Replay officials are field refs that have been put out to pasture. Take the guys who can’t cut it on the field and make them I. Charge of the most important games each day. Not sure why they even have to be at the stadium. It should be handled in “New York” like the nfl.
All 3 ABC Studio announcers say ball was OOB
- Thread starter The Song Remains the Same
- Start date
Replay officials are field refs that have been put out to pasture. Take the guys who can’t cut it on the field and make them I. Charge of the most important games each day. Not sure why they even have to be at the stadium. It should be handled in “New York” like the nfl.
The bottom line is that Big Ten refs suck and Big Ten review booth refs suck and are never, ever going to do Penn State any favors!
Steve Jones is totally full of shit if he thinks they got that call right!! He should be embarrassed to even say that!!
They got the call wrong, no doubt, I do not have an issue with that. However that was only determined by reviewing for about 10 minutes with super slow mo and super zooming in and probably some angles not available to the refs.
I do not have an issue with the call because I believe replay should be used to correct calls that are obviously bad. Those calls only need a minute of review.
This play was so close, the ref is literally guessing.
I do not have an issue with the call because I believe replay should be used to correct calls that are obviously bad. Those calls only need a minute of review.
This play was so close, the ref is literally guessing.
The ref was also not in the best position to make the call (he was moving away from the play in two dimensions) which didn't help. The replay is clear. Not in. The replay booth could have corrected the error and did not.
How can it not be reversed if you can’t be sure the call on the field was correct? Watching replay and pics, there is no way they could have confirmed it was a good 2 pt conversion.
Did Steve Jones say that after the game? What I heard during the radio broadcast is that he said the ball hit out of bounds first and then the pylon. He even convinced Jack Ham of it. When the call came back as good, he said they must have thought they didn't have enough to overturn it.
I’ve been saying for years that I hate replay. It doesn’t work well enough to account for the momentum killing, time consuming effect of it.
Replay works well enough, it’s the lack of balls on the replay officials that does not work.
If that's true then there should be stills showing a gap between the pylon and ball when the ball is on the ground. Haven't seen that. A sequence of shots (a video) can give the illusion of something. A frame by frame analysis provides the proof.
Look, I "think" the call was wrong. The ball had to hit the plane of the goal line, not the pylon, before the ground. But that is impossible to examine with the photos available. What we're discussing here is video proof, and that just does not exist. We'd have to prove that the ball hit the back of the pylon away from the corner edge at the end zone line, or that the ground was contacted first. We don't have that either way. Nor do we have a shot of the ball's position a millimeter above the ground.
Have there been overturns with less "proof?" I would say yes, for sure. What is "indisputable" to one person is not the same as indisputable to another person. Then there is the human bias issue against unliked teams or calls that would hurt the conference that employs the officials. It's a corrupt system, like so many others.
Another reminder...
Big Ten: Delay of game penalty missed on Ohio State field goal
The Big Ten admitted a delay of game penalty should have been called against Ohio State before it kicked a field goal during the first half of Saturday's win over Penn State. Ohio State snapped the ball several seconds after the play clock expired before converting a 49-yard field goal in the...
www.si.com
It doesn’t work well enough. It takes too long and it seems as likely to get it wrong as right.
The still you want doesn't exist because there is not shot of the perfect angle at the perfect time to see it. You can clearly see it on the video (the shape of the ball changes when it hits OOB and it is clearly short of the goal line).
More cameras would have been better. I feel like FS1 has bad coverage.
correct. If this was an ABC or ESPN game there would've been a lot more cameras including goal line cameras. It seemed like FS1 only had 3 or maybe 4 cameras.
The ball clearly hit OOB before touching the pylon. The direction it took from when it landed OOB to when it hit the pylon proves, by the laws of physics, that there's no way any part of it could have crossed the plane of the goal line before contacting the ground OOB.
This is a no-brainer. It clearly looked OOB in real time. It definitively and incontrovertibly was OOB upon review.
It was complete and utter BS.
Primetime, then sure...but ESPN isn’t covering a noon or 3:30 game the same way they cover “bigger” games.
Apply some basic logic. You don't need the stills you're asking for. You can clearly see the ball move (roll, tilt, maybe slide a tad) forward after it touches the ground (OOB) and before it makes contact with the pylon. I don't think that is a fact that anyone is even disputing.
The "question" that people are raising is, because you can't see it, was the nose of the ball already across the plane when the ball touched the ground (OOB)?
What I'm saying is that if you apply a little logic, you can know that the nose of the ball couldn't have been across the plane when the ball touched OOB.
Here is how:
1. Ask yourself, what is the maximum distance that the nose of the ball reasonably could have been into the end zone when the ball comes in contact with the pylon? I personally don't think the ball is at all in the end zone when the ball comes in contact with the pylon, but I will concede that we can't see, so technically there is a possibility. So, let's say 1/8" is the maximum distance that the nose of the ball reasonably could have been into the end zone when the ball comes in contact with the pylon. I think that's being extremely generous, but let's go with it. Let's call, D(max) = 1/8"
2. Now, what is the distance that the most forward part of the ball travels (rolls, tilts, slides) forward between the time that it touches OOB and makes contact with the pylon? The fact that you can even see that the ball had to roll/tilt/slide/whatever forward before making contact with the pylon indicates that it's probably a good inch (which, ironically, happens to be your wife's nickname for you. {grin} I'll be here all week, people!). So, D(trv) = 1"
3. If D(trv) > D(max), then it's reasonably conclusive that the ball was down before breaking the plane, and the call should be overturned. Ok, let's plug the numbers in... Here we go... 1 > 1/8 ... BOOM! In fact, 1 is 8x that of 1/8!
