I AM DONE WITH INSTANT REPLAY! THIS PLAY WHICH WOULD HAVE WON ESSENTIALLY WON THE GAME FOR VIRGINIA TECH IS NOT EVEN REVIEWED!! DONE!! pic.twitter.com/FPYqb2xOhe— 🔴 Yo Dino 🌽 (@brandonfrank09) December 31, 2019 " target="_blank">Twitter video
Forums:
DISCLAIMER: Forum topics may not have been written or edited by The Key Play staff.
Comments
Looks like I screwed up the embed - the all caps is not me
Except it was ruled as his forward progress being stopped. Which is bullshit since he was moving forward, but you can't challenge forward progress. If you are going to make an argument, know the context and the rules
But Tisdale has the ball way before they blow the play dead
Not to mention they spotted it ahead of where forward progress was supposedly stopped.
In any event it doesn't matter. Score more than 3 points on those two turnovers or simply get one stop on one of those long drives and we win the game.
I really don't like this argument, it takes blame away from bad officiating.
We did. We caused and recovered a fumble on 4th down to stop that drive.
The ridiculous part of your statement is that they spot the ball almost two yards past where he lost it. The refs blew this one big time no matter how you look at it.
Disagree. Refs gave him 2 yards add'l forward progress from where the ball is loose and recovered.....can't have it both ways.......can't say whistle blew and give them more forward progress. FuMan should've used a timeout to request/make/allow time for them review it.
They would not have reviewed it.
I'm saying that is the bullshit of the call, but everyone yelling at Fuente to challenge it can't make that argument because by definition that cannot be reviewed. The refs screwed us by calling it forward progress even though a). he was still moving forward and b). he fumbled before both being down and being stopped. The refs screwed us with the call, but for all of fuente's mistakes, there was nothing he could do here
I still think Fuente should've called a timeout and tried for a review. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I do believe that whether or not the ball carrier achieved the first down yardage is reviewable. Since it certainly appears that the ball came out before that line was crossed, we should have gotten the ball back on that play if the replay officials were competent. Either he fumbled and VT recovered, or his progress was stopped before the fumble, and therefore before the first down was not achieved.
by rule, you can challenge the spot. if that review shows the spot is wrong because the player didn't have the ball they thought he had, then they have to choose which fumble rule to apply; forward progress or live ball ruled dead.
The problem is an official told Fuente he couldn't challenge because it was ruled forward progress. In any other circumstance he calls the timeout or ask for a review.
It was just a complete shit show by the refs all day!
Look fam, the call was wrong. But unfortunately that's how the rule is written. If the ref's rule that forward progress is stopped (as opposed to ball carrier down on the ground) it is not reviewable. If you want to argue, the argument should be why did the refs rule that his forward progress was stopped. Since the refs didnt see Tisdale with the ball, they ruled it forward progress and there's no going back. It's an unfortunate situation for us. but it's not like we didn't have opportunities to win the game at other points
Yeah its unfortunate, but it's really odd to think that your forward progress can be called stoped when the ball doesn,t cross the 1st down line. I mean it would be similar to an option play where the QB keeps the ball, falls down but forward progress of the RB was stopped 3 yards down the field.
I really hated replay from the start, to many games in which replay makes a huge questionable call. And there are lots of stupid things that arent reviewable. In a game the other day a team got penalized for a reciever being covered, yet in replay he was not. The play should have been allowed. It's a simple thing to look at to see the formation. But that can't be reviewed.
I believe you are correct about the play not being reviewable because the ref said forward progress was stopped, but the frustrating part is that replay shows we had the ball before the ref deemed forward progress was stopped.
I don't even know if that's truly reviewable. I would give us less than a 5% chance of winning a review there. I do agree the refs clearly spotted the ball (and thus ruled his forward progress had stopped) 1-2 yards ahead of where Tisdale stripped the ball. It was a messed up play.
For the record, I'm fairly confident the receiver trapped the ball on the 4th and 7 earlier in the drive as well. However the quality and video angles for the entire game were beyond abysmal for whatever reason.
This is why rules evolve with technology. Maybe the question of forward progress should be reviewable. Spots are reviewable and forward progress is technically a spot.
