When Replay Fails

[djmonty]

In the Oklahoma/Oregon game, officials failed to efficiently & effectively use the replay tool to ensure accuracy of the game. Fortunately, most mistakes do NOT affect the outcome of a game, but in this case the officials CLEARLY blew TWO CALLS within the last 1.5 minutes of the game which resulted in the game going to the losing team. YOU watch the replays of the on-side kick and tell me who touched the ball first, yet the officials stated "there was NOT conclusive evidence to overturn the call on the field." YOU watch the replays of the interference call against OU and tell me the ball was NOT tipped by the defenseive line of OU (AND watch the balls trajectory change too!).

Does anyone know if the NCAA reviews performance of officials?? These guys GAVE the game to Oregon and even their coach in the postgame interview stated "we'll take it!" - the ultimate insult to a fair game called by COMPETENT officials!!

IF the new NCAA replays can not be reviewed with ACCURACY, rhen what is the benefit of having them??

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by djmonty

Does anyone know if the NCAA reviews performance of officials?? These guys GAVE the game to Oregon and even their coach in the postgame interview stated "we'll take it!" - the ultimate insult to a fair game called by COMPETENT officials!!

Are you kidding me? You expect officials at the highest levels to be evaluated? I thought these guys just showed up and worked the game when literally millions of dollars on the line.

GO AWAY FANBOY!!!!

Peace

[BktBallRef]

Want some cheese with that whine?

[BoomerSooner]

I watched the entire game, and obviously based on my name was on the side of the Sooners, so said as objectively as I can I agree with the OP as to the calls being poorly made from the booth.

In the case of the onside kick, I think there was clear evidence regarding first touching by K. Granted I wanted to see the first touching more than most individuals, I think a robot capable of pure impartiality would have seen the same thing (not saying the game officials were playing favorites only that I am in that position). I think the bigger problem is this wasn't what was being reviewed by the booth. The only explanation the WH gave was that it was touched by R making it a live ball (this was almost his exact words, but I won't say its a direct quote). That is what confused me a little.

Secondly, on the pass interference call that was reviewed, I think this was a case of the deflection was clearly seen in any of the replays. I think they were ruling that the appearance of the balls tradjectory changing was conclusive and I won't question that. If its the case that they want direct evidence of the deflection (ball to hand contact) then I can't argue with that. Nonetheless I think the ball was deflected.

Now onto the real question the OP was presenting: evaluating the officials. We all know that officials are constantly being evaluated and I'm sure the replay officials are part of that process. I also have a feeling that these situations will be part of this crew's evaluation (my understanding is that the replay official is part of the on the field crew).

In conclusion, I think OU got a couple of calls (play clock ran out 2x and OU was not flagged), and in the end OU still had a chance. If they block on the FG attempt, they win. If they don't hand off to Peterson with :30 to go they maybe have better field position and the kicker has a little more freedom to put some air under the ball. Its as we always say teams have plenty of chances even when we miss calls. This was a perfect example.

Side note: Alot of this is me trying to come to terms with the game and put it behind me. I also have to remind myself that we aren't out of the big picture just yet.

[Texas Aggie]

The problem with the tipped ball for DPI is that while the ball was wobbly after the tip, the video couldn't verify that it wasn't wobbly BEFORE the tip. The replay couldn't determine if the ball was tipped since its two dimensional. With that said, I believe the ball was tipped, but it can't be conclusively determined without more evidence, and there wasn't any.

The question I have is that under NCAA rules, the wording makes clear that contact AFTER the ball is touched is waived off if the ball is touched. But what about contact BEFORE the ball was touched? If you look closely, it appears that the defender did contact the receiver before the ball was touched, then continued the contact after the touching (assuming it was touched).

Incidentally, this is why I don't like replay, especially at the college level. Stoops is going to scream bloody murder that not only were the calls wrong, but the replay was wrong as well. They track reversals and say, "see, that shows that replay works" but ignore situations where replay didn't correct things either because it isn't available or its inconclusive. Just play the game and let the officials make the calls.

[OverAndBack]

Originally Posted by djmonty

Does anyone know if the NCAA reviews performance of officials??

I would imagine their conferences do. But I would imagine the NCAA does not.

