Texas vs Iowa State

[MD Longhorn]

Thoughts on the plays near the end (the two fumbles or possible fumbles)?

Disclaimer - I am a Longhorn, I'm aware of possible bias. I try to remove that when looking at plays, but it's not always easy or perfectly done.

First fumble - I truly believe his forward progress was stopped before the ball came out, but am more certain in saying it was impossible to see on review that the ball came out before forward progress was stopped. I do think the linesman/referee muddied the waters by calling him down by contact; where he really never was - and should have been ruled down by virtue of his forward progress being stopped.

Second fumble - OK, they ruled no fumble - on replay it appeared he lost the ball while still moving forward. However, what I was on replay was that the RB picked the ball back up, pulled it back to himself, tried to lunge again and lost it again. However --- does anyone else believe that the moment he picked the ball up and before he pulled it back in - the ball was over the goal line?!?! I thought they should have reviewed this and ruled the 2nd "fumble" to be a touchdown.

Back to the disclaimer --- I'm well aware that both of those plays I've ruled in Texas's favor; hence my posting of it here for more impartial viewpoints.

[InsideTheStripe]

Video can be seen here:

Paul Rhoads Goes On Rant For The Ages After Officials Screw ISU

[jTheUmp]

First play, I'm not sure why they'd call down by contact, but I can understand a "forward progress was stopped prior to losing the ball" ruling.

Definitely a fumble on the second play, but I can't tell from the camera angles in that clip who recovered it. Kinda surprised replay didn't get involved in that one, since an 'immediate recovery' can be reviewed even if the initial ruling had the runner down.

The lesson, as always: "see runner down with possession of the ball before you blow your whistle"

[JRutledge]

The first play looks like forward progress was stopped.

The second play is a fumble for sure.

Both plays seemed to be rather quick to call these plays dead.

Peace

[SE Minnestoa Re]

Not a fan of either team.

I can see where it was a really difficult play to call from the field. However, I think the replay official should have called it a fumble because forward progress was not called on the field. The whistle blew after ISU had possession of the ball.

[zm1283]

I don't see how in the first play the forward progress was stopped. If that player doesn't fumble and falls into the end zone, it would definitely be a touchdown. Really quick whistle and they missed it.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by SE Minnestoa Re

Not a fan of either team.

I can see where it was a really difficult play to call from the field. However, I think the replay official should have called it a fumble because forward progress was not called on the field. The whistle blew after ISU had possession of the ball.

Well replay cannot determine forward progress under the current rules. And the whistle is not the issue. If the replay official was told this was a forward progress play and the ball was ripped out, then they could not overturn based on when the whistle blew.

Peace

[SE Minnestoa Re]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Well replay cannot determine forward progress under the current rules. And the whistle is not the issue. If the replay official was told this was a forward progress play and the ball was ripped out, then they could not overturn based on when the whistle blew.

Peace

The the referee should have stated forward progress was stopped, not that the runner was down by contact.

[OKREF]

First of all, I'm a huge Longhorn fan.

First play. Clearly a fumble. They didn't rule his forward progress was stopped, which isn't reviewable, correct? They ruled him down by contact, which is reviewable. They reviewed it and still didn't change it. In my view it was a fumble.

Second play. Again, clearly looks like a fumble to me, but I do believe that Gray recovered the ball.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by SE Minnestoa Re

The the referee should have stated forward progress was stopped, not that the runner was down by contact.

True, but clearly the issue was forward progress as you cannot determine that. And it was not an actual fumble as much as the ball being stripped out of the hands of the player. So the only issue was forward progress IMO.

Peace

[MD Longhorn]

Those stating that you can't review when forward progress is stopped are not correct. It is true that if it is ruled on the field that forward progress is stopped, that cannot be overturned by review...

But FP is ruled routinely on review plays. Almost every single "Did he make the first down" review is a FP decision. And MANY fumble / no fumble decisions are FP decisions in the end (otherwise you could just hold him up in a pile, keep him off the ground and knock the ball out - and unless they could see it on the field, it would always be a fumble).

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

Those stating that you can't review when forward progress is stopped are not correct. It is true that if it is ruled on the field that forward progress is stopped, that cannot be overturned by review...

But FP is ruled routinely on review plays. Almost every single "Did he make the first down" review is a FP decision. And MANY fumble / no fumble decisions are FP decisions in the end (otherwise you could just hold him up in a pile, keep him off the ground and knock the ball out - and unless they could see it on the field, it would always be a fumble).

If it is a first and 10 play and the play gains 5 yards, they are not reviewing FP. If it involves the line to gain, it can be. This was not even an issue of the GL being crossed. This was an issue was is FP stopped and should the play have continued. That is basically what we were told by our guys in an association that work that level. I should have been more clear. And yes they do review fumble, not fumble situations, but clearly the play was ruled dead before the ball was ripped out. I think that is why there was no overturn on the call.

Peace

[CT1]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

It is true that if it is ruled on the field that forward progress is stopped, that cannot be overturned by review...

Which may be why "down by contact" was what was announced as "ruled on the field."

It's pretty obvious from the overhead camera angle that the ball was ripped out by #52 *after* FP had been stopped & the ball carrier was being pushed backward.

If the on-field officials weren't really sure when the ball was ripped out and they wanted IR to review, they *couldn't* (by rule) say that they had him down by FP.

[KCRC]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

Those stating that you can't review when forward progress is stopped are not correct. It is true that if it is ruled on the field that forward progress is stopped, that cannot be overturned by review...

But FP is ruled routinely on review plays. Almost every single "Did he make the first down" review is a FP decision. And MANY fumble / no fumble decisions are FP decisions in the end (otherwise you could just hold him up in a pile, keep him off the ground and knock the ball out - and unless they could see it on the field, it would always be a fumble).

I was not aware of this. I learn something every day (I'm a BB board lurker). This leads me to a follow up question.

The White Hat announced the ruling on the field was "down by contact" which allowed for the review. With your above statement, I think you are saying that the review could result in a determination that forward progress had stopped prior to loss of possession.

However, the announced result of the review was that "the play stands as called." Well, as called was "down by contact." To me, such an announcement means that the review official did not find indisputable video evidence to overturn "down by contact." If the review official disagreed with "down by contact" but made a forward progress ruling, wouldn't that require more of an explanation than "the play stands as called?" Or do I have too high of expectations on post-review explanations?

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by KCRC

I was not aware of this. I learn something every day (I'm a BB board lurker). This leads me to a follow up question.

The White Hat announced the ruling on the field was "down by contact" which allowed for the review. With your above statement, I think you are saying that the review could result in a determination that forward progress had stopped prior to loss of possession.

However, the announced result of the review was that "the play stands as called." Well, as called was "down by contact." To me, such an announcement means that the review official did not find indisputable video evidence to overturn "down by contact." If the review official disagreed with "down by contact" but made a forward progress ruling, wouldn't that require more of an explanation than "the play stands as called?" Or do I have too high of expectations on post-review explanations?

The play stands as called almost always means "We don't have enough evidence to change anything."

If they agreed he was down by contact after the review, they would say, "The ruling on the field was confirmed."

(Of course, the TD 2 plays later was also "play stands as called" when there was literally no doubt of the score).