SC vs Mich

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by maven

First, he was wrong. Everyone except some Michigan fans knows this.

Second, Spurrier challenged the spot, not the ruling that the ball was past the LTG (which cannot be challenged). The challenge failed.

He was wrong how? Because you saw an angle not down the line? I am the person that holds the ball on my high school crew and there is a lot of communication going on with that person and the Referee. The Referee does not make the decision alone at least in my experience. I would suspect the official with the ball communicated what he thought the spot got to the stick and the Referee signaled what he was told as it was close. It only caused an issue because Spurrier was standing there and had an interest in the outcome. I love how they made a big deal out of this while not showing a direct shot down the line, which I can assume they did not have based on all the people in the way. It is similar to what they do not have on many goal line plays to determine if someone broke the plane while the ball is above the goal line.

And the spot was challenged, not the measurement. Actually they cannot challenge the measurement, they can challenge the spot of the wing, which was not in my opinion give a very good spot in the first place. I do not think the spot was that close based on what I saw live and where he marked the ball. I think he gave him about a half a yard more, but the review could not conclude either way well enough. Those things are not overturned anyway unless it is obvious they were clearly short or clearly beyond (heard that from a Big Ten Official I worked with this season). I would have been totally OK if they did not get the first down on that issue alone.

Peace

[JasonTX]

There were at least two different camera views. Both of them clearly showed the ball was at least 2 inches short of the first down post. One of the officials has apparently acknowledged that the ball was short according to some post game interviews with Spurrier. The official apparently was asked why the R called it a first down and this official was not sure as he saw it was short.

[BktBallRef]

I know one thing. Clowney knocked the HELL out of the Mich. RB. WOW!!!!

That kid is a beast!!

BTW, a 3 year old would have no trouble seeing it wasn't a 1st down.

[ASA/NYSSOBLUE]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

I know one thing. Clowney knocked the HELL out of the Mich. RB. WOW!!!!

That kid is a beast!!

BTW, a 3 year old would have no trouble seeing it wasn't a 1st down.

funny you should mention that.....3 Year Old Girl Adorably Disputes A Football Call | 3 Year Old Cutely Shows Her Frustration - YouTube

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by ASA/NYSSOBLUE

funny you should mention that.....3 Year Old Girl Adorably Disputes A Football Call | 3 Year Old Cutely Shows Her Frustration - YouTube

Ironic, huh?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by JasonTX

There were at least two different camera views. Both of them clearly showed the ball was at least 2 inches short of the first down post. One of the officials has apparently acknowledged that the ball was short according to some post game interviews with Spurrier. The official apparently was asked why the R called it a first down and this official was not sure as he saw it was short.

Never trust the coach's account of his discussion with an unnamed official.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Adam

Never trust the coach's account of his discussion with an unnamed official.

Exactly.

Peace

[CT1]

I would suspect the official with the ball communicated what he thought the spot got to the stick and the Referee signaled what he was told as it was close.

You're kidding, right? I've been a white hat for well over 20 years. In all that time, I've always made the final decision on measurements. Always.

It's in my job description.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by CT1

You're kidding, right? I've been a white hat for well over 20 years. In all that time, I've always made the final decision on measurements. Always.

It's in my job description.

Well that is nice, but that was not the point. If your crew does something that is great. The point is my crew communicates to each other. There is dialog between the crew and the Referee. An certainly dialog between the ball holder and the stick holder and the Referee. The Referee is a crew member, not a boss. Maybe your crew you are the dictator, but that is not the case with everyone.

Peace

[CT1]

Of course our crew communicates with each other. However, by rule, "The referee's decisions are final in all matters pertaining to the game."

That being the case, I'm not taking someone else's word that the LTG has or hasn't been reached. I'm going to take the extra 5 seconds to see for myself.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

The Referee is a crew member, not a boss. Maybe your crew you are the dictator, but that is not the case with everyone.

Peace

Sorry. That's incorrect. The referee IS the boss. Boss doesn't necessarily equal dictator, and in any good crew, the boss is not a dictator (just like any good office situation). Communication IS important, as is trust of your partners and teamwork. But by rule the referee IS the boss, and in particular, the decision of first down or not is on the referee.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

Sorry. That's incorrect. The referee IS the boss. Boss doesn't necessarily equal dictator, and in any good crew, the boss is not a dictator (just like any good office situation). Communication IS important, as is trust of your partners and teamwork. But by rule the referee IS the boss, and in particular, the decision of first down or not is on the referee.

All I am talking about is communication and crew communication. Not sure what the rules have to do with that fact or what really happened here. And every crew I have been on the crew communicated many things and made decisions the Referee played little or no role in. Actually on my HS crew for years the Referee was not even the crew chief. And if you think the the crew chief did not have say in things we did on the field you would be sadly mistaken. All I am saying is in this case I am sure the official holding the ball told the Referee something. Now maybe he assumed too much, but you will not convince me that the two officials said absolutely nothing in that entire situation.

Peace

[WDEvol]

I was at the game. Obviously couldn't see the measurement from where I was, but seeing replays afterwards made it pretty obvious that the ball was quite clearly short of the line to gain.

That said, the same crew allowed the wrong team to call the coin toss (South Carolina was the home team but called it anyway) and forgot that a free kick out of bounds goes 30 yards from the spot of the kick - they tried to place it at the 40 before Spurrier eloquently reminded them that with kickoffs from the 35 this year, it goes to the other 35.

So, yeah...the Big East crew struggled with some basic things in this one.

[CT1]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

All I am saying is in this case I am sure the official holding the ball told the Referee something.

And the rest of us are saying that the White Hat still has the responsibility for the final decision. He neglected to take a 90-degree view before signalling, which likely would have made a difference in his call.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by CT1

And the rest of us are saying that the White Hat still has the responsibility for the final decision. He neglected to take a 90-degree view before signalling, which likely would have made a difference in his call.

Again you are focused on the final decision and I am saying what actually happened.

Peace