Just out of curiosity, why is this still shot nowhere near enough information?

What happened the frame before? The frame after?

Essentially it removes context. It is one split second in continuous action.

In this instance, in following frames, do you see the ball carrier reach across the LTG? Is this forward progress?? Does he even have the ball?

What does it tell you about a live play, other than one team is green and one team is white?

I've seen gobs of still pictures you would swear there was a block in the back but in reality there wasn't.

I was basically asking if it was something specific he saw in this shot, or a more general statement against using still images to demonstrate a point. I understand that in a lot of cases, but if you have a clear shot of a player with his knee down and the location of the ball is clear, is that not enough to make a judgment(knowing that he didn't lose the ball)? And I don't think that's the case in that screenshot. Even watching the video link in an above post I can't tell for sure where the ball was from the angle provided.

The biggest reason is that we have no clue, from this still shot, if the play is moving backward at the moment of the photo ... which would mean there's a forward progress spot already established before the photo.

Very rarely is a still shot going to provide enough information to make a ruling. In this case the still doesn't give us any information about what happened prior to this. Had he reached the ball out or been pushed backward to this spot.

When I watch the video I can't tell how far forward he is leaning when the knee hits the ground. It looks very possible he's leaning far enough to reach the line to gain. The angle isn't the greatest from the wing official, but he has seen that play 1000s of times and has a pretty good feel for where the ball is when the runner's knee is down. That doesn't mean they aren't occasionally wrong, but they are more than likely right. There is no clear evidence they are wrong so thus it wasn't overturned. This looks close enough at a critical spot I think they should have had a longer review.

I think that part of the OP's problem is that this play (and others like it) doesn't appear to have been reviewed at all.

Every play is reviewed. The only time the game is interrupted for a replay is if the replay folks either can't determine if the call is correct, or if they can tell that the call is incorrect.

So, that likely means that the replay folks think the officials on the field got it right.

It's also possible that the replay equipment was malfunctioning at the time (it happens), leaving the replay officials unable to review the play.

Again ... supposition in absence of evidence. They don't stop things down for every review in NCAA. 95% of the plays that are reviewed in NCAA don't stop play at all.

Every single play is reviewed under NCAA rules...but even so, if the coach feels so adamantly that a play needs to be stopped to give a play full examination, he can challenge a play.

Reread my posts through this thread.

This frame of the video with the runner's knee down was at the point of furthest forward progress on this play as I indicated. The ball is dead at (or before) this point because the knee is already down, so nothing after this frame should matter regarding the spot of the ball. The line to gain as I stated previously was squarely on the 35, not at the TV line to gain. The ball was never stretched forward at any point on the play, so the ball position when the knee touched the ground was the point where the ball should have been spotted.

Was the ball advanced to the 35 based on this frame? I would state pretty clearly no. But is this conclusive evidence by itself?...absolutely not.

Is it enough evidence to indicate that the play deserved additional video review, especially when the difference was between potentially 4th down and a half-yard (or more) and a 1st down? I firmly believe it is.

The game situation alone should have dictated closer scrutiny than if it would have been the difference between a 2nd down and a half-yard or a 1st down. Scoring plays, turnovers, and 1st down/no 1st down spots on possession downs (3rd and 4th) deserve at least a "thumbs-up" from the replay booth when there could be doubt before play should be allowed to continue.

I believe college football would benefit if the play clock rules only after a first down is gained reverted back to the old rule of 25 seconds from the ready for play signal. The ready signal could be withheld until the "thumbs-up" is given on plays that could be in doubt. That would be needed only a handful of times a game with on average maybe one or two extra booth reviews being required.

I'm not talking about 3-inch or 6-inch spotting differences here. If reviewed those plays would result in the calls on the field standing or being confirmed about 99 times out of 100, and they should. But every effort should be made to eliminate significant spotting errors (minimum a foot to half-yard) when that spot is critical to the game situation.

On a related point, there was another example of replay not jumping in to correct a spot in the Miami Beach Bowl. Indisputable video evidence showed the runner's knee was down on the 3-yard line with the ball at best barely past the 2 on a run that was ruled a touchdown. Play wasn't stopped for a review.

Ok , I read through your posts and all you contend are two things. Twice you mention the LTG is the 35. In the OP you allege the knee is down at the 36. You never mention the location of the ball at the time. You post a still photo of one moment in time with no explanation of what it is you want everyone to look for. Those two different statements explain nothing of what you contend, by themselves.

I actually go retrieve the video and as I posted, concede you can argue the spot.

Had you not announced some national need for spotting POE and actually made your point, with the video, you might have garnered a little more support for your point instead of leaving it for us to divine on our own.

They do.

It was reviewed. It just wasn't stopped. And coaches can insist on a review if they feel it necessary - that didn't happen either. Probably for a reason.

Lack of adequate booth reviews don't do coaches any good with no timeouts left. Challenges should not be totally dependent on having a timeout left if the review process is going to be a failure on basic things like the spot of the football. Coaches without timeouts should still be allowed to challenge and take a delay of game penalty if the challenge fails, something that is currently not allowed.

And to be clear my comments in this thread are directed more at what instant replay is not doing more than anything with on-field crews, even though there is room for on-field improvement.

A play just happened at the end of the first half of the Rose Bowl, and there is absolute indisputable video evidence that the spot was missed by more than a yard on the Florida State interception with 18 seconds left in the first half that could have given FSU an extra 3 points.

The FSU defender is on the ground as soon as he makes the interception with his helmet just short of the 48 yard line. His elbow is on the ground just past the 47, and his knees are down just short of the 47. There is no way that ball should have been spotted past about the 47 and a half given the position where the ball had to be when the interception was made. When the player rolled over sitting on the ground with the ball facing the camera, the ball was barely at the 48 and that was long after the player was clearly down with possession. The ball didn't get to the 49 until after the player stood up with the ball and took a step.

Guess where the ball was spotted?....squarely on the 49.

The intercepting player was just outside the far hash mark from the pressbox, and no other player was within 5 yards of him at the point of interception. No excuse for both the crew on the field to miss the spot that badly and for replay to then ignore the miss.

If my suggestion earlier in this thread had been in effect, play should not have continued until a thumbs-up. No thumbs-up should have been given with the spot off by over a yard.

I keep reading denials of a problem and keep routinely seeing spotting snafus like this one not get a sniff from the replay booth. That extra yard and a half could have given Florida State an extra 3 points since the missed FG that ended the half hit only about two feet up on the left upright. A straight kick that would have scored 3 might have been short or hit the crossbar from 4 feet further back.

Do you have a favorite windmill?

You do know the ball must be spotted on a yard line on a COP. That's in the mechanics manual. So you're saying it should be on the 48 not the 49? I can't be bothered to look at this play.

I'm not sure what you want -- you realize the spot on an interception belongs to the deep wings who could be 15-20 yards even further downfield? The short wings are at / near the LOS. So you have 4 officials, none of whom are even close to the spot. 1 yard is a reasonable margin of error here unless you think every spot should be reviewed, which is not reasonable.

I can't imagine there's anyone else seriously bothered by this particular result, BTW.