Tennessee---Vandy Whistle or not

[Berkut]

This actually raises kind of an interesting issue.

When does bad judgement become an IW, by rule?

I mean, if it is a close play, and I judge that the runner is down and blow my whistle, how is that different (if at all) from an IW?

After all, I judged that the runner was down, so it isn't really IW, right? It might be wrong, but that is different (I think) from me seeing a player go down, blow my whistle, and THEN realize that player doesn't even have the ball (for example). In that case, it is clearly an IW, and hence the IW rules should be applied, as opposed to just saying the play is over...right?

I guess what I am getting at is that this isn't necessarily a IW at all - the covering official thought the runner was down. He was wrong of course, but then, officials are wrong sometimes. Sometimes we think the runner stepped out when they did not, that isn't an IW, right? Sometimes we think the pass was incomplete when it isn't, that isn't an IW either. Nobody is going to get the chance to replay the down when the wing guy says the runner stepped OOB even if they did not.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Berkut

This actually raises kind of an interesting issue.

When does bad judgement become an IW, by rule?

I mean, if it is a close play, and I judge that the runner is down and blow my whistle, how is that different (if at all) from an IW?

You are right, it isn't that different. But in this case they should not have allowed a score and the down, "inning" or overtime was over at that point the official blew the whistle.

After all, I judged that the runner was down, so it isn't really IW, right? It might be wrong, but that is different (I think) from me seeing a player go down, blow my whistle, and THEN realize that player doesn't even have the ball (for example). In that case, it is clearly an IW, and hence the IW rules should be applied, as opposed to just saying the play is over...right?

Originally Posted by Berkut

I guess what I am getting at is that this isn't necessarily a IW at all - the covering official thought the runner was down. He was wrong of course, but then, officials are wrong sometimes. Sometimes we think the runner stepped out when they did not, that isn't an IW, right? Sometimes we think the pass was incomplete when it isn't, that isn't an IW either. Nobody is going to get the chance to replay the down when the wing guy says the runner stepped OOB even if they did not.

It is still an IW, but a player not having the ball and a player with possession are going to be handled differently by rule.

Peace

[Berkut]

Actually, by NCAA rule, there is no difference between a player with or without the ball when it comes to IW. The rule doesn't even mention a fumble, except when discussing one of the cases that determine options.

As far as the NCAA rules are concerned, I actually think this *IS* an IW. And I think someone calling someone OOB who was not could also be an IW, by rule. Although I would guess in a practical sense, it doesn't come up often.

[bisonlj]

Originally Posted by Berkut

This actually raises kind of an interesting issue.

When does bad judgement become an IW, by rule?

I mean, if it is a close play, and I judge that the runner is down and blow my whistle, how is that different (if at all) from an IW?

After all, I judged that the runner was down, so it isn't really IW, right? It might be wrong, but that is different (I think) from me seeing a player go down, blow my whistle, and THEN realize that player doesn't even have the ball (for example). In that case, it is clearly an IW, and hence the IW rules should be applied, as opposed to just saying the play is over...right?

I guess what I am getting at is that this isn't necessarily a IW at all - the covering official thought the runner was down. He was wrong of course, but then, officials are wrong sometimes. Sometimes we think the runner stepped out when they did not, that isn't an IW, right? Sometimes we think the pass was incomplete when it isn't, that isn't an IW either. Nobody is going to get the chance to replay the down when the wing guy says the runner stepped OOB even if they did not.

I think it only becomes an IW if someone (i.e. the U) comes to him with absolutely certainty the knee wasn't down and the H decides he was correct. Or the R takes information from both officials and determines the U was correct. Then the ruling of the runner being down is treated as an IW. This would give the team in possession (UT in this case) the option of replaying the down or taking the ball at the spot where the runner was incorrectly ruled down. They would not give the ball back to Vandy so an IW and ruling the runner was down would have the same outcome.

[PSU213]

In this case it was either an incorrect call or an IW...a mess either way.

This question then comes up. Hypothetical situation. 4/8 late in the game, A2 is running and it is ruled that his knee is down 3 yards short of the LTG. Can his it be reviewed to see if his knee was actually? If it is determinied that his knee was not down, is it now treated like an IW (i.e. A's choice to replay the down)?

[PSU213]

One other thing...this is for the 'schoarly' gentleman who narrated the YouTube video in the OP: Vandy is Vandy because the school was started from money given by Cornelius Vanderbilt. Sorry, it was bothering me. Not that this guy will ever read this...just that, believe it or not, there are more important things in life that football (OMG, I can't believe I said that).

[APG]

Originally Posted by PSU213

In this case it was either an incorrect call or an IW...a mess either way.

This question then comes up. Hypothetical situation. 4/8 late in the game, A2 is running and it is ruled that his knee is down 3 yards short of the LTG. Can his it be reviewed to see if his knee was actually? If it is determinied that his knee was not down, is it now treated like an IW (i.e. A's choice to replay the down)?

You could review the spot in relation to a first down, but if replay showed the runner wasn't actually down when he was ruled down, that is not reviewable. Also, inadvertent whistles are not reviewable either.

[bkdow]

I think it is a very slippery slope to start calling a mis-judgement an IW. Things happend and we are called upon to make well calculated decisions based on what we believed we saw. Everyone of us has thought we've seen something and later found that we were mistaken. Sometimes that occurs during the game and sometimes afterward on film. If we treated each of those times as an IW, we might as well just hang up the whitsle and start refereeing from the video booth.