Sugar Bowl Safety

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

If one wing is marking a spot on the field and the other one is signaling safety, you're not going to confer?

I love people that add stuff to the play that clearly did not happen and then want to debate that was not a factor.

Originally Posted by bisonlj

Using JRut's logic, if an official across the field thought he saw a runner down and blows his whistle with the runner at the 2 but the closer official clearly saw he wasn't down and scored a TD, there is no reason for the IW official to come in with his IW because the covering official had the TD call.

The other official should only join the conversation if he's asked or he has "knowledge" (a term I've picked up from a D1 BJ). In my example above and in the video, the "knowledge" the LJ would bring is "I may have killed the play before it was over". I haven't been able to watch the video to see the timing of the LJ signal with the end of the play but it's possible the LJ felt his signal was not prior to the ruling by the H so there was no possible inadvertent signal. Only if he was absolutely certain he wanted to try to talk the H off the safety call should he run in.

Here is my logic, if that was a factor then that opposite wing did not feel it was enough to mention. And at that level that play could have been reviewed without a challenge. If there was such a problem with that play as you state there must be, then they certainly let that go and I fully expected at the time to have the play reviewed as it was a close I think many here are doing a lot of assumptions based on something they think happen rather than what actually did happen on the play and start talking about what should have happened. But then again that is what people do here, take a simple situation and turn it into something that does not relate to the level or the people that are commenting on it.

Peace

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by Coach Jinx

how about when the opposite wing has forward pregress at the 2? You see the L in the place almost out to the hash saying he had forward progress at the 2. I wonder how that went in the locker room. L is sprinting in with arm up before player gets tackled in the EZ.

Originally Posted by JRutledge

The calling official was the one at the top of the screen. The ball was facing him and he would have been the best person to make the call. So what the other official was doing is really not relevant for many purposes.

Peace

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I love people that add stuff to the play that clearly did not happen and then want to debate that was not a factor.

Here is my logic, if that was a factor then that opposite wing did not feel it was enough to mention. And at that level that play could have been reviewed without a challenge. If there was such a problem with that play as you state there must be, then they certainly let that go and I fully expected at the time to have the play reviewed as it was a close I think many here are doing a lot of assumptions based on something they think happen rather than what actually did happen on the play and start talking about what should have happened. But then again that is what people do here, take a simple situation and turn it into something that does not relate to the level or the people that are commenting on it.

Peace

Jeff, you're the one who said it wouldn't matter if the other wing had a spot in the field of play when the question was asked.

Is this play reviewable? I'm fairly sure forward progress is not reviewable in the NFL but I have no clue about the NCAA.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

Jeff, you're the one who said it wouldn't matter if the other wing had a spot in the field of play when the question was asked.

Is this play reviewable? I'm fairly sure forward progress is not reviewable in the NFL but I have no clue about the NCAA.

Forward progress has been reviewable in the NFL for year, it happens quite often on very close spots where there is a possible first down. And anytime they rule on a TD or not, that is a forward progress spot. It is also reviewable at the college level as well for the same reasons. Both have taken place a couple of times this year, but college does not need a challenge.

And when I said it would not matter, I mean that if the official has made a ruling I find it very hard to believe that a wing where the play is going away from is going to be considered heavily in such a play. And did it matter? Obviously it did not in this very situation.

Peace

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Forward progress has been reviewable in the NFL for year, it happens quite often on very close spots where there is a possible first down. And anytime they rule on a TD or not, that is a forward progress spot. It is also reviewable at the college level as well for the same reasons. Both have taken place a couple of times this year, but college does not need a challenge.

I know that the spot is reviewable, but you're saying whether or not a player's forward progress was stopped is now reviewable in the NFL? For example, a coach could challenge when a RB fumbles that his forward progress had been stopped and actually win that challenge?

And likewise they could have reviewed this play and potentially ruled on review that his forward progress was stopped at the 2 and spotted the ball there?

And when I said it would not matter, I mean that if the official has made a ruling I find it very hard to believe that a wing where the play is going away from is going to be considered heavily in such a play. And did it matter? Obviously it did not in this very situation.

Peace

I'd say he should figure into it more than the R, but that's where he went for help. On the other hand, maybe he just forgot where they were going for drinks afterward and wanted reminding.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

I know that the spot is reviewable, but you're saying whether or not a player's forward progress was stopped is now reviewable in the NFL? For example, a coach could challenge when a RB fumbles that his forward progress had been stopped and actually win that challenge?

If the issue is you have a safety or not, you can review that. Does that mean the call on the field will change? I am not sure, but they can review it. If they do for plays where a first down is in place, I think they can do that here.

Originally Posted by Eastshire

And likewise they could have reviewed this play and potentially ruled on review that his forward progress was stopped at the 2 and spotted the ball there?

I do not think I said anything different than this.

Originally Posted by Eastshire

I'd say he should figure into it more than the R, but that's where he went for help. On the other hand, maybe he just forgot where they were going for drinks afterward and wanted reminding.

Official confer on many things during these sitaution especially when points are at issue. I do not see why this different than many other situations in the game. Officials confer a lot on scoring plays when there are multiple coverage on the play.

Peace

[Coach Jinx]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

If the issue is you have a safety or not, you can review that. Does that mean the call on the field will change? I am not sure, but they can review it. If they do for plays where a first down is in place, I think they can do that here.



I do not think I said anything different than this.



Official confer on many things during these sitaution especially when points are at issue. I do not see why this different than many other situations in the game. Officials confer a lot on scoring plays when there are multiple coverage on the play.

Peace

you cant review if forward progress was stopped & then pushed backward, you could review if someone got in or our of the ez but not forward progress in a pile and a fumble or a situation like this. Back to something you said earlier. Closer wing has a guy in the ez for a td, further wing has a knee down & a bounce in. You dont talk about that? It was not the best call, most agree on that. The wing runnin in at the 2 I thought was something they would talk about in the locker room. I dont think anyone thinks the wing that called was a 100% sure what he had.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cX2zq_8VZcY about 11:35 on the clip

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Coach Jinx

you cant review if forward progress was stopped & then pushed backward, you could review if someone got in or our of the ez but not forward progress in a pile and a fumble or a situation like this. Back to something you said earlier. Closer wing has a guy in the ez for a td, further wing has a knee down & a bounce in. You dont talk about that? It was not the best call, most agree on that. The wing runnin in at the 2 I thought was something they would talk about in the locker room. I dont think anyone thinks the wing that called was a 100% sure what he had.

I believe in trusting my partner and I believe that someone across the field is not going to have a better angle than an official standing all on top of the play at least on a play like this. You can talk about anything you want, but I do not see official talk when they have the ball in the EZ during normal play so why would there be talk in this situation as you suggest. This is not a pass play and even those we do not talk, we might make eye contact, but we do not talk and go over all the situations, we make a call.

Peace

[Rich]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Forward progress has been reviewable in the NFL for year
Peace

The forward progress SPOT is reviewable. Whether forward progress is stopped is not. Enormous difference.

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

The forward progress SPOT is reviewable. Whether forward progress is stopped is not. Enormous difference.

Whew, I was worried I'd missed something big.

[parepat]

Tressell (or Cooper) was trying to challenge. I'd assume the U was telling him he couldn't.