College Football FBS/FCS discussion thread

[IndyBison]

There was an official on the sideline that was in perfect position and immediately threw his beanbag signifying a catch and fumble. I really don't like that the play was reversed when there wasn't anything on the replay that says otherwise.

Sent from my moto z3 using Tapatalk

As I've said before, we don't know if he felt it was a catch or if it was so close he was letting the play continue because he wasn't 100% certain. Either way he throw his bean bag. Replay takes a different view depending on that decision. They may still have ended up with the same result.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

[CAS4127]

They are all connected via O2O radios. Something like this though could go from the covering official to the referee who then communicates with the replay official on the sideline.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

Right, understand that, but do on-field officials tell replay that they, in this instance, let pay go but thought it wasn’t a catch? If that’s the case, then I lose a bit of confidence in replay decision. IMO, on-field officials shouldn’t communicate their thought patterns to replay official. To do so taints the replay official’s review. Hope you understand what I’m getting at.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[IndyBison]

Right, understand that, but do on-field officials tell replay that they, in this instance, let pay go but thought it wasn’t a catch? If that’s the case, then I lose a bit of confidence in replay decision. IMO, on-field officials shouldn’t communicate their thought patterns to replay official. To do so taints the replay official’s review. Hope you understand what I’m getting at.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

They very much tell the replay official what was ruled. It determines what they can and can't rule on. For example, if a receiver steps out of bounds and then is first to touch it but the official said there was contact then replay can only confirm if there was contact. They NEED to know that information. Some things are required to be announced on PA to be considered (i.e. there is no pass interference because the ball was tipped). Replay can only get involved if that ruling is announced and then they can only review of the pass was touched. That's what happened in the Bison playoff several years ago.

Without replay this is likely a when in doubt situation and supposed to be ruled incomplete. I assume replay applies the same logic of they are told when in doubt on the field. They could still determine it was definitely a catch in their judgement and this it would have stood regardless of what the on field official ruled.

When I saw it live in real time my first reaction was incompleta. He didn't have it long enough. Not sure if my grader would agree or if the replay grader on this play agreed.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

[CAS4127]

They very much tell the replay official what was ruled. It determines what they can and can't rule on. For example, if a receiver steps out of bounds and then is first to touch it but the official said there was contact then replay can only confirm if there was contact. They NEED to know that information. Some things are required to be announced on PA to be considered (i.e. there is no pass interference because the ball was tipped). Replay can only get involved if that ruling is announced and then they can only review of the pass was touched. That's what happened in the Bison playoff several years ago.

Without replay this is likely a when in doubt situation and supposed to be ruled incomplete. I assume replay applies the same logic of they are told when in doubt on the field. They could still determine it was definitely a catch in their judgement and this it would have stood regardless of what the on field official ruled.

When I saw it live in real time my first reaction was incompleta. He didn't have it long enough. Not sure if my grader would agree or if the replay grader on this play agreed.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

I’m not talking about “announced” ruling, I’m asking whether on-field officials tell replay guy, basically, “ignore on-field announcement, I just let this play out so you could review.”. Can you get where that might skew what replay guys decides?

If on-field guy doesn’t say anything about his/her thought process and just says “review announced call please”, that makes a difference to me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[IndyBison]

I’m not talking about “announced” ruling, I’m asking whether on-field officials tell replay guy, basically, “ignore on-field announcement, I just let this play out so you could review.”. Can you get where that might skew what replay guys decides?

If on-field guy doesn’t say anything about his/her thought process and just says “review announced call please”, that makes a difference to me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

And I said that would be communicated because it has an impact on how the replay official needs to look at it. The rule very specifically states the when in doubt situation on that play is incomplete unless you have replay then let it play out ruled as catch/fumble. In that case he wasn't sure it was a catch so then replay would look at it and make the decision of catch/no catch on his own. If the covering official felt it was a catch then replay uses indisputable video evidence needed to overturn it.

This is not black and white so one answer isn't necessarily right and one is wrong. You want to defer to the on field official as the starting point so you need to know what his actual ruling is.

If you don't like this approach then you don't like replay. If you think there is an absolute right and wrong on every play you will never be happy with the game. If you think replay is the perfect cure all then you will be continually disappointed. Nothing about football is perfect. That is the beauty of the sport. Everyone is striving for perfection but nobody ever involved in any game ever achieves it.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

[IndyBison]

BTW...thank you to everyone for a very civil conversation and asking legitimate questions.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

[NDSUSR]

BTW...thank you to everyone for a very civil conversation and asking legitimate questions.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

It would be pretty entertaining if these conversations were public and available to fans.

[Professor Chaos]

It would be pretty entertaining if these conversations were public and available to fans.

Well... in some cases they are.

[White hat forgets that mic is hot] "We're gonna hafta review that for PR purposes..."

[CAS4127]

BTW...thank you to everyone for a very civil conversation and asking legitimate questions.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

And thanks for your expert input/feedback, Brian.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[IndyBison]

Well... in some cases they are.

[White hat forgets that mic is hot] "We're gonna hafta review that for PR purposes..."

Some can be quite interesting. If we ever meet in person I'll share some over a drink. Most are downright boring and just fact sharing discussions and confirming enforcement/result. You would get bored listening.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk