I am waiting to hear opinions on this one. . .what a fiasco the last play turned out to be. What if Michigan scored? If you were there would you have had an illegal participation penalty on one or both teams? How about Michigan's Coach Carr, who always seems to be overly harsh having to burn two timeouts to get plays that were questionable to say the least reviewed?

I know very little about the Sun Belt Conference but am an avid football fan and young, advancing offical. Right at the start of the game it seemed odd to have a game with the caliber of programs involved being officiated by a Sun Belt crew. Speaking from a relatively un-biased perspective I can say the game, in comparison to other Big Ten/Big 12 regular season games and the bowl games I have watched so far, was officiated in a very questionable manner from both booth and on feild officials. Any one have comments on the game and or measures to take to avoid similar situations resulting in numbers of players on the field before the game is officially over? I look forward to reading responses.

Dale

[Edited by kd0254 on Dec 29th, 2005 at 12:38 AM]

The crew was clearly tested. There were many very close plays and they obviously made the incorrect call on the field in a few instances as their calls were overturned. But the same thing happens with "big time" conference crews as it does with NFL crews. As for the instant review process....perhaps it was a function of the guys never having worked a game with that process or perhaps it was due to the review official who was not even from the SunBelt.

Preventing the end of game mess??? How in the heck could the officials have done that?!?!?!?!

From what we could see on TV it appeared the crew was mechanically sound and in the right place to make calls.

I agree that the crew had their positioning down.

I feal that they got caught up in the game too much and let the game get out of hand.

If you time how long it took to get the ball in play in the first quarter to the end of the the game shows that the entire crew got caught.

As for the last play. Well Nebraska was on the field and Michigam coaches and plays were also.

It would have been offsetting penalities anyway.

Where would the administration of the penalities be?

Replay? The outcome would not have changed.

I don't know about offsetting penalties on this. Having players or coaches enter the field, but remain irrelevant is usually just a sideline warning. The Nebraska players were ON the field, and affected the play. 1 of them was less than a foot from the ballcarrier. The fact that they were all over one side of the field effectively limited the playing field available to the runner (although I would say that the runner, next time, should run INTO that hoard of players - he'd definitely get the penalty called then).

I think it's a travesty that there wasn't at least some laundry on the field. Whether you believe this was IP on both teams or just Nebraska, these guys REALLY dropped the ball not flagging anything at all.

And I think these boys were a bit caught up in it all - they didn't look comfortable the entire game.

From my understanding of the Big 10 replay system (at least what I read online), the replay advisor plays a very different role than an NFL replay official. In the NFL, the replay booth can call up any angle of any play at any time. In the Big 10, the advisor can only look at the replay being shown on the live TV feed. If ESPN doesn't show the play again, the replay official has no option to review the play.

Ok, so here is some more fuel for the fire. What are your thoughts on Lloyd Carr being charged a timeout, after his referee conference and after a ruling on the field had been reversed? I don't have an NCAA book with me, and I am not sure about this, but don't the rules allow for a coach/referee conference and if an error is corrected the coach is not charged with a timeout? I meant to bring an NCAA book with me today but forgot.

You can head for the NCAA site and read it online.
2005 version is at: http://www.ncaa.org/library/rules/20...ball_rules.pdf

Lloyd Carr is an idiot. There was no need to call a time out to get the booth to review the second play. It was a change of possession and there was plenty of time for them to review the play. Now, if the snap became eminent then he could have called a timeout. He effectively wasted a timeout with his drama.

I don't believe he should get his timeout back because there was no misapplication of a rule. It is like a "question of fact vs. question of law" issue in the courtroom. He would only get the timeout back if it was a mistake of law (rule).

Lastly, anyone who thinks that there was no foul on the last play is crazy. There were 300 plus people on the field during the play (100 of which were players). For the crew to head for the hills was pure cowardice. Should have been offsetting penalties or first and goal at the five for Michigan with an untimed down.

Lastly, lastly... if this had to happen to someone, I'm glad it was Lloyd Carr who treats officials like rented mules.

Do you know NCAA rules? If not, take a look at 9-2-1-b-1 Penalties would have been enforced from suceeding spot and since there would be none as time expired, game would be over. Same result as we saw last night.

Correct both Nebraska and Michigan are guilty of a dead ball fouls and time did expire so there would be no inforcement.

My thought is that the officials were getting the heck out of there which I guess would be the way to go but looks bad.

I was referencing the first timeout, on the scoring play where the NE receiver's catch was reversed. I agree with you, though. The rule clearly states "...if a coach believes a rule has been enforced improperly" I think the intent of the rule here is to correct situations such as awarding incorrect distance penalty for a foul etc.

While watching that game I just kept thinking "I hope I never have an officiating day like the one these guys are having" I think the snowball effect was at work in this one to some extent. We all know that it is very difficult to maintain focus in a game like that when things just keep going wrong. I did notice some problems with their mechanics, but nothing too horrible. And, judging by the look on his face when he ruled the kid down on the Michigan interception in the first half, I am guessing that the BJ had a few choice words for the rest of his crew at halftime. It is really too bad that these guys had to have a bad game on national TV. Their officiating careers will suffer for it. They probabaly are good officials that just had a bad night (and didn't get much help from the replay official) like we all do once in a while.

