My problem with replays (long)

Dec 30, 2019, 9:45 PM

I'll try to be brief, so bear with me. I want to look at the "controversial" calls from Saturday night and illustrate the good and bad of replay. I use the word "controversial" advisedly because it's a creation of the media to cause dissent.

Case #1: the reversal on the Dobbins "TD catch." This is an easy one. The official on the spot thought that Dobbins caught the ball for a TD, but since scoring plays are reviewed, it was looked at by the replay officials. The "ruling on the field was a catch." Even though JK made a great effort, he did not have complete possession of the ball when it hit the ground. Movement of the ball was evident, so the call was reversed. As I said, this was an easy call... unless you're an OSU fan, in which case you ignore the obvious and scream foul. This is an ideal use of the replay.

Case #2: the reversal on the Ross "completion, fumble, recovery, touchdown." Plays like this frustrate the he ll out of me by definition. The officials are trained to allow the play to continue, and "sort it out later." So, whether the HL thought it was a completion/fumble or incomplete pass, action continued. But by current rules, there had to be a "ruling on the field" and it was "completion/fumble/recovery/TD" even though the HL had no idea if that was his opinion of the play... he just knew what he was supposed to do. So, what's the standard now for the replay team? Is this a case of "indisputable video evidence" necessary to overturn the ruling on the field? How can it be? The official didn't really make a call... he just allowed the action to continue. In my opinion, there should not be a "ruling on the field" in plays of this type. The play should simply be referred to the replay team for a decision. This would avoid the "overturn" mentality which is going to pi$$ off one fan base or the other. In this specific case, the rule is quite clear-- the receiver did not "complete the catch" (he was also being pushed back from his intended direction from the moment he touched the ball, so CLEARLY his forward motion had been stopped). In fact the only "officiating expert" who disagreed with the call was Terry McCallife (sp?), and frankly he was a crappy NFL official anyway.

Case #3: Justyn Ross's helmet being ripped off. Note that no call was made on this one because a "hand to the face" is not reviewable. However, it was clear on replay that OSU CB Ocuda's hand went under Ross' face mask, continued across his face and to the roof of his helmet, and then ripped the helmet off his head. The problem I have with this one is that it is "not reviewable" without a call on the field... but "targeting" is reviewable without a call on the field.

So, in case #1, the call of TD is waved off because all scoring plays are reviewed. In case #2, if you only watch the play in "real time" I defy any intelligent being to tell me that it was anything but a bang-bang incomplete pass. Don't take my word for it... watch it in real time. And, in case #3, that would be a non-factor unless the official on the field saw the hand go under the grill.

Finally, what about the Targeting call against Trevor Lawrence? This was not called on the field... please don't ask me how, because it was textbook. Should plays like this be reviewed even though they are not called on the field? You be the judge. I'm sure my OSU friends have an opinion. I can't tell you how many have told me that there's NFW it was Targeting. I respond by asking them to define Targeting, but they just say "that wasn't it." Sorry, guys, but by the written statement of the rule, that was Targeting. Should the OSU player have been ejected? Ah, that's another question. I personally think there should be different levels of that penalty (kind of like roughing vs running into the kicker). If a player clearly launches himself head-first into a defenseless player, then I think ejection may be called for. If helmet-to-helmet contact occurs during a "football play" then perhaps not. But at the end of the day, there are so many rules that the game can't be officiated consistently, so why add one more?

So, what's the answer? Is there an answer? All my OSU fans tell me that the obvious answer is that OSU got screwed on all of the calls. But, they also didn't think that the two guys hitting Will Spiers in mid-air with both feet off the ground was NOT roughing the kicker... and they don't have a clue what constitutes offensive holding... so there you go!

Thanks for listening. Go Tigers! Beat LSU!

flag link

military_tech

thumb_down

thumb_up

My problem with replays (long)

Re: My problem with replays (long)

I don't like targeting calls

I agree with you...

TigerBoard POTD