I was listening to the game on my way home from work...the analysts made it seem as if we were gifted the fumble recovery before the 2nd fg....if this is true, maybe that's why we were screwed later....but also the analysts made it seem that both Tre and Damon missed very catchable throws...the one to Tre I believe would have lead to a TD....
They showed one angle where i felt the fumble could have been confirmed, but they never showed it again. You could see ball out and the runner not on the ground yet.
It was the second angle, overhead from the defensive side of the play. It clearly comes up and out while he's falling and not down. They then didn't show that angle anymore and continued to speculate the entire time. Plain and simple regardless of officiating if we catch extremely catchable balls and have more aggressive play calling (read not the same play calling on same downs on consecutive drives) in the second half we should have won that game by at least one score.
The forward progress argument is bullshit because when I rewatched the game last night, you could see Tisdale running with the ball before the zebras called forward progress and stopped the play. We got fucked.
I agree. Change of possession is reviewable and this was a change of possession before he was ruled down. They screwed it up period.
I think the end result is that the instant replay-challenge thing has been a failure because the officiating on the field is abysmal, they're rarely in position to make the right call on the field, and if instant replay-challenge does not have the video evidence to get it right, the call is wrong. In addition to missing the Tisdale strip of the ball, I do agree that the 4th and 7 pass play was probably a trap, but we'll never know because there was no official within view to make the ruling on the field, and there was no video evidence (at least from what they were showing on the ESPN broadcast) to overrule the call on the field. The NFL has the same problem. I really think the officiating was better before the instant replay-challenge thing. Also, the officials should be graded, and the bad ones should be booted, but that's a whole new matter. Aren't the officials in championship and bowl games supposed to be the best of the best? Maybe an additional official is warranted to try to get the call right on the field the first time.
Not to be a total homer, I do think the Kentucky fumble that led to our FG probably wasn't a fumble, but again there was no video evidence to overrule.
This. It looked like he very well could have been down, but the call on the field was a fumble and the replay angles weren't good enough to catch it.
Did the ref who ruled it a fumble make the right call? Who knows? But the call standing as called after review was right.
The problem with the 4th down catch is that E$ECPN did show 1 replay and you could clearly see the ball going through the receiver 's arms and hit the ground. With as much time as the replay official spent reviewing all of our catches near the ground, one would think they would do the same on that play.
One of my MANY problems with replay is the now accepted approach to "let the play continue" is in direct conflict with the always accepted notion that irrefutable evidence is needed to overturn the call on the field.
For example, the Clemson-OSU fumble/incomplete pass. Was the on-field call of a fumble made because of the influence of "let it play out" or because they thought it was truly the correct call? If the former, then the replay review should be one of the prevailing evidence, not irrefutable evidence (which is what appears to have been the approach by the booth). If the latter, then the reversal of the call probably shouldn't have been made - particularly considering the highly subjective and interpretive nature of rule.
FWIW, I have hated replay since day 1. And the implementation of it in college football is even worse than the NFL - with the supposed review of every play (except when it isn't - see 2019 Belk Bowl) or when the ball gets snapped before the review occurs. The end result is frequent delays for relatively inconsequential reviews, on-field referee indecision, 3:30+ game lengths, a diminished live game experience...the list is almost endless.
Overall I think I prefer having replay but I agree with you about letting it play out. I think we get a better product if the refs pretend replay doesn't exist.
Just curious...what positives do you think replay brings to the game and do you think those positives outweigh the negatives?
It seems to me the only hypothetical positive - getting the calls right - is highly debatable in practice. I personally don't see any evidence that games are being called any more accurately and consistently or fans (even disinterested fans) are any less frustrated with officiating. Yet the hypothetical negatives, for most part, have come to fruition.
Replay does get things right quite often. Usually it is a matter of inches. If we could go back to the 90s pre-HD, I may change my stance. But, since the fan is afforded the opportunity to see every blade of grass in super slow mo, not having the replay in this day in age would only result in rioting.
Fans have always believed they could see what actually happened - regardless of picture resolution. I can remember people arguing about the Immaculate Reception with absolute certainty.
