3 college issues from this past weekend
 

The first is from the V. Tech-E. Carolina game. VT has the ball, lets say 3/5 from the B35 (a guess on the yardage--the exact yardage not important). A1 runs for 2 yards then fumbles. The ball rolls forward about 2 yards forward and is near the sideline. As the ball is about to go out of bounds, B3 bats the ball (in my mind cleary a bat--swung the arm and hit the ball with an open hand). Is this not illegal batting? I have no rooting interest--just curious if that would be the case here...

Also, I was at the Illinois-Missouri game on Sat. Mizzou had the ball 4/6 from about the B32. The FJ, not realizing a FG was to be attempted took position at the sideline, on the goal line (presumable to rule on an upcoming punt). He started late toward the goal posts, but apparetly this threw off Mizzou and they delayed a bit. Then came one of the best (and most honest) announcements from the R: "Missouri will get a new 25 second clock because an official was not in position." I just got a nice little chuckle out of that.

The third is from the Tenn-UCLA game. I think UCLA had the ball, but I could be wrong. Play ends very close to the LTG. Wings make their 'normal' spots (i.e. only come out to about the numbers) and the U spots the ball. A few seconds later one of the wings realizes that this is near a first down. Chains are brought out. Measurement is made based on the U's spotting of the ball (ends up being 'a few links short'). Just reinforces the point that on close plays, the ball should go to one of the wings, and the R should 'take a look.'

1. This is a judgment call and either the officials did not agree with you or they missed it.

2. I saw it too, but I think this was more a cause of the adjustments to the new timing situation. I am not sure if this was because the team came out late or the official moved late.

3. I did not see the play so I cannot comment on this very well. That sounds great in theory, but not always as possible. Nothing works 100% of the time.

Peace

Saw that one come
 

My wife was so impressed with me. I saw this play. It looked more to me that since the play was right in front of the umpire, he made the spot and set the ball without checking with the wings. Since I had the benefit of seeing the LTG green stripe on TV, I saw he'd set it on the LTG and immediately said out loud "oh, that's trouble." Fortunately, it didn't turn out to be too big a deal.

Two benefits: Umpires are reminded that they always need to check with their wings and the stakes, even if they "know" where the ball was down, and put the ball on the wings' toe if it's close. The other benefit? My wife now thinks I can predict the future.

In 7 man?

Peace

For the UCLA-Tenn game, the "fault" lies either with the wings for not realizing it was close immediately and calling "close" or the umpire was way to worried about getting the ball spotted quickly and/or never heard the close call (possible considering the noise at the time). They could have still moved the ball out to the wing if he had held his spot, which might have looked bad but would've been the correct thing to do. But, if the wing moved off they are stuck with the only spot they have, where the umpire put it.

Good points, Mike. My recollection was UCLA was in the "hurry-up"

Which underscores the foundational principle that "hustle" is always good, but "hurry" causes nothing but trouble NO MATTTER the circumstances.

Up here we call it "speed kills".

It is also possible that there was a request for a measurement by a coach or captain after they had set the ball. That might really be the case if there was a hurry up offense. Unless we get an explanation this is all speculation.

Peace

Don't blame the U. It's those dang TV people's fault. They need to learn how to get that green stripe on the field, not just on the tube.

In college it is only illegal batting if the bat is forward, so they would have been correct if the bat was backwards.

They're using green now? What color is their grass (or plastic)?

from the just looks bad dept
 

Ohio at Wyoming.... Wyoming kicks off into the endzone touchback. Ball on the 20 skip ahead to 3rd down, 3rd down ends with the ball touching the 30 yd line. Wyoming asks for and is granted a measurement, and it is a couple links short....4th down.....it turned out to not be a big deal, as Ohio went for it and made it....it does illustrate some common sense...if we start on the 20 and the ball ends up touching the 30 it is a first down...DO NOT MEASURE...my guess is the chains weren't moved up to the field to be clipped, but rather clipped from 2yds back and thus were off a couple links...

Long ago I was taught there are certain biblical certainties we must accept, even when there may be reasonable doubt. Among them are; all lines are perfectly straight. If you touch a line, you've touched it, even if it looks bowed to the naked eye. If you haven't touched it, you haven't touched it.

Unless there is an OBVIOUS discrepancy, all 10 yard lines are 10 yards apart. Life, unfortunately is nor perfect, nor are the markings on many football fields, but the game, like life, must go on.

The act of measuring is something that is done, solely, to assist the Referee in determining whether or not the LTG has been reached. Neither team has any right to demand a measurement. Most Referee's will use the available tool of a measurement when they have any doubt whatsoever if the LTG has, or has not, been reached, but that is entirely the Referee's option.

Aren't lines, by definition, straight?

A line can be described as an ideal zero-width, infinitely long, perfectly straight curve (the term curve in mathematics includes "straight curves") containing an infinite number of points. In Euclidean geometry, exactly one line can be found that passes through any two points. The line provides the shortest connection between the points.

Can't wait till I get that sort of situation in my next game, so I can explain to a Captain or Coach that I am giving the O a 1st Down because of Euclidean geometry..... ;)

But seriously, when I work the chains, I make sure my WH doesn't do a measure in that sort of situation by reminding him we started on (eg) the 20.

I also have a problem with HL's who allow the chain crew to be lazy and set up 6 feet back rather than set up on the sideline for accuracy, then move back for safety. If I'm assessing, that's a surefire ding on the HL.....

Thanks...that (was the bat legal under NCAA rules) was actually part of the reason I posted, but I was not clear about that. It was certainly not meant of a criticism of the officials.

As R, I see the ball touching the 30 and we have a first down, no measurement. As mentioned above, common sense! Also, U's use the field markings not your stride in marching off penalties. I had a U once on a 1/10 mark off two consecutive encroachments on the D and he still was short of the LTG! :)

All lines *MIGHT* be straight, but 2 weeks ago I had a straight line going from the 30 on the guest sideline to the 35 on the home sideline... Fun!

Exactly! What makes anyone think the line the chain was put on was any straighter than the one the ball reached?

The whole system we use is only accurate if all lines we use do not elbow anywhere, and they are all parallel or perpendicular where required.

In addition, when measuring, the links have to parallel to the sideline.

That's why I'm thinking about developing a system to remove the need for the chain crew to come out: have 4 transceivers at the back corners of the EZ. The U has a clicker (something like a baseball counter) and when a measurement is needed, simply places the clicker at the front of the ball, and the 4 transceivers quadangulate the position of the ball and tell you if it's a 1D or not. Accuracy is 100% guaranteed.

Exception - Wormhole

Pronunciation: \ˈwərm-ˌhōl\

Function: noun

Date: 1593

1 : a hole or passage burrowed by a worm

2 : a hypothetical structure of space-time envisioned as a long thin tunnel connecting points that are separated in space and time ;)

Note: the second definition probably does NOT date from 1593.

Also, I think JR explicitly referred to Euclidean space, where his claim is correct and is exceptionless. Whatever space-time is, it's almost certainly not Euclidean. ;)

Who can bend space time? Hiro Nakamura.

See the baseball forum, search for rising fastball... :eek:

Now you've done it... :eek:

There has been way too much freaking math on this forum today. :)

I'm gonna tell you what...it may sound crazy, but I'll bet they figure out a way to do it in the next 10-15 years.

The question is, would you want it? Would it make your job easier or play with your mind?

By "too much," do you mean twice as much as there should be? 3.5 times as much?