Should've been a shut-out.

[gth816f]

How do we know the play was whistled dead prior to what should have been a change in possession? I was at the game and didn't have the privilege of hearing the whistle. It looked to me that no ref waved his arms to stop the play until 90 was on his way, but I really don't know. I've seen similar calls before where the recovering team was awarded the ball but not allowed to advance the ball due to "inadvertent" whistle.

It doesn't matter when the whistle blew is what I'm saying. I was a little confusing, but when I said "the play was ruled dead at that point", I meant they retroactively declared the play dead at the time of the fumble/dropped pass(by rule, because you can't have a play continue after an incomplete pass). Because of this, nothing that happened after that point in the play mattered, so the replay booth could do nothing.

 

[ncjacket]

The ref was waving his arms and the whistle sounded about the time the ball was recovered. Pretty close either way, but it was pretty clear the ref had stopped the play. Now whether he should have is another story.

 

[floridajacket]

No, they couldn't have. This has been gone over a million times on this board. Once a play is ruled dead, everything after that is completely invalid. It doesn't matter when the whistle was blown, it could have been blown after we took the ball all the way into the endzone, because the play ended up being ruled dead on the field prior to the ball being picked up. It is, by rule, impossible for the replay booth to overturn it after that.

I do remember an NFL game where the ball was given to the other team from replay after the play had been "ruled dead." At least in the NFL, I'm pretty sure the refs can rule it dead all they want but its the whistle that signals "nothing after this can change."

And even if that's wrong, it was still piss poor officiating to not let the play go on. If it were a closer game, taking away a huge TD return like that would have been decisive.

 

[TechGator1066]

And even if that's wrong, it was still piss poor officiating to not let the play go on. If it were a closer game, taking away a huge TD return like that would have been decisive.

The ACC refs sure as hell let the play go on during the UGAy game last year on the Reggie fumble. I guess it is too much to ask for them to do the same for us.

 

[ncjacket]

Well, I don't know if it was a fumble or not, but I think you do want the refs to be decisive and call what they see. If they don't, then we're replaying every play. He evidently thought he saw very clearly that it was not a catch and from the replays I've seen, at least, you can't tell anything different. What you don't want it for them to call what they think happened. But when they're sure, they need to make the call imo. That's not to say they won't get some wrong, but otherwise there's no reason to have refs on the field.

 

[gth816f]

I do remember an NFL game where the ball was given to the other team from replay after the play had been "ruled dead." At least in the NFL, I'm pretty sure the refs can rule it dead all they want but its the whistle that signals "nothing after this can change."

And even if that's wrong, it was still piss poor officiating to not let the play go on. If it were a closer game, taking away a huge TD return like that would have been decisive.

There is a "fumble and immediate recovery" rule in the NFL, whereby officials can review a play in which a pass is ruled incomplete and the ball is immediately recovered by the opposing team, and overturn the judgment on the field. No such rule exists in the NCAA. So in the NFL, they could have reviewed this play, but in the NCAA they cannot.

And it would be piss poor officiating to let the play go on if the official felt it was incomplete. Basically you are saying you want the official to purposely make a wrong call. He saw an incompletion, so he called it. Instant replay does not replace officiating. Oftentimes, a play that looks like it might be overturned cannot be because there is not "conclusive indisputable video evidence", so by not calling what he sees an official could be screwing a team over.

 

[floridajacket]

There is a "fumble and immediate recovery" rule in the NFL, whereby officials can review a play in which a pass is ruled incomplete and the ball is immediately recovered by the opposing team, and overturn the judgment on the field. No such rule exists in the NCAA. So in the NFL, they could have reviewed this play, but in the NCAA they cannot.

And it would be piss poor officiating to let the play go on if the official felt it was incomplete. Basically you are saying you want the official to purposely make a wrong call. He saw an incompletion, so he called it. Instant replay does not replace officiating. Oftentimes, a play that looks like it might be overturned cannot be because there is not "conclusive indisputable video evidence", so by not calling what he sees an official could be screwing a team over.

I based my comments on the talk I've heard about refs letting the play go on with a questionable incompletion/fumble. Not if it's obvious, but I would like the refs not to blow the whistle on borderline calls and then talk about it after the play. It only takes one wrong ref to completely screw up a call with a whistle and that should be taken into account.

 

[gth816f]

I based my comments on the talk I've heard about refs letting the play go on with a questionable incompletion/fumble. Not if it's obvious, but I would like the refs not to blow the whistle on borderline calls and then talk about it after the play. It only takes one wrong ref to completely screw up a call with a whistle and that should be taken into account.

Right, but say we go to the replay and it's very difficult to tell if it was a fumble or not. Way too close to say decisively. Now, because the ref didn't blow the whistle since it was a close play, we get the touchdown, even though the referee in the best position to make the call thought that it was an incompletion. The video might even show it, and everyone could think it, but because it has to be "conclusive and indisputable evidence", the wrong call would still stand because the ref chose not to make what he thought was the right one.

In the end, instant replay is there only to correct errors when possible. The refs still have to call it the way they see it, they can't just start not making calls because they think the replay system will bail them out. Instant replay is no doubt a great enhancement, but it doesn't replace actual refereeing.

 

[ncjacket]

But the point is, to that ref it was clear or he wouldn't have made the call. If he didn't know, he wouldn't have blown it dead. To us it may be a questionable call...to him it was obvious. So he blew the whistle as he should do.