I haven't seen any diminishment of fan "rioting" with instant replay. If anything, it's greater now because the expectation of perfection is implied with instant replay.
Sure, but now fans have the ability to replay, so if an official gets it wrong and doesn't use the technology available to the fan at home, that seems problematic as well.
Doesn't look like his forward progress ever stopped, so how could forward progress be called? 🤔
This is just an example of the ineptitude of college refs. I appreciate, but don't agree with the take a timeout comments. This happened right in front of me at the game and everyone saw it except the officials.
The forward progress stopped doesn't apply as the ref clearly spotted the ball well forward of where the ball was taken making that argument null.
The no replay isn't valid as this was a change of possession and could be reviewed under that premise and changed if a clear recovery. This is the refs not understanding how the rule applies or the context of this situation. Using this argument could apply on almost every tackle if taken out of context which it was here.
To me his feels like a Danny Coale caught the ball in reverse for the defense. Total BS and unfortunate.
Anytime you have Big X?? refs you can expect them to favor the offense. They clearly don't like defense in that conference.
Also, I feel like the Big X?? Refs have had something against VT since the Vick stomp back in the gator bowl. They made several comments after that game about how dirty VT was and maybe that rep stuck.
Interesting...more reason to complain about refs
This actually shouldn't be a complaint about the refs and more about the rules. Refs told us not to call a timeout to review because they could not review it by the rulebook.
Hope Fuente learned to stop trusting the refs
This is exactly the point you are missing. The refs told Fuente that assuming they understood the context of the rule. The ref stated that based on forward progress application and the point was you should be reviewing change of possession with clear recovery.
The refs did not even see Tisdale with the ball and assumed it was late. We should have made a bigger deal, but let's be honest how do you miss this with all the refs? I saw it clearly from the stands without instant replay and nearly lost my mind yelling.
The officiating crew struggled the entire game - one play they took forever to call a basic offsides on 90 of Kentucky.
But you can only review a call on the field. The call was forward progress stopped for a first down prior to fumble, which is not reviewable. Without the refs making a different call, I dont think there is any remedy.
So the refs are to blame for a bad initial call making it unreviewable and/or the rulebook for not allowing review on that call.
But isn't every turnover/potential turnover reviewable? I would think it could be reviewed who had possession when forward progress was stopped which I assume is when the official waves their arms?
Either way it was a pretty hectic sequence during a hurry up offense. At the very least they probably should have stopped play to discuss. VT wouldn't have argued because they may have gotten a turnover and UK wouldn't have argued because they would have gotten a breather.
Potential turnovers are only reviewed if the ruling on the field is a turnover. Same thing with TDs. A stop at the 1" is not reviewed.
Not accurate. If there is a clear recovery of a turnover that wasn't called on the field it can be reviewed.
I haven't heard a rule book specialist chime in yet, but it seems to me we could have challenged the spot of the ball which then may have opened up being able to review fumble prior to the phantom forward progress stopping. They would not be able to place the ball where they did AND say he didn't lose the ball prior to that point. So, worst case in my mind is we win challenge and they at least move ball back. But, it was so hectic in that hurry up I could see why we wouldn't have wasted a timeout without benefit of seeing multiple reviews.
Yea, you could challenge the line to gain. But (my guess based on the below) is that the first down would only be challengable, not the fumble.
Rules:
Note: rules from 2016/17.
According to this pamphlet, when forward progress is the call, a fumble is only reviewable if it was fumbled before defenders contact the ball carrier.
So, as long as the defense has made contact, the ball carrier can advance a ball they no longer possess 2-3 yards.
Got it.
This! How is this even possible??? I mean, I get it when you're calling the play dead, but when you realize the ball is back several yards and the guy you thought had it doesn't? You call the play on forward motion, but surely you have to try to figure out if the ball came out before that, since whoever was looking at the play missed it. And it's not like the guy who had it was running the opposite direction, he was laying on the ground, so you know pretty much exactly WHERE it happened. And if it's behind where you called the play for forward motion, a little bit of brain power tells you the ball was out before the forward motion play call.
