The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Football

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old Tue Jan 02, 2007, 10:45pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Posts: 1,464
Replay reviews WF vs Lou

If you saw the two fumbles, both were upheld by the replay official(s) as the play stands as called on the field.

It's simply my opinion based on the TV views shown that both were incorrect upheld.
What do ya'll think?
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old Tue Jan 02, 2007, 10:49pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: LeRoy IL
Posts: 278
Send a message via Yahoo to ref5678
i thought they got the 1st one wrong, but that they got the second right. By the way effective use of the sideline warning by the head linesman against louisville, helped calm everything down a little
__________________
Dylan Ferguson
IHSA Official 52010
Firefighter/Paramedic, B.S.
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old Tue Jan 02, 2007, 11:01pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: LeRoy IL
Posts: 278
Send a message via Yahoo to ref5678
i thought they got the third right as well, i think the ncaa needs to revise their instant replay system, all of these reviews are starting to get tedious, but thats a whole other thread.
__________________
Dylan Ferguson
IHSA Official 52010
Firefighter/Paramedic, B.S.
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old Tue Jan 02, 2007, 11:15pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Posts: 1,464
I have no issue with the 3'rd review other than it probably did not need to be reviewed.

I also applaud the sideline warning. It's a useful tool that unfortunately is not used often enough.
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old Tue Jan 02, 2007, 11:38pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 14,614
Quote:
Originally Posted by Theisey
If you saw the two fumbles, both were upheld by the replay official(s) as the play stands as called on the field.

It's simply my opinion based on the TV views shown that both were incorrect upheld.
What do ya'll think?
I don't know what they were looking at on the first review. ATo me, he was clearly down.

The second was less clear. I never saw a real good angle on it.
__________________
"...as cool as the other side of the pillow." - Stuart Scott

"You should never be proud of doing the right thing." - Dean Smith
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old Tue Jan 02, 2007, 11:43pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Posts: 1,464
How about the non-review of a very close TD call. I just don't get it.
That was not an easy call for the on-field officials to make. A review would have been just what the doctor order to confirm or not.
I do agree it was a TD.
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old Tue Jan 02, 2007, 11:45pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 107
With the inclusion of technology (instant replay) in the game I would like to see a more clear (they may already have it) defination of when a fumble is actualy a fumble. The first fumble that was upheld (the one you disagree with), the ball was clearly on the move before his knee hits the ground. But for me it's not a fumble yet, but that movement may be what the replay officials are looking for. I personally feel that the ball must be clearly out of the grasp before it can be called a fumble. Now full speed with out replay that's a different matter, clearly a judgement call, but with a camera(s) with least 16 frames per second the exact time a fumble becomes a fumble should be clearly defined.

And it may already be.
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old Wed Jan 03, 2007, 12:08am
MJT MJT is offline
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Alton, Iowa
Posts: 1,796
Quote:
Originally Posted by shave-tail
With the inclusion of technology (instant replay) in the game I would like to see a more clear (they may already have it) defination of when a fumble is actualy a fumble. The first fumble that was upheld (the one you disagree with), the ball was clearly on the move before his knee hits the ground. But for me it's not a fumble yet, but that movement may be what the replay officials are looking for. I personally feel that the ball must be clearly out of the grasp before it can be called a fumble. Now full speed with out replay that's a different matter, clearly a judgement call, but with a camera(s) with least 16 frames per second the exact time a fumble becomes a fumble should be clearly defined.

