ADVERTISEMENT

According to NCAA rules...

R

razzaba

Freshman
Nov 12, 2011
153
72
28
That play should have been reviewable. WTF?!?!

Look at Section 3, Article 4, B (page 8). From the NCAA 2015 Instant Replay Case Book. Reviewable calls include "Player beyond the neutral zone when kicking the ball."

http://www.ncaapublications.com/productdownloads/FBC15.pdf

You have GOT to be kidding me. The fact that they not only screwed up the call, but unless I am missing something, they also completely effed up in not reviewing the call using replay?!
 
  • Like
Reactions: soap - new and improved
strummingram said:
The announcers quickly agreed it was not reviewable.
Click to expand...

How is that relevant in any way?? Announcers are not paid to know the rules. That's not their job. I am an ice hockey referee, and I watch hockey games ALLLL the time where an announcer says something about the rules that is completely wrong.

Referees and replay officials are the only ones paid to understand and apply the rules.

My point is, it's there in black and white that the play was reviewable, when the officials told Fedora that it was NOT reviewable. So they got yet another thing wrong.
 
razzaba said:
How is that relevant in any way?? Announcers are not paid to know the rules. That's not their job. I am an ice hockey referee, and I watch hockey games ALLLL the time where an announcer says something about the rules that is completely wrong.

Referees and replay officials are the only ones paid to understand and apply the rules.

My point is, it's there in black and white that the play was reviewable, when the officials told Fedora that it was NOT reviewable. So they got yet another thing wrong.
Click to expand...
I agree we were robbed. I was just offering that fact of the announcers being ill-informed as well.
 
strummingram said:
I agree we were robbed. I was just offering that fact of the announcers being ill-informed as well.
Click to expand...
Gotcha. Announcers not knowing all of the rules/procedures, I expect. And it's not their job, so that's ok. Plus, I thought the announcers were great in drawing attention to it and pretty emphatically saying the call was wrong.

Referees on the other hand, that IS their job.
 
Or this raz:

The ACC maintains the offside call was not reviewable, despite NCAA Rule 12, Article 4 (b) stating that reviewable plays involving kicks include determining if a player is beyond the neutral zone when kicking the ball. Crafford, who was the closest player to the line of scrimmage, was clearly behind the line when Weiler made contact with the ball.

And the poor sob that tossed the falg is now in the Federal Witness Protection Program, for good reason.
 
I want someone to show the ACC morons this rule and have them explain why it was not reviewable.
 
Tom79 said:
Or this raz:

The ACC maintains the offside call was not reviewable, despite NCAA Rule 12, Article 4 (b) stating that reviewable plays involving kicks include determining if a player is beyond the neutral zone when kicking the ball. Crafford, who was the closest player to the line of scrimmage, was clearly behind the line when Weiler made contact with the ball.

And the poor sob that tossed the falg is now in the Federal Witness Protection Program, for good reason.
Click to expand...

So both NCAA rules, and their Instant Replay Casebook, state that the play should have been reviewed. Nice.
 
Tom79 said:
Or this raz:

The ACC maintains the offside call was not reviewable, despite NCAA Rule 12, Article 4 (b) stating that reviewable plays involving kicks include determining if a player is beyond the neutral zone when kicking the ball. Crafford, who was the closest player to the line of scrimmage, was clearly behind the line when Weiler made contact with the ball.

And the poor sob that tossed the falg is now in the Federal Witness Protection Program, for good reason.
Click to expand...

The worst thing is the ref told Switzer he could have named three guys who were offside. That lying sack of s--- should be publicly identified and should lose his job.

That said, would still have had a long way to go to tie it, including avoiding yet another red zone turnover. Clemson was better, but too bad the refs ruined a fun ending
 
  • Like
Reactions: GACMAN and Archer2
razzaba said:
How is that relevant in any way?? Announcers are not paid to know the rules. That's not their job. I am an ice hockey referee, and I watch hockey games ALLLL the time where an announcer says something about the rules that is completely wrong.

Referees and replay officials are the only ones paid to understand and apply the rules.

My point is, it's there in black and white that the play was reviewable, when the officials told Fedora that it was NOT reviewable. So they got yet another thing wrong.
Click to expand...
Yes , the announcers are the final authority over the rule book and clearly the ACC officials don't understand the rules....Bottom line the ACC officials are the laughing stock of the sports world yet again.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Realfreedom
EVERYTHING should be allowed to be reviewed in the last two minutes of the game. The damn clock stops in the last two minutes so why not review everything?
 
razzaba said:
That play should have been reviewable. WTF?!?!

