Alamo and the Sun Belt

kd0254 · #1 (**permalink**) Thu Dec 29, 2005, 12:29am

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]

TXMike · #2 (**permalink**) Thu Dec 29, 2005, 06:27am

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.

iebrf14 · #3 (**permalink**) Thu Dec 29, 2005, 07:43am

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.

mcrowder · #4 (**permalink**) Thu Dec 29, 2005, 08:37am

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.

Mark Dexter · #5 (**permalink**) Thu Dec 29, 2005, 09:40am

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.

Badger05 · #6 (**permalink**) Thu Dec 29, 2005, 10:17am

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.

Theisey · #7 (**permalink**) Thu Dec 29, 2005, 10:28am

Quote:

Originally posted by Badger05
... 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

parepat · #8 (**permalink**) Thu Dec 29, 2005, 11:36am

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.

TXMike · #9 (**permalink**) Thu Dec 29, 2005, 11:42am

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.

iebrf14 · #10 (**permalink**) Thu Dec 29, 2005, 11:59am

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.

Badger05 · #11 (**permalink**) Thu Dec 29, 2005, 12:01pm

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.

parepat · #12 (**permalink**) Thu Dec 29, 2005, 12:31pm

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?

TXMike · #13 (**permalink**) Thu Dec 29, 2005, 12:44pm

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".

BktBallRef · #14 (**permalink**) Thu Dec 29, 2005, 12:47pm

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?

parepat · #15 (**permalink**) Thu Dec 29, 2005, 01:02pm

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.