By rule Fuente...or the replay officials...could have called for a review of the spot. if that review showed the spot was incorrect because the runner didn't have the ball they thought he had when the field refs called forward progress, they'd have had to choose between the forward progress fumble rule or the live ball ruled dead rule. I think that would have been a very worthwhile discussion.
nm
To those saying not reviewable because of the rules, I say what a load of crap. A coach should be able to challenge whether or not there was a turnover on any type of play. PERIOD. Its just too important a thing to say a potential turnover can't be challenged because of some "unreviewable" rule.
Heck, clearly need some rule changes. Anyone see the FSU bowl game with the kickoff rule? One FSU guy catches the ball and takes off, his buddy a few yards up gives the fair catch signal. Refs blow it dead, and what happens? The ball is spotted at the three yard line where the player caught it. Say what????? Still shaking my head over that one.
So its settled then, we have incompetent officials using hilariously stupid rules...........with all those officials on the field and instant replay who could have imagined it would get this messed up.
So, what's your problem with the call in the FSU game? That's a pretty reasonable rule. The gunners for the kicking team can't see the ball and have no idea where it is. Their only cues are the body language of the return team. If anybody calls for a fair catch, they have to avoid contact. If someone away from the ball is allowed to signal for a fair catch, and his teammate is still allowed to return the ball, that gives a huge unfair advantage to the return team, and will likely get someone hurt, when a guy really signals for a fair catch and gets his clock cleaned anyway, because the gunner thought he was faking it.
If it was a PUNT the call would be correct because a fair catch there gives possession at point it is caught. If it was a KICKOFF though, any fair catch inside the 25 results in first down at the 25. Since the stories I have read are that it was a kickoff, one of two things applies:
1) per your argument SOMEONE called for fair catch and if that is the call then they should have gotten it at the 25. or
2) the fair catch called by someone else was meaningless and therefore the receiving player did NOT call fair catch and since his knee touched the ball was placed at the three.(presuming his knee DID in fact touch before he started running)
BUT IT Can't be both! (for my opinion, for strict rule interpretation it should have been placed at the three BUT if he had instead of kneeling had kept running, it should be wherever he finally went down no matter how far he ran-one yard or a TD; for the spirit of the rule, (player safety) they should have said YES "A" fair catch was signaled and the ball should have been placed at the 25.)
In no way did his knee touch, he caught it standing and took off running until the whistle was QUICKLY blown. Obviously should have been placed at the 25 by me, which is what had my head spinning when they spotted it at the three yard line.
Without looking at the rule, IIRC, it is a rule infraction.
If the ball is not caught within 2 steps of the player calling for the fair catch, then the rule has been violated.
I understand when a guy calls a fair catch but it's more than that, he's trying to stay by the letter of the rule but instead stYs within the spirit.
That was neither, it was attaempt to obfuscate a rule designed to enhance safety in a way that could hurt players In the future.
Oh, I missed that detail (kickoff vs punt), and see your point now. But I would suspect the referees still might have made the correct decision (I can only guess, having not seen the play in question). I say this because attempting to return the ball after the fair catch signal is given is a penalty, and penalty yardage would be assessed. If I recall correctly, I've seen a reciever who ran after making the fair catch signal penalized for delay of game. If this happened at the 6 yard line, the penalty would be be half the distance, putting the ball at the 3.
While reviewing the calls by the booth CAN and has been helpful in many cases, there are several issues with it in the "real world"
1) Depending on the TV coverage of the game, there may only be one or two viewing angles available vs. what I'm sure in the national championship game will be a dozen or more. This leads to the teams who garner TV viewership being given unfair advantages in better review possibilities than say a G% game between middling teams.
2) There seems to be a vast difference in how the term "indisputable video evidence" is defined. Exhibit one clearly being the Danny Coale catch in the Sugar Bowl. While in my opinion it WAS clearly a catch, I could have lived with it being called no catch on the field and the replay ref letting that call STAND based on not having enough to overturn. I would have DISAGREED because I think the replay clearly showed it as a catch but that would have been a judgment call that honest people could argue. But the fact that it was CALLED a catch on field and THEN was overturned was complete horsesh## because there is NO way that you could say that there was indisputable video evidence of it NOT being a catch!
