Can someone explain it?
- The only time Arkansas possessed the ball was when they snapped and punted it. The guy that fell on the fumble never possessed the ball.
- It was ruled that Arkansas got possession of the ball but it was spotted at the original line of scrimmage? That's because of a holding call?
If it is because of the inadvertent whistle then why don't they just re-kick? Admit that it is a cluster by the refs and kick again.
I'd also like to see refs allow the play to finish. I know it can be tough and they lose sight of the ball and they think the play is dead but there have been so many times where the whistle blows when a big play could have occurred. Alexander had the ball and could have had a pretty good return last night but stopped because of that whistle.
Comments
Someone said in the other thread that they actually walked off the penalty yards, and that was where they got the ball. So the punt was erased just like an INT or regular fumble would be erased by a penalty near the line. Supposedly the refs actually got it right (eventually) but the process didn't do them any favors in the eyes of the fans/viewers.
My question is did they originally throw the flag, or did they see the foul on replay and then throw it? I understand that one of the few times you can call a foul off of video is on kicking plays, but it just highlights the absurdity of the rule. If you didn't see it, you didn't see it, just like every other penalty.
tl;dr: The whistle had nothing to do with it, whether inadvertent or not, and it didn't matter who possessed/recovered it. The main problems here (to me) was the lack of explanation from the refs for 12 mins and some bad rules in the book.
The penalty was part of the entire mess. At the end of the play, they gave the ball to us, and said it was a 10 yard holding penalty that moved us back to the 36. And then Bielema came out for his conference with the refs.
I know, the question was which part? I found my answer and posted image below.
This is my understanding, and it's probably wrong:
Because there was both an inadvertent whistle and a penalty on the same play, the result is to enforce the penalty from the original line of scrimmage and replay the down. But in this case the penalty yardage was sufficient to give Arkansas a first down, so they retained possession.
If there had only been an inadvertent whistle, we would have gotten the ball where Edmunds recovered it and been backed up ten yards from that spot. If there had only been a penalty, same deal. Because there was both, it essentially reset the play and applied the penalty from the original line of scrimmage, which gave Arkansas a first down.
Was the penalty called live or off of replay? The whistle should have no bearing on the penalty (meaning the rules are messed up). The game is replaying right now (8am Fri) on the U, with 8 mins left in the 2nd. I'll see if I can figure it out. We didn't get very many useful replays on TV either.
Looks like they're going to cut most of that dead time out, but I also just noticed that there is no mention of any flag being thrown on the field, by the announcers or by the usual graphic in the score box. Looks like the penalty call showed up late? "Oh, by the way, here's a penalty that's just a deus ex machina, carry on."
Sounds like the very last thing the white hat said was the most correct thing of the whole sequence, but didn't carry enough explanation and everyone was already fired up at that point.
I know I had retrieved my pitchfork and torch from the closet at that point. My wife had to calm me down because I was scaring the dogs with how much I was cursing at the TV.
... me. every freaking game. poor dogs.
My friend who was watching the game with me said during the first replay that he saw a flag fly closer to the line of scrimmage (which would have been in the background on the first replay angle). I didn't see it and the TV guys didn't mention it but I think after eventually learning all the facts, the refs did finally get the call right. They just didn't do a good job of explaining why and I thought they were close to losing control of the game.
(edit: just read GobblerPhoenix post)
I'd like to know when the foul was called; all the reviewable blocking fouls I can find seem to involve onside kicks.
Rule 12 - Instant Replay, Article 8 - Reviewable Fouls:
The following plays are reviewable and the replay official may create a foul
when there is no call by the on-field officials:
a. Player making a forward pass or forward handoff when beyond the
neutral zone or after a change of possession (Rule 12-3-2-c and –d).
b. Player beyond the neutral zone when kicking the ball (Rule 12-3-4-b).
c. Blocking by Team B players before they are eligible to touch the ball on
an onside kick (Rule 12-3-4-e).
d. The number of players on the field for either team during a live ball
(Rule 12-3-6-a).
e. Illegal touching of a forward pass by an originally eligible receiver who
has gone out of bounds. (Rules 12-3-2-b and 12-3-3-h).
f. Player who is out of bounds touching a free kick that had not been
touched inbounds (Rule 12-3-4-a).
g. Forward pass that becomes illegal as a second pass after an on-field
ruling of a backward pass is reversed (Rule 12-3-2-e).
h. A clear, obvious and egregious targeting foul (Rule 12-3-5-b).
