(Question From a Fan) IW & Replay

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by APG

I take it you haven't seen a college or pro game in recent past?

Not too recently, no. I found after a few years of coaching that I could no longer enjoy just watching whole games, though I could continue to enjoy watching clips to learn from, games in our organiz'n or division, or a little bit if the TV was on where I was with friends.

In games with replay, one reviewable play is down versus fumble. If a player is ruled to be down prior to a fumble, yet actually fumbled prior to being down, possession can be awarded to the opponent if replay shows a clear recovery during the immediate action after the play.

In the NFL (and the same may be true under NCAA rules), the same is true for a play ruled to be a forward pass yet replay shows it to be a backward pass and the same is true for a pass ruled to be incomplete on the field, yet replay shows a catch and fumble or in the case of the passer, the ball is knocked out prior to the arm going forward, making it a fumble.

In all of the situations above, if the opponent recovers the ball, they get possession but do not get any yards after recovery.

So they should no longer play to the whistle (or until other evidence the ball is dead, whichever is sooner), but play until...uh...some time after "immediate action" is over? And officials didn't say to the rules committee that that would be a really, really bad idea?

You know, a lot of things in sports are matters of taste. Actually, practically everything in sports is. You know, like whether to allow the spitball, the forward pass, 1 or 2 seconds for a pin, all that stuff. But whether to have a clear signal in a contact sport for the players to stop?! There are sports like basketball where some play after a whistle is allowed to count, but the situations are limited enough that the participants are still able to draw a clear line on what to do. This does not appear to be one of those cases.

Has this had the side effect of officials whistling quicker to compensate, so that there are more IW? Because the disincentive for an IW is not as great?

[jTheUmp]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

So they should no longer play to the whistle (or until other evidence the ball is dead, whichever is sooner), but play until...uh...some time after "immediate action" is over? And officials didn't say to the rules committee that that would be a really, really bad idea?

I'm sure the officials did make the objection when this change was originally implemented. But as we all know, officials don't make the rules, we just have to enforce them.

Has this had the side effect of officials whistling quicker to compensate, so that there are more IW? Because the disincentive for an IW is not as great?

Exactly the opposite. If in doubt, rule a fumble/recovery/return and let replay come in and overrule and say the runner was down prior to the fumble anyway. (I heard a statistic somewhere that in something like 85% of the close fumble/down cases, the correct ruling is a fumble).

On the other hand, one of the maxims I've also heard from D-I guys is "don't officiate to replay"... so take what you will from that.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by jTheUmp

Exactly the opposite. If in doubt, rule a fumble/recovery/return and let replay come in and overrule and say the runner was down prior to the fumble anyway.

Ah. I'd forgotten replay could be used that way already. I figured that would be the effect when that came in.

(I heard a statistic somewhere that in something like 85% of the close fumble/down cases, the correct ruling is a fumble).

There's no sharp dividing line between control & lack of control of the ball, it's always a matter of degree. Usually you'll see that the ball starts to move relative to the player's grip a bit before it frankly comes out, so that may be the basis for the above statement.

In games where replay is in use, do you have a different standard as to how late is a late hit than you do in games where it's not?

[jTheUmp]

I've never worked a game where replay was used, but... A late hit (or not) is not a reviewable play, so no, there's no different standard with respect to late hits.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by jTheUmp

I've never worked a game where replay was used, but... A late hit (or not) is not a reviewable play, so no, there's no different standard with respect to late hits.

That wasn't the reason I had in mind. I was thinking more along the lines of, since the players can still get the ball after the whistle, an official in such a game might be more lenient when it comes to hitting late.

[InsideTheStripe]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

In games where replay is in use, do you have a different standard as to how late is a late hit than you do in games where it's not?

No.

[bisonlj]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

Not too recently, no. I found after a few years of coaching that I could no longer enjoy just watching whole games, though I could continue to enjoy watching clips to learn from, games in our organiz'n or division, or a little bit if the TV was on where I was with friends.

So they should no longer play to the whistle (or until other evidence the ball is dead, whichever is sooner), but play until...uh...some time after "immediate action" is over? And officials didn't say to the rules committee that that would be a really, really bad idea?

It's been a largely non-issue the 5 or 6 years it's been a rule. The defense is awarded the ball only if it's an obvious recovery immediately after the fumble. If there is a pile or scrum then it can't be awarded to the defense.