Zach Miller catch followup

[FormerUmp]

Riveron explains Bears' TD overturn, predecessors skeptical | Football Zebras

It's interesting to see what the official explanation was. On the other hand, it's certainly discouraging that the NFL's Officiating Head could get a play so wrong. It seems as though it's representative of the replay decisions we've been seeing this year.

What do you guys, as football officials, think of the question at the end of the article? Are instant replay reviews becoming too technical?

I like replay review to fix the "obvious miss" (something that in itself is quite subjective), but I don't care for it on plays such as these, especially when an error is made.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by FormerUmp

Riveron explains Bears' TD overturn, predecessors skeptical | Football Zebras

It's interesting to see what the official explanation was. On the other hand, it's certainly discouraging that the NFL's Officiating Head could get a play so wrong. It seems as though it's representative of the replay decisions we've been seeing this year.

What do you guys, as football officials, think of the question at the end of the article? Are instant replay reviews becoming too technical?

I like replay review to fix the "obvious miss" (something that in itself is quite subjective), but I don't care for it on plays such as these, especially when an error is made.

I want to see you either contribute here in a positive way from time to time or go away for good.

[FormerUmp]

Originally Posted by Rich

I want to see you either contribute here in a positive way from time to time or go away for good.

I do contribute positivitely. Deleting my posts for no reason, which has happened on two occasions, does make it hard to contribute.

This thread is a contribution. There's no reason why we shouldn't be able to discuss our opinions on replay and the shortcomings of the system.

I haven't engaged in any official bashing. Obviously I've been critical in some cases but not unfair. This forum is for discussing all aspects of officiating, no? Not just what's done well?

Ultimately I'd like to be able to discuss rules and situations with the knowledgeable people here without it being needlessly censored or devolving into personal attacks.

[FormerUmp]

Do you guys feel as football officials that you'd review plays with a more or less technical eye than someone who hasn't officiated on the field?

From what I've read, the new centralized system was setup with Dean Blandino, who I don't believe was an on-field official, in mind. It seems as though "clear and convincing evidence" is no longer required to overturn. It seems as though the contrast from years past is due to new people making the decisions, but I don't know how there could be such a seemingly large gap.

In the context of this particular play, it seems to me like he was trying to be too "technical" and "saw" something that wasn't there. It's frustrating to me because replay should exist to fix the obvious mistake, not to seek out a technical reason for a reversal, which seems to be the trend this year.

[FormerUmp]

This play was ruled down by contact after review.

I'm not trying to bash officials. I'm trying to understand where the inconsistencies come from.

[CT1]

Originally Posted by FormerUmp

Do you guys feel as football officials that you'd review plays with a more or less technical eye than someone who hasn't officiated on the field?

I've thought about this. I believe I'd probably try to find a way to uphold the ruling on the field, unless it's painfully obvious that it was wrong ("50 drunk guys in a bar").

Which is what replay was supposed to be for in the first place.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by FormerUmp

This play was ruled down by contact after review.

I'm not trying to bash officials. I'm trying to understand where the inconsistencies come from.

He made a football move. What is the inconsistency?

Peace

[InsideTheStripe]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

He made a football move. What is the inconsistency?

Peace

What football move was that? If that was overturned to a catch, that's horrible.

[FormerUmp]

Originally Posted by InsideTheStripe

What football move was that? If that was overturned to a catch, that's horrible.

(10:25 - 2nd) (Shotgun) C.Palmer pass short left to J.Nelson to CHI 22 for 6 yards (Q.Demps). FUMBLES (Q.Demps), RECOVERED by CHI-C.LeBlanc at CHI 23. C.LeBlanc for 77 yards, TOUCHDOWN. The Replay Official reviewed the fumble ruling, and the play was REVERSED. (Shotgun) C.Palmer pass short left to J.Nelson to CHI 22 for 6 yards (Q.Demps).


It was originally kept alive and the Bears ran it in for a touchdown, although I'd think that interception would actually be what the play-by-play should say. Upon review they called it a catch and down by contact. I think there are a lot of people who would argue that he never even controlled the ball.

I feel like the rule that's least consistent across the board is "what is a catch?"

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by CT1

I've thought about this. I believe I'd probably try to find a way to uphold the ruling on the field, unless it's painfully obvious that it was wrong ("50 drunk guys in a bar").

Which is what replay was supposed to be for in the first place.

Maybe NFL holds a lottery each week and 50 guys (and gals) at random are admitted to the replay center and given beer. They vote on whether to overturn or uphold a call.

