71Bear said:Take a peek at Section 5, Article I, subsection (a) #3. That is what caught my eye and applies in this instance.OaktownBear said:71Bear said:http://www.ncaapublications.com/productdownloads/FBC19.pdfOaktownBear said:71Bear said:IMO, there was definitely a reasonable doubt. Quite frankly, I have no idea if the call was right or wrong. That is the purpose of review. I do not have access to all the camera angles that review officials use to determine whether a play is correctly called.OaktownBear said:71Bear said:Let's put it this way. If the shoe were on the other foot, would you have wanted the clock stopped for a review?kaplanfx said:This paragraph says it all:Big Dog said:
espn puts the onus on Ole Miss AD. Larry got some explainin' to do.
https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/27669968/ole-miss-questions-pac-12-refs-bizarre-finish
"I thought at the very least, it should have been buzzed and reviewed," Luke said. "We didn't have a timeout. We could not spike it. Our only option was to get a quarterback sneak and get the ball off.''
It's their fault for getting in that situation, and they want a magical bailout from the refs?
Of course, you would.
Bottom line, the P12 blew it. That's two weeks in a row at a key point in a game.
I still think inter-conference games should be officiated by neutral refs.....
Anyway, it will be interesting to read the P12's point of view tomorrow when they explain why the refs did not review the play. I would anticipate another apology for screwing up.
I wouldn't. Of course I would want it reviewed if the shoe were on the other foot. However, the rule is not that you review every close play. Or even a close play at the end. Maybe it should be, but it isn't. They can only review when they have reasonable evidence an error was made. Do you think they had that? They would have to have had that on basis of watching it real time because they didn't have time to get the replay, review it, and call it down. I would like to know if anyone has reviewed that fast.
The call was correct. There was no evidence of error. There was no time to review it. They followed the rules and made the right call. No apology necessary
I do agree that every close play should not be reviewed. However, in this instance, yes, they should have reviewed the play. It could have had a material impact on the outcome of the game.
Most annoying are Cal fans who cry about every call that goes against Cal saying there is some kind of officiating conspiracy against Cal (one poster suggested there were eight questionable calls in the UW game and all of them went against the Bears - no matter how bad the P12 officials are and they are definitely the worst in college football, the odds of that happening are astronomical). Anyway, when a call like the one today occurs, these same people sing the praises of the officials. That leads me to believe the rule these fans use determine whether a call is correct or incorrect is based on whether it benefits Cal. Hmmmm. 'nuff said about that.
I prefer an honest approach - sometimes you win, sometimes you lose but no one is trying to put their thumb on the scales (except, of course, the guy that tilted things in favor of SC last year).
Anyway, we will have to agree to disagree on this one........
In this case, though, you are just getting the rule wrong, and since you are criticizing the refs, you have to get the rule right. The rule is not "reasonable doubt" that the play was called correctly. It is not having a material impact on the game. (Though you are not supposed to review if it does not have that.). The rule is reasonable evidence to believe an error was made. Not might have been made. Not, that was close. Lets take a look and see if it is right. And they did not have benefit of getting even one look at a replay. We all saw that after. I'm sure they were trying to get a replay up to see if they should buzz down. I'm fairly certain that if Ole Miss had a time out and used it, they would have run a slow motion, and then buzzed for replay, and then confirmed at the very least being inconclusive. But they didn't have a chance to do that.
I believe in being honest too. I thought they should review it UNTIL I SAW THE RULE. The implication being thrown around by ESPN and the AD that the PAC-12 cheated is wholly unwarranted.
And as to ESPN, they are full of it for another reason. They obviously don't have a goal line camera showing the ball cross the plane. If they did, they would have shown it. They either don't have the angle at all which begs the question why don't they? Or worse, they have the angle and it doesn't show the ball crossing the plane but they aren't showing it because it doesn't fit their narrative.
The conference should tell them, we followed the procedure. We did not have evidence in the first 8 seconds to call for a review. Our review of all available angles shows the call would have been confirmed. If ESPN has another angle that they made available to our officials, we are happy to review and issue a modified statement if warranted.
The rule book......
Thank you. I assume you are posting as a public service since the rule for stopping play and initiating review says exactly what I said. Section 5, Article I, subsection (a) for those that want to read it themselves
71 - all 3 of the conditions need to apply. Not just one of them. Look at subsection 2 which merely states that the play is reviewable. They clearly don't mean they are supposed to review every play that is reviewable. So to review a play the review official needs 1. Reasonable evidence that the initial call was an error. 2 that the call fits into a category that by rule they can review and 3. The call has a direct impact on the game.
3 merely means they do not do things like review a spot to make it 4th and 18 instead of 4th and 19