I believe the refs said that Arkansas possessed the ball though?
The on-field explanation was a complete botch job by a referee who looked out of his depth all night. The official statement by the Big 12 (see my link below) clearly explains that the rule was correctly enforced, but incorrectly explained.
Big 12 officiating
See the thread that starts here
Very well articulated, and I agree it was the right call. However, I think it's incorrect that the inadvertent whistle didn't matter. I think the only way Arkansas ends up with the ball back is if there's both the holding call and the inadvertent whistle on the same play.
Yeah, I heard it explained both ways last night from different people. It appears the whistle might have mattered more than we thought. The first explanation I heard from a rules guy (on Twitter, I think) was that the when holding happened, anything else that happened was negated. Ultimately, it does indeed seem like a really unique situation in which a convoluted rule came into play but was correctly applied, much to the chagrin of most of our livers and blood pressure, compounded by the utterly inept job by the on-field crew's explanation. That was a situation in which we really needed Ron Cherry. That man is nothing if not pedantic.
This answers my question. The flag was thrown during the play, not after or by replay. To me this would (should) indicate that the whistle didn't matter (thanks GobblerPhoenix):
The whistle mattered. If there wasn't an IW, VT would have the ball. The penalty would have been enforced where Adoinis would have been tackled.
I agree That's the rule, but in my opinion, if the rules are correctly written, it shouldn't matter (unless it worked in our favor;)
The whistle still had a significant effect on the play. The timing of the flag (as far as if it was before or after the muff) doesn't matter. Without the inadvertent whistle, VT gets possession and the penalty is marked off from that spot regardless of when it occurred . It truly was a unique combination of factors that led to Arkansas keeping the ball and getting a first down. Even taking off my O&M goggles, I think the result is an extremely unfair aspect of the rules even if it was correct applied.
Sounds like it was a bad explanation, a bad rule, or both.
I can understand if there was some kind of holding before the punt, though I didn't see it. Don't see how the inadvertent whistle affected anything at all if that's the case. You don't have to even discuss what happened in the muffed punt in that case.
I just know I hated that Bulimia was explaining the rules to the refs, and it seemed to be having an influence. Not exactly confidence inspiring.
EDIT: Due to Beaver_Hokie's explanation, below, I now see why the inadvertent whistle mattered. Seems like the refs should have a better grasp on it, though, and it seemed that way for several calls in this game.
I'm still reading a lot of comments on here that aren't understanding the situation.
If the ref DOES NOT blow an inadvertent whistle, VT has the ball.
The penalty was after the kick (it is 99.9% of the time) and if you look where the flag was on the field it was after the kick. As soon as the ball touches the kicker's foot, VT is technically in possession and any flag would be enforced from the end of the return. So the flag should have been enforced from wherever Adonis would have been tackled.
However, the refs determined that there was an inadvertent whistle (which is the worst thing you can EVER do as a football ref) which on a kicking play means the play is dead and replayed - however, the penalty is still enforced because they don't want a penalty to just be cancelled. A rule that I think will be changed now.
I'm seeing a lot of "no matter what we wouldn't have gotten the ball because of the penalty" but we would have, because the hold happened after the kick. It should have been VT's ball if the call is made on the field correctly (no Inadvertent whistle).
The fact that we had possession immediately after the whistle also makes me wonder if they botched the review as well.
You have explained it the same as I understand it. I just don't think a bang bang play like that should be ruled an inadvertent whistle any more than a ref blowing a play dead when in fact it was a fumble, review can give the ball if immediately recovered.
I think the rule needs to be changed such that if there is an inadvertent whistle on any change of possession, the job of the replay official is to award possession and everything can be sorted out from there. The whole "inadvertent whistle mulligan" needs to go away. The purpose of replay is to correct mistakes on the field, and there is arguably no bigger mistake than blowing the whistle to end a play that is not over.