3) I'm not sure how many people are involved in replay review-whether it's ONE official or a few. I know in some leagues the review is handled by the leagues's central office while others I think is at the game itself. In my opinion it should be a three man team reviewing calls with majority rule to overturn the call on the field. And the replay officials could be from a mix of conferences to avoid tendencies of one conference or another "calling the game differently".
4) As someone else noted, there should be some consequences for referees (including replay officials) who make blatantly bad calls.
Until they address some of the above issues, there will continue to be travesties that affect the outcome of games. Ask Wisconsin about the officiating in the Rose Bowl.
The fumble isn't the only thing that was caught on video which the referees didn't take action on.
Tone was set early, we knew what we were getting into.
I'm a little disappointed there is no push back from Babcock to change this silly "One Hour Rule". Once you and/or your team arrive at the stadium to representing your team for game day/game day preparations, you should be held accountable for any actions from the time you step off the bus.
It shouldn't matter if you get off the bus and are in the parking lot, under the depth of the stadium, in the tunnel, or doing on field warm-ups.
It makes it even more mind boggling they allowed this since all of his actions were intentional and caught on camera like he knew the rule and planned it that way knowing he was immune.
You must not have watched at home. Whit got into with UK's AD and the Belk bowl official in the tunnel prior to the game.
Now, that's a convo for which I would love to see the transcript. The video was too brief and I suck at reading lips, but I do know Whit was NOT happy.
I've never seen him that animated either in public or private before.
As soon as I saw that I knew we wouldn't be playing Kentucky in basketball again any time soon.
I did see the pre-game convo they showed on air, but there wasn't much in that 3 second clip or acknowledgement regarding the incident on his behalf afterwards.
Not sure if it's his place, but it would be nice to even see something as small as a tweet suggesting off season conversation regarding "addressing officials responsibilities extending to pre-game on site actions of players/teams."
Its completely asinine he was allowed to play after punching an opposing player inside the stadium before the game. There have been situations in these bowl games where players were disqualified based on events that happened in the days leading up to the game. This was literally in the pregame workouts. Fans were in the stadium. He should have been ejected.
This guy carried himself like a jackass all game, too. Talked a bunch of shit to his own teammates for his own bad play throughout the game. This is the kind of guy who is going to be a locker room cancer wherever he ends up playing down the line. His mouth is going to write checks his body cannot cash.
I was reminded of a mix of Antonio Brown and Pacman Jones, with just a hint of Marcus Vick
Hoping he has nowhere near the success those first two had in the NFL.
For those who missed it:
Can we talk about the guy in the white shirt with a chicken finger in his mouth breaking up the fight? Because that to me is impressive multi tasking.
Assistant coach has a chicken wing in his mouth...
This just blows my mind, that this happened without penalty.
We need to get the Ryan Willis FaceTime video for an alternate angle.
I will say this much to cap off this discussion: I did not think the refs were horrendous in this game. There were a few bad circumstances and the forward progress call was head scratching. The other bad call though, the phantom PI that negated the interception and led to KU getting 7, was absolutely understandable given that ref's point of view (from the back it looked like we through the receiver to the ground).
You do know that just because you are a "civil" engineer you don't have to play nice all the time, right?
I will give you this though. The ACC refs in the Notre Dame game set the standard for horrendous this season, with the twitter picture of the ref 3 yards directly behind the Notre Dame player pulling the Tech player backwards with his fully extended arm going number 1 on my hit parade of bad calls, and combined with the "oh yeah, we blew the roughing the passer call" setting that standard. So yeah, these refs were a bit shy of that mark.
I guess as tech fans we just have to accept the Danny Coale curse and expect the usual load of bad calls every season and hope our team gets good enough to win despite them, which we weren't this year.
I maybe should have worded it that the refs were not horrible when relatively compared to what we have come to expect in college football. In general I think officiating is pretty bad, but not worthy of whining about every week.
Could have challenged the spot of the ball. That definitely is reviewable despite the "forward progress". Where would they have spotted the ball?