When Replay Fails

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by rickref872

I did not see the game but I saw the plays. I have a question. What and why did they give the ball to Oregon on the kick? What was the explaination? Seems pretty cut and dried to me who should have the ball but this was a hard one to see if you think about the officials postioning and where it occurs. In a 7 man set up how could the HL get any help on this?

I am not a NCAA Official and I am not as knowledgeable about what is a penalty in many cases in the NCAA code. But if the Oregon players had touched the ball that had not traveled less than 10 yards, is that not a penalty? If it is a penalty you cannot review a penalty.

I also think this was very close and was not very conclusive if you ask me. The ball was right near the line and it is not like we had a shot right down the line.

Originally Posted by rickref872

On the PI play am I mistaken or was some contact being made before the tip? If so could that not warrant illegal use of the hands? I know the video I have seen that it is hard to tell, but it appears the DB was hindering the wr during the route just before teh ball was tipped? Thoughts

If you are talking about LSU-Auburn play, I have no answer. This was such a close call it could have gone either way. I think the officials did a good job to at least come together and discuss the situation. I am not saying it is right, but I really do not know what else they could have done. Remember this was not a play they had slow motion replay to decide and several angles in slow motion to draw a final conclusion.

Peace

[GPC2]

It is always interesting how different eyes see the same video footage in COMPLETELY different ways. I saw the visual evidence as totally conclusive that K touched the ball prior to the ball reaching R's restraining line. JRutledge, you saw it differently - which is fine.

But, obviously there is no factual conclusion of right and wrong, which is my main reason for hating instant replay. If the game is held up for a ruling which still is not conclusive, I fail to see the purpose of replay. Let's let the officials officiate, and keep the cameras out of the (officiating aspect) game. Mistakes will be made, but the world will go on.

[BoBo]

See on the OU message board that the crew and the reply official all will be suspended for one week, and there were incorrect calls made.

Will try and find a link to the official article

[OverAndBack]

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=2593564

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by GPC2

It is always interesting how different eyes see the same video footage in COMPLETELY different ways. I saw the visual evidence as totally conclusive that K touched the ball prior to the ball reaching R's restraining line. JRutledge, you saw it differently - which is fine.

I am not saying I was correct. I am saying it was close. Probably it was only a matter of inches that made this call one way or the other.

Originally Posted by GPC2

But, obviously there is no factual conclusion of right and wrong, which is my main reason for hating instant replay. If the game is held up for a ruling which still is not conclusive, I fail to see the purpose of replay. Let's let the officials officiate, and keep the cameras out of the (officiating aspect) game. Mistakes will be made, but the world will go on.

Instant replay is only as good the crew showing the game. There is not much the crew can do after that.

Peace

[gsf23]

Why can't we ever say, you know what..the officials screwed the pooch instead of trying to make excuses for them. I'm not a fan of either team and I could have cared less who won, but the officials on the field and in the booth SCREWED up and there was no excuse for it.

And by the way, on the onside kick call, the official stated that after review, the ball was FIRST touched by the receiving team, which was clearly not the case. I have no idea what the replay booth was looking at.

[Texas Aggie]

>>But if the Oregon players had touched the ball that had not traveled less than 10 yards, is that not a penalty? <<

Not a foul, but a violation. Illegal touching would have given OU the opportunity to take the ball at the spot of the touching, if they chose (which they would have).

[stevesmith]

I haven't seen anyone mention yet that the covering official on the onside kick is seen running in waving his arms to stop the clock (and presumably blowing his whistle) when he thinks the ball is under the pile of players, and before the OU player recovered the kick. Therefore, the best OU could have hoped for in the deal would have been a rekick after the inadvertant whistle while the ball was loose.

[jfurdell]

Ooooops.

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=2593564

[OverAndBack]

Originally Posted by gsf23

Why can't we ever say, you know what..the officials screwed the pooch instead of trying to make excuses for them. I'm not a fan of either team and I could have cared less who won, but the officials on the field and in the booth SCREWED up and there was no excuse for it.

I think we do say that.

And I think there is an excuse for it.

They're human.

This is a tough gig. There's no one on Earth who feels worse when an official kicks a call than the official him (or her) self. Not a college president, not a fan, not a player.

It happens. We all wish it didn't. But it does.

[JRutledge]

Wow, I just saw the yourtube video. That was really bad.

I see why there were suspensions.

Peace