see it and therefore felt he could not throw the flag, then do the rules allow you to search through the replays to see if it is a penalty and ejection? I don't think there is anything in the rules to allow for that.

That's actually what they did. They just for some reason didn't drop a flag on the field...but as I speculated, I don't think that's really necessary when the play is over like it was in this odd case with a long delay.

And as I said earlier, you can clearly hear over the speakers the ref calls the penalty for targeting on #9 and then says it will be reviewed. So somehow they at least knew it was Russell involved.

If anything nefarious at all took place, it would be that someone in the replay booth communicated with one of the refs and told him it was #9 and that is was targeting. To me, that seems pretty improbable.

To me, the only thing the refs did wrong was not to drop a flag on the field.

Bingo.

Russell's play had nothing to do with the play it was far away and inconsequential. If they guy doesn't get hurt it isn't called. He did so everyone has to live w it but that play would not have been called prior to replay. We would have finished the drive and probably won the game