Dallas - Cincy Hit

[ajmc]

Sounds like some people, who should know a lot better, are forgetting that it's no secret that slow motion replay on a big screen can actually reveal minute details that are not as readily available to the naked eye at live action speed.

Don't forget, the main difference between what the game official sees on the field and what can be seen on replay, is that what the game official sees during live action, matters. If anyone has earned the benefit of the doubt, it's these guys, considering exactly who and what they're looking at.

[Robert Goodman]

Is slow motion likely to reveal that a certain hit that seemed to be there at full speed wasn't actually there? The reverse, sure.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by ajmc

Sounds like some people, who should know a lot better, are forgetting that it's no secret that slow motion replay on a big screen can actually reveal minute details that are not as readily available to the naked eye at live action speed.

Don't forget, the main difference between what the game official sees on the field and what can be seen on replay, is that what the game official sees during live action, matters. If anyone has earned the benefit of the doubt, it's these guys, considering exactly who and what they're looking at.

The problem in this case is that the official that's 20-someodd yards away didn't give the benefit of the doubt to the official that was right on the play who didn't flag the perfectly legal hit.

[jTheUmp]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

The problem in this case is that the official that's 20-someodd yards away didn't give the benefit of the doubt to the official that was right on the play who didn't flag the perfectly legal hit.

As it's described here, we've got a sideline catch/no-catch situation. In that case, the sideline officials (SJ, HL) are going to be primarily watching the receiver's actions relative towards possession and in/out of bounds. The "off" officials (BJ primarily, possibly U depending on where he's aligned at the snap) will be looking at the defenders and how they initiate contact.

If the SJ or HL has a chance to see what the defender does, fair enough. But they've got other considerations that take priority.

Was the hit legal? I don't know, I haven't seen the video. But given what I've been hearing from a few NFL and high-level NCAA officials, flags thrown on questionable contact such as was described here will almost certainly be supported.

[sj]

Originally Posted by jTheUmp

As it's described here, we've got a sideline catch/no-catch situation. In that case, the sideline officials (SJ, HL) are going to be primarily watching the receiver's actions relative towards possession and in/out of bounds. The "off" officials (BJ primarily, possibly U depending on where he's aligned at the snap) will be looking at the defenders and how they initiate contact.

If the SJ or HL has a chance to see what the defender does, fair enough. But they've got other considerations that take priority.

.

Exactly.

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

The problem in this case is that the official that's 20-someodd yards away didn't give the benefit of the doubt to the official that was right on the play who didn't flag the perfectly legal hit.

A reasonable "rule of thumb" has always been that an official who actually sees something, should trump a fellow official who may not have seen that same something.

At any level it's important that officials who share a sideline have discussed, in some detail, how they will interact on collaborative calls, and I would suspect at the NFL level such discussion is an integral part of pre-game review. There's really no doubt involved when one official sees something his fellow official was not in position to see, nor may have been looking for (as discussed in the pre-game responsibility review).

If there was some dispute between officials, they were obviously skilled enough to understand any such discussion would be held in private.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by ajmc

A reasonable "rule of thumb" has always been that an official who actually sees something, should trump a fellow official who may not have seen that same something.

At any level it's important that officials who share a sideline have discussed, in some detail, how they will interact on collaborative calls, and I would suspect at the NFL level such discussion is an integral part of pre-game review. There's really no doubt involved when one official sees something his fellow official was not in position to see, nor may have been looking for (as discussed in the pre-game responsibility review).

If there was some dispute between officials, they were obviously skilled enough to understand any such discussion would be held in private.

I see your point. Unfortunately, I guess, in this case... the off-official "saw" something that didn't exist.

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

I see your point. Unfortunately, I guess, in this case... the off-official "saw" something that didn't exist.

Didn't exist, or saw something that you didn't see, or don't understand?

[voiceoflg]

[JugglingReferee]

Thanks for the video.

I agree with Pereira.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by ajmc

Didn't exist, or saw something that you didn't see, or don't understand?

?????

Why the shot?

He saw helmet contact where helmet contact didn't exist. Watch the video and come back and explain what you mean. What do you think I don't understand?

PS - I'm not saying any of this as a fanboy --- I'm a Cowboy fan if anything, and the call went in their favor.

[asdf]

The foul was for a hit on a defenseless receiver, not for illegal helmet contact.

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

?????

Why the shot?

What do you think I don't understand?

What I don't think you understand, Mike, is exactly what the covering official believed he saw, that prompted him to throw that flag. On the field, at that very moment, there's really not a whole lot of difference between what he may have seen and what he truly believed he saw, as least as far as reaching for the flag is concerned.

Considering the speed of play, the skill of the players and the nature of this particular contact, I would think most officials, who may have walked in somewhat similar footsteps, would be inclined to give the covering official the benefit of the doubt. Thankfully, that circumstance doesn't seem to fall under the reviewable situations, so often the final judgment is determined by what the covering official believes he sees, which hopefully matches what he actually sees, and prompts an appropriate reaction.

That official made the call, presumably based on what he believed he saw, without the benefit or the hindsight of replay that slowed the action down to that of a gnat winking as viewed from multiple angles and positions.

Whether from a "fan" perspective or not, there's a point where even constructive criticism, especially when it cannot change or make any difference to anything, can become hyper critical and lose any value it might otherwise offer.