Alabama/Auburn
 

4:01 in second quarter.

Run initially called TD, replay reversed it. Sure looked liked the ball crossed the goal line as his hand touched the ground out of bounds.

Agreed, They took it frame by frame and it sure looked like the right call on the field.

Didn't care for that reversal. Or the reversal at 1:40.

Agree. I thought the replay official missed both.

On the final play. Anyone else see that player in the back field waving his hand back and forth? Could that have been considered a fair catch signal? while the ball was in flight.


I wouldnt have called just curious.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HqIBNX0CXDc

<iframe width="853" height="480" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/HqIBNX0CXDc" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

No. Not unless common sense took an inopportune vacation.

He was waving before the snap. Exhorting the crowd.

How about the sideline not covered on the return?

The L is stuck inside when he pinches in after the kick. The F is under the upright and has no chance to get to the sideline. While Davis does not go out of bounds, that sideline was challenged and not covered until the L recovers from the hash (you see him weaving between players) and gets there after Davis passes him and cuts it back inside....

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

Maybe. I've still seen no sideline shot, and the sideline cameras might have been retasked for "end of game" shots and not watching the sidelines during the runback.

One shot didn't have the straight on angle, but it sure looked like he was in-bounds all the way down.

I'm an F and I know for a fact that the second the kick's blocked, I'm sprinting for the sideline -- so while the L is not there, it could very well be the case the F is on the sideline (albeit many yards away).

An unbelievable ending, that boils down to a single fact; the Auburn team kept their head in the game up to the ACTUAL end, Alabama was thinking about Overtime.

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

And the Alabama coach put his team in position to lose when he went for it on fourth down with 5 minutes left, instead of kicking a 30 yard field goal to make it a 10 point game. However he probably had zero confidence in his kicker at that time.

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

I guess hindsight makes it easy.

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.

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.

Unlike that Head Coach of that Team Up North. :p

MTD, Sr.

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.

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.

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.

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?

:confused:

1. No.

2. No.

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

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.

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.

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.

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?

No. I said, "the relevant ways."

On plays close to the Line to gain, anywhere on the field, the primary focus of a clock operator is on the Line Judge, who should be in the optimum position (On the line, facing the stakes) to judge if the LTG has been made, by signalling to stop the clock.

We agree completely. It's the L's job to stop the clock on a first down. As the R, the only signal I give is the first down signal, followed by the wind (if we're going to wind the clock). Our instructions are to look at the L for stopping the clock on a close LTG situation and then look at the R to start the clock.

On our crew, if the L tells me to look at the ball, we're having a measurement 99.9% of the time. Otherwise, he wouldn't be telling me to look. If the clock gets stopped to look, we're measuring 100% of the time.

This is my point. On each of these occasions there is a time lag between the official deciding to stop the clock, and actually signaling it. There is also a time lag from the time the operator sees the signal and actually stops it. Thus, at any other point in the game, there may be a second or two between the runners foot touching out of bounds and the clock getting stopped. This lag is a result of human reaction time. In the play in question, no consideration was made for the time lag.

Isn't it made up for by a similar lag in starting the clock?

Absolutely!!....Unless you eliminate it like they did in this scenario.

And that goes back to my question. For this play, does the rule say the clock stops when the ball carrier's foot steps OOB, or when the official on the field signals?

The rules do not specify to the level you are seeking, however there is an otherwise inherent understanding expressed regarding similar issues. As we are all advised, the sounding of a whistle merely signifies and announces a decision a covering official has made, so any unexpected delay in sounding the whistle does not alter the judgment already made requiring the whistle to be sounded.

It seems, somewhat obvious, that the same principle would apply to your question. The precise instant when the game time stops, is actually when the covering official decides that some action, specified in the rules, required the clock to stop. The signalling of that decision merely is announcing the decision that has already been made.

An example might be, an official deciding he observes that a runner has stepped on a sideline, and deciding that action requires the clock to be stopped is unexpectedly knocked down prior to being able to signal the clock stoppage. The time actually stopped when the official decided the action he observed rquires stopping the clock.

Officials don't usually stop clocks, with some exceptions, the clocks are stopped as a result of specific actions defined by rule.