Replay reviews WF vs Lou

[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?

[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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[MJT]

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.

[JasonTX]

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.

[mikesears]

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.

[BktBallRef]

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.

[Theisey]

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.