Why does it matter??? If they had flagged all that would have happened is extended confusion while they sorted it out before declaring the game over, Nebraska wins. Would have had NO impact on the outcome.

That's why we have a forum to express our thoughts as officials.

TX - please explain how you think there would be no play after a penalty for Illegal Participation? If what you are saying is right, every defense on every last play should rush 40 people out on the field to stop it.

alamo and the sun belt
 

ok I've been out of officiating sometime but follow it closely. Could there not have been an unsportsmanlike conduct call at the end of that game?...

For what, and why bother?

It matters because it is their jobs. Had they hung around, they could have taken 30 seconds to explain the call(s) and then left. I'm not convinced that it didn't matter. If there were two IP fouls, the play should have been replayed. Either way, stay take a minute and explain it.

Having said that I want to defend the officials on a couple other plays. A couple plays were reviewed and it was later determined that the officials had erred. In each case they erred in a way that allowed for correction. I think we are seeing that if a play is close (ie down or fumble, knee down, pass or fumble) the officials are letting it go. That is to say, if you call someone down, when they are not it can't be corrected. However, if you let it go, you can always go back. I think we are seeing that in the NCAA now and in this game.

Clearly on the last play both teams had personnel on the field. Someone mentioned a sideline warning, but that is only when the are between the sideline and coaching box. Being on the field is an unsportsmanlike conduct and is enforced as a dead ball foul, so it's the same result as if there were no fouls. I would have flagged it just to keep all the talkers from talking about why there wasn't a flag. "Here's the flag, the result is the same." Now another route would be to call it illegal interference and that would require there to be some sort of interference with a player or the ball. That route would be a live ball foul and would offset with an untimed down.

I don't know what they could have done about the last play. The officials can't stop the entire bench from entering the field, and there were people from both teams, so it would've been offsetting anyway. but it seemed all game like the crew wasn't really used to the speed of the game. Just some things I observed

1. On the first kick ESPN showed, Nebraska tacked the Michigan player out of bounds. No penalty.
2. On an attempted pass to the end zone for Michigan, Nebraska blantantly interfered (basically shoved the receiver). The flag came eventually, but not from the field judge standing right there and not until the announcers had time to comment on the lack of a penalty.
3. On Nebraska's interception in the end zone, again the official near the play had no call. The back judge (I think) came running all the way from the goal posts with the (later overturned) call that the receiver was out of bounds (and, while not an easy call, it wasn't really all that close compared to many other call that occurs throughout the season and are called correctly by Division I officials).
4. Several times I noticed the referee pointing and directing other officials to get away from the conference of officials.
5. In the fourth quarter, when Michigan attempted the pass near the end zone and the Defensive back has his arm wrapped around the intended receiver. Again no call.
6. Waiting to blow the ball ready for Nebraska's punt when everyone was just standing there ready to go and the clock was running. Maybe there is a reason I'm not aware of, but that looked really bad.
7. The Kick catch intereference. If the rule is that it's legal as long the the receiving player touches it first, then that was just a bad call. The very next punt was almost identical, and there was no flag.

It just seemed like the officials were overmatched. I don't think it's their fault, I just don't think they probably had experience working a game with that level of play.

I've been an official for 33 years and have been put in a game, either by the size of crowd, noise, or the level, put me in a bad light.

What happened, either good or bad, I've had to live with.

Most likely these guys have worked, minimum, their last bowl game.

If they will work another Division I game we may never know.

They took the assignment and I wish them well.

As officials don't let ego get in the way.

Stand up and take your shot say it was fun and move on.

It's only a game.

I doubt that these officials have worked their last bowl game, and I'm sure they will continue to work on the Division I level.

Reason being...

This was the Sun Belt's highest profile game of the year to officiate. I'm sure this was their #1 crew. Yeah, they had a bad game, but they're not about to jettison their top officials because of this game.


One question this brings to my mind though...

The NCAA waived their "must work together as a crew for five games" verbage in the their postseason requirements for officials. Was this an actual Sun Belt crew working the crew, or a compilation of the Sun Belt's best officials working as a crew, perhaps for the first time? That would explain the lack of cohesion.

I think I heard that these guys were a all-star crew

Watching ESPN halftime during the OK-Oregon Holiday Bowl Last night the heads said that during the play where LLoyd used the first time out, and actually got the touchdown reversed (This was a smart move on him, the snap was immenent) That there was some sort of malfunction in the replay equipment and that the booth official was trying to buzz on field officials to no avail. Would this be a situation where a timeout could be in a sense given back? It seemed pretty clear from a fan's viewpoint that the reason the TO was called was to give time for a look at replay. Would NCAA rules warrant any flexibility when there are technical difficulties? And if not, should this be an issue for next year?

9-2-1 seems to apply to players entering the field that do not effect the outcome of the play i.e. playing entering the field to celebrate a touchdown prior to the runner crossing the goal line. Did one of the entering persons make contact with a legal player? I do not know, but it seems that they effected the outcome of the play. Why would 5-2-a not apply here? I am asking, not informing.

This requirement must only be for playoff games (D-1AA, D-2, and D-3) as I've never heard of a bowl crew as being a regular crew throughout the year. The conferences typically send their top rated officials to bowl games whether or not they have worked together during the regular season. I'm sure this bowl crew was no different.

It depends on how they would have chosen to flag the acts. If they had used 9-2-2-b-1 then it would have been a "live ball penalized as dead ball" foul and there would be no enforcement. If they called it a 9-1-4-a foul, then there would have been a replay. Media reports are quoting Dave Parry saying there would have been no replay so he apparently saw it as a 9-2-2-b-1 foul. I don't agree. In either case it could not have been an illegal participation foul.