Alabama/Auburn

[Matt]

Originally Posted by hbk314

Yet he chose to attempt a 57-yard field goal over a hail mary?

I guess hindsight makes it easy.

Different kicker.

[hbk314]

Originally Posted by Matt

Different kicker.

I wasn't watching that closely, but you'd think that if you'd send him out there to try a 57-yarder, he could handle a 30-yarder.

[tmagan]

Originally Posted by Rich

The L got sucked in. Thankfully, replay would've been there if the runner had stepped out of bounds.

Here is the problem, at midfield, the camera was blocked by the Alabama player, which means the Auburn player could have stepped out of bounds and no one would have saw it, since there was the double umpire format.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

And the Auburn coach put his team in a position to win by kicking the game tying extra point instead of going for 2.

Unlike that Head Coach of that Team Up North.

MTD, Sr.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by tmagan

Here is the problem, at midfield, the camera was blocked by the Alabama player, which means the Auburn player could have stepped out of bounds and no one would have saw it, since there was the double umpire format.

The S is the double umpire. The F is on the L's side. My first movement on a blocked kick or a returned FG/try is to bust for the pylon and work reverse mechanics.

No matter. At the moment that Alabama player cut in front of the camera, it's obvious the player is in bounds. Also, the L is working to get back there and you don't have to be standing on the line to see if a player hits white.

I'm not excusing the line judge - he got sucked in - but I don't see it as a huge disaster, not on this play.

[asdf]

Originally Posted by Rich

No matter. At the moment that Alabama player cut in front of the camera, it's obvious the player is in bounds. Also, the L is working to get back there and you don't have to be standing on the line to see if a player hits white.

While I agree the runner stayed in bounds, if an official is at numbers looking out, (where the L was) he is guessing if a runner has the outside of his foot touching white or he's 1/2" on the in bounds side of it.

[Texas Aggie]

The line judge should have anticipated the return and stayed home. Auburn called a timeout to set that up. There are no fewer than 3 officials in the middle and they can handle any inside issue that comes up -- the L can't really do much until the ball is dead anyway.

Having a presence is fine, but not at the expense of leaving a sideline uncovered. In 5 man mechanics, this can't be helped but in 7, it can.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Texas Aggie

The line judge should have anticipated the return and stayed home. Auburn called a timeout to set that up. There are no fewer than 3 officials in the middle and they can handle any inside issue that comes up -- the L can't really do much until the ball is dead anyway.

Having a presence is fine, but not at the expense of leaving a sideline uncovered. In 5 man mechanics, this can't be helped but in 7, it can.

I agree. The L just wasn't aware of the situation, it seemed.

[parepat]

AN additional matter that no one is talking about...putting the one second back on the clock. The runners foot touched down out of bounds with 1 second left. The ruling to put time back discounts that time for human reaction of the official and the clock operator which is present in every other play of the game. Instead of the new 3 second rule for spiking, I think there should be some margin for error in this situation to account for human reaction time. Thoughts?

[voiceoflg]

Originally Posted by parepat

AN additional matter that no one is talking about...putting the one second back on the clock. The runners foot touched down out of bounds with 1 second left. The ruling to put time back discounts that time for human reaction of the official and the clock operator which is present in every other play of the game. Instead of the new 3 second rule for spiking, I think there should be some margin for error in this situation to account for human reaction time. Thoughts?

Great question. Is there a rule in place where, say, in the last minute of the game the timing is that precise? If not, would they review every OOB or incomplete pass play and set the game clock accordingly. Does the clock stop with the action or when the official on the field signals?

[maven]

Originally Posted by voiceoflg

Great question. Is there a rule in place where, say, in the last minute of the game the timing is that precise? If not, would they review every OOB or incomplete pass play and set the game clock accordingly. Does the clock stop with the action or when the official on the field signals?

1. No.

2. No.

3. The clock should stop when the ball becomes dead (in the relevant ways).

[jchamp]

Originally Posted by Matt

Different kicker.

I thought he was going to take a knee. With about 30 seconds left, my wife and I went to meet some friends down at a nearby pub.
We had that Sirius Free Pass period in our car at the time, and it was the Auburn announcer that I picked to listen to, at random. The announcer described the 1-second review and said, "I don't know why he's gonna kick, Auburn's got just as much a chance to win as Bama at this point." Then had the discussion about what can happen in one second.
I feel lucky that I got to listen to the Auburn announcers describing the kick return and the aftermath. I've never heard two people who were so obviously happy to have the jobs they do. That was incredible.

[Publius]

Originally Posted by parepat

AN additional matter that no one is talking about...putting the one second back on the clock. The runners foot touched down out of bounds with 1 second left. The ruling to put time back discounts that time for human reaction of the official and the clock operator which is present in every other play of the game. Instead of the new 3 second rule for spiking, I think there should be some margin for error in this situation to account for human reaction time. Thoughts?

The mechanics and politics of clock management by officials always fascinates me (the games I work are almost all untimed). Along the lines of this question, when a team is in "hurry-up" mode trying to score quickly to tie or win in the last minute of a game, is it considered poor officiating to place the ball ready for play at the same leisurely pace you do the other 47 minutes? Are you obligated to match the urgency of the trailing team?

That practice always strikes me as akin to shrinking the strike zone for the trailing team in the ninth inning of a one-run game, but knowing damned little of football officiating, the possibility that I'm just plain ignorant concerning this mechanic is immense.

[ajmc]

A competent officiating crew sets a fairly steady pace in putting the ball RFP, from the very beginning of the game. "Leisure" is usually not one of the guiding factors, which are more focused on the ball being properly placed, all officials being set in their appropriate positions, pre-snap responsibilities being attended to and there being no open issues needing closure prior to the play commencing.

If one team is operating in a "hurry-up mode"there may be less time required before actually putting the ball RFP, consideration for the opponent being actually ready to play should always be a factor.

If the "hurry up" is a consistent factor, it would already have likely had an effect on the "steady pace"of declaring the ball RFP.

[parepat]

Originally Posted by maven

1. No.

2. No.

3. The clock should stop when the ball becomes dead (in the relevant ways).

Not sure I agree with #3. Are you saying that on a close first down play the game clock operator should stop the clock when he perceives the player to be down beyond the line to gain, or upon the signal of the official?