(Comment) NCAA Football Officiating Point of Emphasis for 2015

[RealityCheck]

Originally Posted by Rich

Checking your posting history, do you ever have anything good to say? The forum isn't just for people to come on here and complain every great while.

Rich, legitimate respectful comment should be welcomed and be used to help improve a sport.

The issue of missed spots in college football has been magnified since implementation of instant replay. I don't expect an official 20 yards directly down a sideline away from a ball-carrier to make a perfect spot every time. I do expect an effort to improve mechanics and get officials into better position to minimize excessively missed spots. I also expect officials who appear to be in proper position not to miss spots by a half-yard or more. And when spots are obviously missed, I expect other crew members to help out and for instant replay to be utilized.

Plays like this one should be used a teaching aid to improve officiating. That is why I brought it to the attention of this forum.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by RealityCheck

Rich, legitimate respectful comment should be welcomed and be used to help improve a sport.

The issue of missed spots in college football has been magnified since implementation of instant replay. I don't expect an official 20 yards directly down a sideline away from a ball-carrier to make a perfect spot every time. I do expect an effort to improve mechanics and get officials into better position to minimize excessively missed spots. I also expect officials who appear to be in proper position not to miss spots by a half-yard or more. And when spots are obviously missed, I expect other crew members to help out and for instant replay to be utilized.

Plays like this one should be used a teaching aid to improve officiating. That is why I brought it to the attention of this forum.

Most of the inbounds spots are actually gotten by the official across the field using cross-field mechanics. Did you know that?

Deep plays -- the deep wings usually get the spots mentally and communicate them to the short wings coming down the field.

Doesn't mean there won't be mistakes, but if a player is stopped inbounds, it's usually not the guy 20 yards back that's making that decision.

Further, officials tend to start with first downs on a yardline. Short wings will decide if it's short or not before putting the ball down. If it's a first down, they'll round it to a yard line every time -- at least at the levels where the fields are well-marked.

[HLin NC]

And when spots are obviously missed

Your OP mentions where his knee went down. That has nothing to do with the ball, only in the sense of where the ball was WHEN the knee went down.

Your comment is no different than any of the 500 yahoos in the stands behind me hollering about what a horrible spot something is from time to time. Your "respectful comment" smacks of pompous self-righteousness.

Trust me, you won't be working NCAA long if your supervisor thinks your spots suck. In fact if you're that bad, you probably aren't working it to begin with.

[jTheUmp]

Care to post a video of this "missed spot" so that we can see just how "badly" it was "missed"?

If it's as bad as you claim, there's gotta be some fanboy "the refs screwed us" youtube video of it somewhere.

[RealityCheck]

Originally Posted by jTheUmp

Care to post a video of this "missed spot" so that we can see just how "badly" it was "missed"?

If it's as bad as you claim, there's gotta be some fanboy "the refs screwed us" youtube video of it somewhere.

I tried to post the screenshot I have linked below two weeks ago, but the forum won't let me. And that was despite reducing the file size to less than the 100K listed as the maximum allowed.



The line to gain is squarely on the 35 as the TV line to gain was just past where the actual line should have been. The ball was spotted squarely on the 35 and no measurement was called for.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by RealityCheck

I tried to post the screenshot I have linked below two weeks ago, but the forum won't let me. And that was despite reducing the file size to less than the 100K listed as the maximum allowed.



The line to gain is squarely on the 35 as the TV line to gain was just past where the actual line should have been. The ball was spotted squarely on the 35 and no measurement was called for.

This still shot is nowhere near enough information to spot the ball properly. Learn to officiate ... then you can come complain with an understanding of all the principles involved. The mere fact that you think this post is enough to spot the ball clearly indicates you don't understand everything involved in spotting the ball.

[HLin NC]

I found the game highlights on YouTube. The play starts at about the 36:05 mark into the video, :54 sec game time. It is 3-9 for Marshall (green) from just inside the B45 yard line.

Marshall intercepted the ball and the interceptor was downed at the then A30 yard line. Marshall was penalized after the play 15 yards for USC and the ball would have been spotted at the now B45 yl.

Now if you want to argue that the Marshall receiver didn't get any part of the ball to the B35 yl, which would be all that he had to do as the ball would have been spotted with the nose on the B45 as any good NCAA umpire on down would do, then I'll grant you the argument there.

If your argument is he didn't get to the superimposed yellow line, that has nothing to do with it and is unofficial and would not have been the line to gain.

http://youtu.be/PZv9Y2a-AGc?t=36m5s

[hbk314]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

This still shot is nowhere near enough information to spot the ball properly. Learn to officiate ... then you can come complain with an understanding of all the principles involved. The mere fact that you think this post is enough to spot the ball clearly indicates you don't understand everything involved in spotting the ball.

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

[RealityCheck]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

This still shot is nowhere near enough information to spot the ball properly. Learn to officiate ... then you can come complain with an understanding of all the principles involved. The mere fact that you think this post is enough to spot the ball clearly indicates you don't understand everything involved in spotting the ball.

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.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by RealityCheck

Rich, legitimate respectful comment should be welcomed and be used to help improve a sport.

Is that your only purpose here?

Your name and posting history seem to show an agenda. Do you officiate?

[RealityCheck]

Originally Posted by Rich

Is that your only purpose here?

Your name and posting history seem to show an agenda. Do you officiate?

I have officiated in the past. But why should that be relevant?

If I had come on this forum and called out crew members by name, that would have crossed the line. Instead I have been called out twice in this thread for bringing a legitimate discussion topic to the forum.

What I want, and what I hope everyone posting here wants, is for officiating to continue to improve. This thread points out an area where there is room for improvement.