Agree completely. I think the refs on the field knew that they completely blew it as well, and that is why they awarded VT the ball with the penalty enforced after their discussion. It was the fair thing to do.
Then Bert went on a rant, and I honestly think he just confused them to a point that they had to review it. I mean, he declined the penalty, actually negating the ONLY reason they got the ball back -so obviously he had no clue as well.
The problem with letting the replay officials sort it out is that players on the field have to be able to trust the ref's whistle to signal that a play is over.
If you put it in the replay officials' hands, the players can never really trust the whistle. What if a play is blown dead, and the replay officials rule it inadvertent? The player who picks it up after the whistle and runs with it gets rewarded.
there already is a rule governing the replay of a situation like this.
Rule: 12-3-3-c: Reviewable plays include "loose ball ruled dead when there is a clear recovery in the immediate action..."
my problem is with the whole conference with Bielema. it almost created this parallel narrative that got the field officials completely away from the fact that they could review the immediate action recovery and assess the penalty against VT at the spot of recovery. nothing else should have transpired (i.e. timing of whistle, possession, or whatever) and IMO, is a moot point. they should have told Bielema, we made our ruling, challenge the immediate action recovery review if you want.
anyways, it didn't end up mattering...thankfully.
Beaver_Hokie,
Leg for explaining that. Now I get it.
But the rule seems to arbitrarily disadvantage one of the teams because of a ref error. Of course, so would a "do over", so I kind of see the logic there.
In this case, VT got the bad end of the deal.
It is truly insane to me that rules state they enforce a penalty on a play that is completely invalidated because of a mistake by an official. Even though a team can commit multiple penalties on a play and if the other team commits just 1, all the penalties offset and the down is replayed. Yet in a situation like this, the rules say the penalty takes precedence over a massive, admitted officiating error? I can't even explain how absurd I find that.
The funniest thing about all this was that it should've never happened. They never got the play off.
Ignoring that, Mike Pereira provides an alternate viewpoint:
So \_()_/
I agree with Pereira to the power of 10 and he explained it better than me. There should be no inadvertent whistle rule on this play.
Secondly, the inadvertent whistle rule needs to be amended to nullify any penalty that occurs during the play. This could mean nullifying offensive holding or something similar,but it would be more fair than calling a do-over and enforcing penalties.
Just when I think I have it figured out, something else gets thrown out there to confuse me again.
Here is my take on the situation. If there was an "inadvertent whistle" then the refs eventually got to the right decision per the rules.
However, I would argue that there was no inadvertent whistle. The ref clearly though the Arkansas player was down with possession, however during the following ref huddle they all determine that the original whistle was wrong and that the Arkansas player never had possession (which is correct). However, they should have ruled the call on the field being Arkansas recovery with a video review. That would have shown clear possession by VT and there would have been no inadvertent whistle.
The refs were trying to make the right call by adjusting the ruling prior to review, but that just made a bad call by the line judge into an "inadvertent whistle" and then screwed us over due to the technicalities in the rule book
Thoughts?
I think you're giving that crew a lot of credit.
Here are my thoughts: that was the correct ruling for a high school game. However, in college football, as Mike Pereira tweeted above, there's a specific rule about a clear and immediate recovery of a loose ball when the whistle sounds. And the whistle sounded the instant Adonis picked up the ball, to the point where one could almost argue that VT was in possession when the "inadvertant whistle" sounded, giving VT the ball at that spot. Technically the right call without video replay, but video replay is a thing. Poor form, Big12.
I'm more than a little salty this happened from the same conference that gave us refs who blew the CMU/OSU game.
The actual refs in that game were MAC. The replay crew was Big 12.
I was at a restaurant watching so I wasn't able hear what the commentators were saying, but from what I saw it seemed like those refs were absolutely clueless. The play happened before we got our appetizers and another play wasn't run until we got our entre.
The entire sequence, as explained in the Box Score at Hokiesports.com:
If only the refs had said this to start with...