(Question From a Fan) IW & Replay
 

I was sitting in the stands Saturday at an NCAA Division One Game when I saw what I know is every official's worst nightmare. The ball carrier was hit, and as he was going to the ground, he lost the ball. It was recovered by the defense. However, while the ball was loose, one of the officials blew the whistle. The offense replayed the down, and on the drive ended up scoring a touchdown. Luckily, the game was a blowout, so it had no effect on the outcome of the game. But, I know the official felt horrible. I felt bad for him as I know he knew he made a major mistake and that there was nothing that anyone nor instant replay could do for him.

But, I got to thinking about something. A few years ago, instant replay started being able to address a ruling of the runner down as long as there was an immediate recovery. So, what if the official in this game Saturday once he realized what he had done had come running in pointing to the ground ruling the ball carrier down (even though he knew he was wrong)? At that point, replay could have addressed it and fixed his mistake (minus a small return by the defense that I know could not have been addressed). While this does seem like it is going the long way around, it seems like a way that it could have been fixed. And, on top of that, I'm sure that the official would have slept much better last night.

Thoughts?

Because there is specific rules coverage for an inadvertent whistle. A running play the option is to replay the down or take the ball at the spot when the IW was blown. On a loose ball play, the down is replayed.

What you suggest puts the official as lying. His NCAA officiating days would be over. Better to fess up to the IW. They happen. Nobody is happy when one occurs but there is a procedure in place to deal with it.

Would there be any logistical issues with altering the rules to treat it the same?

Not all NCAA games have IR for one.

Please explain that one to me. Do you mean that video replay has been used in such a way as to validate the actions of players after a whistle? That's treacherous territory.

If there is a fumble and on the play the official mistakenly rules him down (thus blowing a whistle), the call can be overturned to a fumble on replay if there is an immediate recovery. However, any return is nullified.

Seriously? A recovery that's known to have occurred after the whistle can be honored? That's got to suck as far as administration of the game goes.

Or are you saying that it counts only if the recovery occurred before or simultaneously with the whistle? That the official thought the ball was dead, and whistled for that reason, but the possession of the ball was determined independently of what he thought? I don't see why you'd need any ruling for that. That's just the regular rule on an IW that occurs after a change of possession.

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

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.

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?

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?

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.

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.

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

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.

No.

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.

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.