[FormerUmp]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Maybe NFL holds a lottery each week and 50 guys (and gals) at random are admitted to the replay center and given beer. They vote on whether to overturn or uphold a call.

lol

I'm pretty sure I've read, although I don't recall exactly where, that the replay decisions are made by one of three people. One is Alberto Riveron as the VP of Officiating.

NFL’s head of officiating will make all replay decisions – ProFootballTalk

Riveron said plans are for him to make every decision. However, Wayne Mackie, the league’s vice president of officiating evaluation and development, and Russell Yurk, the league’s vice president of instant replay and administration, will provide assistance, especially if multiple replays happen simultaneously.

It's a good idea in theory to improve consistency, but it remains to be seen how well it will work in practice.

Ben Austro of FootballZebras.com stated "This season, however, has had many of these head-scratching calls in replay, which is really undermining confidence in the system." in his write-up about the Zach Miller play.

That's part of why I asked about the mindset a former on-field official might go into replay reviews with. Dean Blandino wasn't an on-field official, but he was heavily involved in the review process when he was there. Now calls are being decided by Riveron, who was an on-field official. (with involvement from Wayne Mackie and Russell Yurk)

[FormerUmp]

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

Another tough to watch overturn. He MAY have gotten this right, but I don't think it's conclusive enough to make that call. And it's not what the vast majority of people expect replay to be used for.

Also, even if he fumbled prior to touching out of bounds, shouldn't his continued contact with the ball while out of bounds kill the ball where it is? Or is that a gap in the "common sense" part of the rules?

[scrounge]

Originally Posted by FormerUmp

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

Another tough to watch overturn. He MAY have gotten this right, but I don't think it's conclusive enough to make that call. And it's not what the vast majority of people expect replay to be used for.

Also, even if he fumbled prior to touching out of bounds, shouldn't his continued contact with the ball while out of bounds kill the ball where it is? Or is that a gap in the "common sense" part of the rules?

Just stop, you're embarrassing yourself. Though I agree, it tough to watch - but not for the reasons you think. I'm a lifelong Bears fan and was cursing at that play - but because it was such a blind-numbingly stupid challenge. It was plenty conclusive enough, the ball was loose. And this wasn't a booth review, Fox was the idiot who challenged it. Well, he asked - and he was answered. As the second paragraph, what on earth are you talking about? He fumbled, it's obvious, the ball hit the inside of the pylon. That's a touchback. I knew it, all the Chicago media on twitter I follow knew it and didn't complain about it, no one's questioning anything except the idiocy of John Fox in challenging that. You're reaching way too hard to find outrage here.

[FormerUmp]

Originally Posted by scrounge

Just stop, you're embarrassing yourself. Though I agree, it tough to watch - but not for the reasons you think. I'm a lifelong Bears fan and was cursing at that play - but because it was such a blind-numbingly stupid challenge. It was plenty conclusive enough, the ball was loose. And this wasn't a booth review, Fox was the idiot who challenged it. Well, he asked - and he was answered. As the second paragraph, what on earth are you talking about? He fumbled, it's obvious, the ball hit the inside of the pylon. That's a touchback. I knew it, all the Chicago media on twitter I follow knew it and didn't complain about it, no one's questioning anything except the idiocy of John Fox in challenging that. You're reaching way too hard to find outrage here.

You missed my second point. It appears as though his foot dragged out of bounds after he lost the ball, but he was still touching the ball. Isn't the ball dead at that point, which I believe was prior to the ball contacting the pylon?

You're right about it being a bone-headed challenge. I'm just not sure the right call was made in the end. The write-up on Football Zebras suggests I'm right about the rule, but it's debatable on whether or not his foot dragged out of bounds.

I agree that I went a little overboard in my initial post, but if he's looking at reviews with the same mentality he used to overturn the Zach Miller play, there will be more issues going forward. He overturned it and doubled down with his defense by pointing to "evidence" that only he could see. It would have made sense of he went into it thinking "how can we make this incomplete?" I'm sure that's not how he looked at it, but that's where my confusion stems from, because that overturn was mind-boggling and affects people's confidence in the system as a whole.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by InsideTheStripe

What football move was that? If that was overturned to a catch, that's horrible.

He was going down with the ball and clearly took several steps after controlling the ball in his hand. He had completely gone through the process of the catch. He was hit and down and the ball then popped out. The way I would have called it on the field if I saw it clearly.

Peace