(Comment) NCAA Football Officiating Point of Emphasis for 2015

[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?

[HLin NC]

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.

[hbk314]

Originally Posted by HLin NC

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.

[bisonlj]

Originally Posted by hbk314

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.

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.

[hbk314]

Originally Posted by bisonlj

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.

[jTheUmp]

Originally Posted by hbk314

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.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by hbk314

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.

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.

[APG]

Originally Posted by hbk314

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 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.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by hbk314

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

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.