Clearly I do not know NCAA rules. However two thoughts.
1. Do you believe these were dead ball fouls? I do not.
2. Were there fouls on the the play? I do.

If there were fouls, do your job, throw the flag and explain the situation and go home. What you don't do is run like a scared Frenchman and pretend that they didn't happen.

Now, to the NCAA rule-knowing folk out there. If there was an illegal participation foul during the last timed down is the period extended for an untimed down?

The rule I referred to calls the act of being on the field without permission as unsportsmanlike conduct. It is what is called a "live ball foul penalized as a dead ball foul". That means it is enforced from succeeding spot. And with regard to extending the period, the period is not extended for "live ball penalized as dead ball fouls".

A travesty?

Cowardice?

You guys are a joke. You're worst than fans. Why don;t you two head over to the Michigan and Nebraska fanyboy sites?

Joke. Not a very funny one. I ask the question again. Was there a foul on the last play? Yes. Rather than doing their jobs, they ran. What do you call it. Just because we are officials are we supposed to be apologists for everything that we see. I believe these guys made a mistake on the last play and said so. If you disagree say so. That's the way this works.

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.

The qtr. or 1/2 can't end on any accepted live ball foul not penalized as a dead ball foul by either team, not just the defense. This also applies to offsetting live ball fouls.

Guys,

This issue was why there was no flags.

We already know that if the flag were thrown they would be administered as dead ball fouls and even if they did not offset they would not do anything as the game was over with no time left on the clock.

And no score

That is not correct. There is a provision in the book that would have permitted penalties to offset as live ball fouls and down replayed. I can't answer why there were no flags.

One of the players that came off the side of the field was a mere 1 yard from the ball carrier after the ball was pitched back (just after the "fumble" or incomplete backward pass part of this play), and the ballcarrier DEFINITELY altered his direction of his run because of that player and because of the hoard of players further to his left.

To me, this was clearly illegal participation, possibly warranting an awarded score, but at the very least allowing a replay. Whether Mich's coaches entering the field of play is debatable, but at the very least it would be offsetting illegal participations. Personally, I would have had IP on Nebr, and SW on Michigan - not offsetting, and Michigan would have run another play - from the 6 1/2 of Nebraska.

Replay would not be available to see who came on for NE and if he did change the runners direction and/or if the MICH players kept one of the NE players (Who was reallly the saftey) from getting to the ball carrier)

The games over and we all could say that MICH should not have allowed NE to get back into the game.

We could discuss this game ad nauseam.

NUFF SAID

A true point that they could not use replay. But put yourself in the place of either linesman on the Nebraska side. You're watching the play, and all of a sudden, people from BEHIND you are now in FRONT of you. I don't know about you, but I know my flag is on the ground at this point - and I'm watching this (these!) player(s) in my peripheral vision to see if they come anywhere near the play. When the play comes back my way - the penalty becomes illegal participation.

The problem lie in the fact that this crew was in over their heads. This exact sitch could happen to ANY of us, and I would hope that we would be aware of our surroundings enough to at LEAST have laundry on the field. At least when we botch this one, it's not on national TV, replayed on ESPN over and over.

What rule would you use to support a Sideline Warning? Illegal participation occurs when more than 11 players participate after the snap. At the snap both teams had 11 players so it's not illegal participation. If the players or coaches simply step onto the field they have violated 9-2-1-b-1 which is an USC (penalized as a dead ball foul) . If they truly interefered they have committed Illegal Interference 9-1-4. The signal is the same as USC but this foul is a live ball foul with basic spot enforcement. Perhaps the thing to do would penalize NE for Illegal interference and then penalize MI for USC for being on the field but not interfering. 15 yards using basic spot enforcement for the interference and then 15 yards for the USC from the succeeding spot.

I would have no problem invoking 9-2-3-c. I think having about 100 people on the field blocking of at least half of it is a situation so extreme that you can't really say it's specifically covered by the rules. This would allow the referee to enforce any penalty he deems equitable. No way am I calling this a live ball foul penalized as a dead ball foul.

MAybe Mr Parry is reading our discussion boards. Word is out that the 2006 NCAA Officiating video includes the last play of the Alamobowl and now Mr Parry is saying, as many of us said back then, should have been offsetting penalties and down replay.

My only statement on what happened at the end, was the officials should have made a PA announcement after the play on what had happened/ or how it was covered by rule. A couple days later in the papers they said it was ruled properly...I felt as a fan left out in the dark.

I heard that a week later. I just think the referee should have stepped up and made that announcement on TV. It would have killed alot of what we are talking about now...don't you think?

I was at the game in the endzone corner the direction the last play was coming, opposite side (Neb side). There were non-eligibles from both teams on the field.
I thought the game ended properly then and I still do.
Since there were no flags dropped, what sort of Public Address should be expected from the Ref to explain an albeit convoluted play, but still a play absent a flag?

Just because TV can detect it and Mike Torico says it doesn't make it part of the game for the officials to grab the mike and explain a detailed no-call, opening them up to even more scrutiny, fair and unfair.

I am in no way giving the announcers the right of way. They are idiots that usually speak too soon. What I was referring to was the reports that came out after the game from the Sun Belt Officials association. They said the play was covered and enforced properly. Saying all fouls on that play would be ruled dead ball fouls enforced from the succeeding spot. So, the officials did the right thing...So from that statement there should have been flags and a explanation of the fouls on the play.