Maybe it's not quite an inch -- let's say a half of an inch -- but it's clearly more than the distance that the ball *might* have been into the end zone at the time that the ball makes contact with the pylon.
Here is the video for reference. Note that the narrator here is only looking to figure out if the nose of the ball was into the end zone when it makes contact with the pylon. It's so close at THAT point even, it's hard to believe it reached/broke the plane. YET, he's not even understanding that the ball was already down, and the play was dead/over, at that time when he's struggling to figure out if the ball reached the plane or not.
How incompetent was the replay official?
Is this a trick question? If not, the answer is "he is as incompetent as the one at Nebraska back in 2012".
Did this call cost Penn State a chance of beating Nebraska?
Did a tough call cost Penn State a chance at beating Nebraska in Lincoln?www.usatoday.com
Probably same guy.
Suggest you read what constitutes out-of-bounds and what constitutes crossing the goal line especially with respect to the pylon. FWIW, the pylon is in bounds and across the goal line.
General Rules
If a ball carrier advancing from the field of play has possession of a live ball when it penetrates the opponent's goal line he shall be awarded a score. The pylon is in the end zone but is considered out of bounds. A player who touches a pylon is out of bounds.
This is correct, but does not change what occurred. The ball clearly hits the ground before it gets to the pylon. The only possible way this was a good try is if the ball somehow crossed the plane without hitting the pylon before hitting OOB. I believe this is physically impossible, based on the video evidence.
The ball even compressed in the slow motion replay when it hit the ground making crossing the goal plane even more impossible.
Where the pylon is with respect to the boundary and the goal line is irrelevant because the play was over/dead prior to the pylon being a factor. The ball touched the ground OOB (play over/dead at that point), THEN rolled/rocked/slid/whatever forward and made contact with the pylon.
Edit: And further, since there was no additional establishment of the running being in-bounds after the ball broke the plane of the sideline, the ball should have been marked at the point where the ball crossed the plane of the sideline. So, the call was even more egregious than we had thought.
Last edited:
I'm not following your second paragraph. Are you saying that since the runner was diving, rather than on his feet that matters in terms of when the ball is considered out of bounds? Mind clarifying?
We should have won in regulation, if not for some bad play calling and time management.
Not going to get into p***ing contest. Play should never have happened. We should have during regulation.
Yet we say that the official should overrule the replay if not conclusive. I say even if you do not have a perfect view you can come to a more accurate guess than what a human can accurately determine in a bang bang play. If not 100% certain rule no score and then review, if it’s obvious reverse the call. There is no way that ball broke the plane or it would have hit the field side of the pylon. It hit the sideline first, out of bounds.
I'm not answering for the poster, but simply saying to your question, the answer is Yes, it is different when the goal line is involved. If you read VI (a) below, a player can be airborne with the ball out of bounds as well as most of his entire body and still be awarded a TD if the player makes contact with the pylon while airborne, such as with his foot or hand.
Last edited:
Those images show the ball in contact with both. There is no image that shows the ball in contact with the ground while not in contact with the pylon. So we don't know if the nose of the ball nudged the goal line plane.
Do I think he was short? Yes. Rather certain of that from the slow motion. But is there 100% proof? No.
In cases where the official is unable to make a certain call on the field it would be good if he could make a preliminary call and defer to video, so that the call is based on the most probable of the possibilities instead of "indisputable" evidence. But this is not how the rules are written.
Sorry. That shot does not show space between the ball and pylon. In fact it looks like the pylon is starting to buckle forward, as if it had already contacted the ball.
You can run down the sideline an inch inbounds and hold the ball outside the sideline all you want. If YOU don't go out of bounds, the position of the ball (as long as the ball doesn't TOUCH OOB) is irrelevant. The rule in marking forward progress when a player goes OOB is where was the ball when the PLAYER went OOB.
So that the ball broke the plane of the sideline IN THE AIR is irrelevant.
But, the ball DID touch the ground OOB before it hit the pylon or broke the plane of the goal line.
You don’t need the still image.
Video clearly shows ball hitting ground first, and then the pylon. Images earlier in thread show football 4-5 inches out of bounds. It should have been abundantly obvious from those two pieces of evidence that despite the great effort, Penix was short.
Then again, every week I’m sure somewhere there is always a WTF headscratcher by a replay official. Just follow Al Riveron any Sunday
Somebody posted the rule here yesterday. I hadn't thought of it either until that point.
Imagine this extreme scenario:
Runner is angling towards the first down marker on sideline, but he's going to be 2 yards short. This runner has Saquan Barkley's athleticism, so he keeps his same angle, but leaps before he's out of bounds... So, while in the air, he crossed the OOB plane 2 yards short of the first down marker. When his foot touched down (way out of bounds), the ball was a full yard beyond the first down marker - but he was 6 yards OOB.
Where is that ball spotted?
Answer: where the ball crossed the plane of OOB.
You can run down the sideline hanging the ball over the boundary, and as long as your feet continue to come down in bounds, you can keep progressing with the ball.
But when the play ends because the player establishes himself OOB, and the ball is OOB at that point, the ball is spotted where it was when it crossed the plane of the boundary.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
-
Wrestling Could Penn State be hosting a wrestling dual at Beaver Stadium this fall?- Latest: The Spin Meister