These guys GAVE the game to Oregon and even their coach in the postgame interview stated "we'll take it!" - the ultimate insult to a fair game called by COMPETENT officials!!

This is what fanboys do. I'm surprised you didn't accuse them of taking a payoff, which is what really advanced fanboys do.

[BoBo]

I am a Sooner fan and yes i am biased but this somes it up.

you watch this video and decide

http://russellarch.com/blah/OREGON.mov

My rule question is the kicking team allowed to hit the receiving team before the ball crosses the 10 yard free kick line. It appears two OU players were being contacted by the Oregon kids.

I give the stripes the benefit of the doubt alot since i wear them 4 nights a week. But this is an embarassment to the Pac 10 crew, the repaly official and the NCAA concept on replay

[TXMike]

Contact that I see is from players competing for the ball, not from blocking.

And even if they had blocked, I don't believe the crew could have assessed a penalty as the foul after video review as foul was not called.


The better argument you Okie fans should make is on the recovery of the loose ball.

[Warrenkicker]

Originally Posted by BoBo

you watch this video and decide

http://russellarch.com/blah/OREGON.mov

First a disclaimer. I am not an OU or Oregon fan. I really don't usually care who wins the game if it is called properly unless a bad call or two helps Notre Dame to lose.

This video shows two things. First, you can't use the numbers ABC puts on the screen for the actual play clock. The play clock is on the field and whomever is watching it looks to see that it has expired and then sees if the snap has been made. Some conferences are more strict about when the clock has run out than others. The Big XII has normally been a bit more forgiving with the play clock than some other conferences.

Second you can clearly see on replay that the Oklahoma player stepped OOB at the OU 48. The sideline official had his view blocked by a defender at the moment the player stepped OOB. The OU 47 is two yards beyond the line and not three. You can also see from the interesting coloring of the Oregon field that he was running in the first 5 yards of a dark colored area of the field and that there were 10 yards of dark field there. So that means he must not have yet made it to mid-field. ABC even had a great screen shot of the moment he stepped OOB showing the numbers on the field and that it was the OU 48 and not the Oregon 47. So the replay booth was not clear as to where they wanted the ball placed so the officials on the field put it at the OU 47 because they suspected that was the spot requested. Replay gave OU an extra 5 yards.

As for the onside kick, I only saw it once at full speed on an ESPN replay and the instant I saw it I said that someone touched the ball about 7 or 8 yards into the kick. I couldn't tell who had done it but I didn't see any OU players in that area right then. I would like to see another replay but my initial thought was that something wasn't right on that one.

[mcrowder]

It irritates me as a football official that the immediate response to someone who makes a legitimate complaint about an officiating problem is immediately dismissed as "fanboy".

I'll admit allegiance as well - I was rooting for Oregon. Hook Em Horns. Screw the Sooners ... but not like this.

The DPI was borderline and surely no conclusive evidence existed to change that call...

But the onsides kick replay WAS conclusive, and to me, our brethren in stripes botched the call - badly.

[bluezebra]

I'm not a fan of either school. Depending on which replay angle was shown, there was inconclusive evidence to overrule the call on the field. One angle looked like K touched first. Another looked to me that the ball hit an R player in the helmet.

These guys GAVE the game to Oregon...

The Oakies had a chance to play good defense, and DIDN'T. By the way, how much money did you lose?

Bob

[OverAndBack]

To me, it's not when you question a call that makes you a fanboy.

It's when you say the officials GAVE a game to somebody that you become a fanboy.

When I was 13, I used to think that all refs were incompetent and that if they blew a call that I could obviously see from my couch with my teenage eyes was wrong, they wanted the other team to win or they were being paid off.

Having grown up, and now having done this for a few years, I can see how childish that attitude was.

And it still is.

Officials make mistakes. They don't GIVE games to anyone, and to imply otherwise is immature.

To be unable to accept the defeat of 53 (or 85, or however many it happens to be) guys you've never met and to blame it on an official's call is the height of fanboyism.

[BoBo]

My earlier post the onside kick was the video since the oregon fan has put the pass play play clock controversey on it.

Here is the onside kick play

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o82YHoHhgyI

I hope this is correct and you can all see if you have not already.

[jfurdell]

Ooooops.

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