Look at Section 3, Article 4, B (page 8). From the NCAA 2015 Instant Replay Case Book. Reviewable calls include "Player beyond the neutral zone when kicking the ball."

http://www.ncaapublications.com/productdownloads/FBC15.pdf

You have GOT to be kidding me. The fact that they not only screwed up the call, but unless I am missing something, they also completely effed up in not reviewing the call using replay?!
Click to expand...

Yeah...this isn't two-game suspension stuff. This crew should be fired.
 
berens007 said:
That said, would still have had a long way to go to tie it, including avoiding yet another red zone turnover. Clemson was better, but too bad the refs ruined a fun ending
Click to expand...

Ball on the 50 with more than a minute left. Can't guarantee a score but Carolina sure would've been in great position.
 
razzaba said:
How is that relevant in any way?? Announcers are not paid to know the rules.
Click to expand...

Actually not true. They had the former referee on there as well commenting on the play. He also said it wasn't reviewable.

It's actually not reviewable. The penalty can't be reviewed. What is allowed for review under that rule is if the kicking team recovered a kick, but was offsides and wasn't called.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BeezerHeel
topdecktiger said:
Actually not true. They had the former referee on there as well commenting on the play. He also said it wasn't reviewable.

It's actually not reviewable. The penalty can't be reviewed. What is allowed for review under that rule is if the kicking team recovered a kick, but was offsides and wasn't called.
Click to expand...
Your right the tv official did say that. But what is sad is you can review it if a kicking team recover the ball and was offsides. But can't when it's on-sides and the official blows the call. Just like in the real world. Rules and laws are ass backwards.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GACMAN
bobby121567 said:
Your right the tv official did say that. But what is sad is you can review it if a kicking team recover the ball and was offsides. But can't when it's on-sides and the official blows the call. Just like in the real world. Rules and laws are ass backwards.
Click to expand...
Neither the NCAA case book, nor the rule book, make that distinction.
 
  • Like
Reactions: soap - new and improved
razzaba said:
Neither the NCAA case book, nor the rule book, make that distinction.
Click to expand...
I know. But think about all the on-side kicks you have ever seen. Name one that has been reviewed when a flag was thrown for off sides when the kicking team recovers. Plus a good friend of mine use to be a ACC Side Judge. I asked him about that rule. And you won't like the answer.
 
bobby121567 said:
I know. But think about all the on-side kicks you have ever seen. Name one that has been reviewed when a flag was thrown for off sides when the kicking team recovers. Plus a good friend of mine use to be a ACC Side Judge. I asked him about that rule. And you won't like the answer.
Click to expand...

1. An offsides on a kicking team that recovers an onsides kick would be an extremely rare event.

2. We have to assume he knows the rules. He IS a former ACC ref, after all. ;)
 
TimmyBobby said:
You can't target either. Leading with the helmet caused the fumble on the helmet to helmet hit
Click to expand...
there was no fumble and no targeting , not one single person in the CFB business has mentioned targeting on that play. I mean G. Damn it's not like the call directly took away a TD , we still had a monumental effort ahead so STFU and enjoy the win.
 
tarheelbybirth said:
1. An offsides on a kicking team that recovers an onsides kick would be an extremely rare event.

2. We have to assume he knows the rules. He IS a former ACC ref, after all. ;)
Click to expand...
He was a good one. He did a lot of BCS Bowl Games. You know they pick the best from all the ACC crews to send a team of officials to the BCS game. But all the reviews I have ever seen was always when the kicking team was offsides. Never seen it the other way around.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 6666Heel
TimmyBobby said:
You can't target either. Leading with the helmet caused the fumble on the helmet to helmet hit
Click to expand...
he never had possession, the ball bounced off his chest before the carolina player got there.

the refs missed this call and others, it happens, but for the league to have irrefutable video evidence and still deny culpability is ridiculous.
 
  • Like
Reactions: soap - new and improved
I spoke to a friend who is a former Big East referee. The rule is written ambiguously but actually, we are all wrong.

Apparently, Bobby, you can't challenge anyone being offside or not offside - kicking team or receiving team. I think you were a saying you could challenge if the kicking team was offsides but it wasn't called, but not the other way around.

Apparently, the rule that I cited in the instant replay case book (and someone else cited in rule 12 of the rule book) allows you to challenge only if the person physically kicking the ball actually kicks it from beyond the line of scrimmage when he kicks it (I guess similar to a forward pass being thrown beyond the line of scrimmage) but it's confusing as all hell and not written that well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

DF1972

NCAA committee proposes change to block-charge calls, other rule modifications for upcoming season

Replies
3
Views
195
Four Corners
JimmyNaismith
JimmyNaismith
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT
Top Bottom
Back