And it may already be.
Discussed this in the chat room. TexDoc said "you cannot start to fumble, the same as you cannot start to be pregnant." Meaning, if the ball is not firmly controlled, it is loose. In the NCAA book, they did add "firmly" to holding when discussing when a player gains possession of a ball. Thus, we agreed that if it is starting to move out of position, it is a fumble. Similarly, the catch on a review not confirmed if the ball is sliding in his hands. That is similar way of looking at it, and makes sense to me.
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old Wed Jan 03, 2007, 09:12am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Newport, KY
Posts: 176
I think the WF fumble was incorrectly ruled a fumble. It appeared the knee was down before the ball was loose. This makes me think we needs to better define fumble, possession and loose ball as stated above. A loose ball is one not in player possession. The runner had possession, though he may not have had total control of the ball. Control of the ball is not defined in the FED rules

I am not convinced the UL TD was correctly ruled either. I could not see the ball break the plane, but I am not sure if the runner's progress was stopped. I agree if you're going to use review, that was the play to use it.
__________________
Rick
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old Wed Jan 03, 2007, 09:37am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Texas
Posts: 762
Quote:
Originally Posted by Theisey
I have no issue with the 3'rd review other than it probably did not need to be reviewed.

I also applaud the sideline warning. It's a useful tool that unfortunately is not used often enough.
My question is, where was the coach standing when the sideline warning was given? I thought for certain he was standing in the coaching box. If indeed he was in the coaching box then he didn't do anything to warrant a sideline warning.
Reply With Quote
  #11 (permalink)  
Old Wed Jan 03, 2007, 10:35am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Bloomington, IL
Posts: 1,319
Quote:
Originally Posted by JasonTX
My question is, where was the coach standing when the sideline warning was given? I thought for certain he was standing in the coaching box. If indeed he was in the coaching box then he didn't do anything to warrant a sideline warning.

I thought he was several yards onto the field. He moved back with the official.
__________________
Mike Sears
Reply With Quote
  #12 (permalink)  
Old Wed Jan 03, 2007, 10:48am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Posts: 1,464
I thought he was out a ways as well, plus starting to get agitated towards the officials. It was a good time for it as it's really a no harm foul for the first one.

Back to the TD. I should have taped this game now, but too late. I don't have any doubts that the runner was not down by the traditional sense of a knee being on the ground as he was on top of players. It was more of, was his progress stopped sufficiently at any point to kill the play.
Reply With Quote
  #13 (permalink)  
Old Wed Jan 03, 2007, 03:19pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Montgomery Alabama
Posts: 60
I thought it was pretty clear on the 1st fumble by WF that the ball was definitely moving before his knee hit. If any of you didn't see the ball start to move, if you'll go back and watch it you'll probably see it.

I don't think the definition of fumble needs to be revisited. It's either moving or not. In this case it was moving before the knee hit.

The second one was just tight all the way around. Go with the official.
Reply With Quote
  #14 (permalink)  
Old Wed Jan 03, 2007, 04:08pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Newport, KY
Posts: 176
Whether the ball is moving or not, and I agree it was moving, the ball was still trapped against the runner's body by his hand. It is not loose before the knee touched the ground. It is not as though he was juggling the ball. like a receive might do trying to catch a pass. Coming loose and being loose are not the same thing, just like gaining possession and having possession are not the same thing.
__________________
Rick
Reply With Quote
  #15 (permalink)  
Old Wed Jan 03, 2007, 04:21pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 14,614
Quote:
Originally Posted by NickelDeuce
I thought it was pretty clear on the 1st fumble by WF that the ball was definitely moving before his knee hit. If any of you didn't see the ball start to move, if you'll go back and watch it you'll probably see it.
No, I disagree. It was not a fumble IMO. I watched it several times.
__________________
"...as cool as the other side of the pillow." - Stuart Scott

"You should never be proud of doing the right thing." - Dean Smith
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
MN replay Nevadaref Basketball 5 Tue Feb 14, 2006 10:30am
Umpire Reviews phumbeutel33 Baseball 28 Thu Oct 06, 2005 05:06pm
ARK at USC - 2 reviews in a row! LOL JugglingReferee Football 1 Sun Sep 18, 2005 09:29am
George Toliver School Reviews drothamel Basketball 13 Thu Feb 24, 2005 07:21am
NFL Replay Snake~eyes Football 4 Thu Apr 01, 2004 08:34am


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:26pm.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1