Video Request: Wisconsin-Miami

[Rich]

Originally Posted by FormerUmp

Perhaps, but I still believe his knee was down first. Certainly not enough to overturn.

It was moving before the knee hit, too.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

[ajmc]

Well to be purely democratic and allow everyone to have their say, we could simply ask for a show of hands, but in those really big stadiums, accurately counting hands could become really problematic.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by ajmc

Well to be purely democratic and allow everyone to have their say, we could simply ask for a show of hands, but in those really big stadiums, accurately counting hands could become really problematic.

The only view that matters is that of the replay official.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

[Mbilica]

I have to disagree. He was down. No way this is big enough to overturn.

Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk

[CT1]

Originally Posted by HLin NC

Short of murder, I don't believe a D1 HFBC can be "ejected". Maybe in the book, but not in practice.

Agree. In my HS game, however, the combination of the language plus the contact would be enough to earn him the rest of the night off.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Rich

The only view that matters is that of the replay official.

I agree, but I think this was a bad miss. I am shocked that got overturned and I was also cheering for Wisconsin (Big Ten and family's alma mater).

Peace

[FormerUmp]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I agree, but I think this was a bad miss. I am shocked that got overturned and I was also cheering for Wisconsin (Big Ten and family's alma mater).

Peace

JJ Watt had a little fun with this review and the review at the pylon.

Originally Posted by JJ Watt tweet

Based off the last two reviews, video replay guy might be hammered... #OrangeBowl

[Rich]

Originally Posted by FormerUmp

JJ Watt had a little fun with this review and the review at the pylon.

Why would he get any more credibility than anyone else?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Rich

Why would he get any more credibility than anyone else?

Because he thinks that things that do not matter are credible. Why would this be any different?

Peace

[FormerUmp]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Because he thinks that things that do not matter are credible. Why would this be any different?

Peace

Just thought it was a mildly amusing tweet. I wasn't suggesting he was an authority on officiating in general.

I'm not sure what you're referring to otherwise. I make suggestions or ask questions with a solid basis in logic. Most recently I cited Mike Periera, who I think we can all agree is qualified, to support one of my points.

I obviously have a different perspective on some things than a lot of the other posters here, but that doesn't make me some clueless idiot. I've demonstrated pretty clearly that I'm reasonably knowledgeable about the rules and more than capable of having a discussion about them.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by FormerUmp

Just thought it was a mildly amusing tweet. I wasn't suggesting he was an authority on officiating in general.

I'm not sure what you're referring to otherwise. I make suggestions or ask questions with a solid basis in logic. Most recently I cited Mike Periera, who I think we can all agree is qualified, to support one of my points.

I obviously have a different perspective on some things than a lot of the other posters here, but that doesn't make me some clueless idiot. I've demonstrated pretty clearly that I'm reasonably knowledgeable about the rules and more than capable of having a discussion about them.

The point is that is opinion as a former Wisconsin Badger means about as much to anyone here as to what is called as some fanboy coming there telling us what the rules should be on a catch. It might be mildly interesting but does not move the conversation forward.

Peace

[Rich]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

The point is that is opinion as a former Wisconsin Badger means about as much to anyone here as to what is called as some fanboy coming there telling us what the rules should be on a catch. It might be mildly interesting but does not move the conversation forward.



Peace

The problem, as I see it, is that the OP doesn't care about moving the discussion forward. The forum, which we've used to learn and improve our own officiating, is here for his entertainment and soapbox.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

[JRutledge]

Don't you guys control that to some extent? I'm just sayin!!!!

Peace

[Rich]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Don't you guys control that to some extent? I'm just sayin!!!!



Peace

You can only control so much. But it's a new year and a new ban hammer came in the mail last week, so....


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

[FormerUmp]

Originally Posted by Rich

The problem, as I see it, is that the OP doesn't care about moving the discussion forward. The forum, which we've used to learn and improve our own officiating, is here for his entertainment and soapbox.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

Except when I made legitimate suggestions as to how the catch rule could be modified, seeking feedback from an officiating perspective, I was basically dismissed by a number of posters. Other posters were willing to reasonably discuss what I had to say and the rule in general, adding insight that I didn't have when I originally posted.

Nothing I've posted on here justifies dismissing me as some fanboy coming here to tell you what the catch rule should be. I didn't do that, and dismissing me as such is what doesn't move the discussion forward. I actually came in asking if there was a way to make certain plays a catch without breaking the whole rule.

I can see how I might come across as Rich says at times, but that doesn't mean I should be immediately dismissed when there's a legitimate discussion going on.