Ban replay in CFB - NW gets hosed

[BigLame]

Clear fumble in NW-Wisky game. Replay fails to overturn. If replay cannot correct those kinds of mistakes, do away with it. If time is taken to stop the game to correct easily correctable mistakes, then it had better do so on those that are slam dunks.

I have no horse in the race. I can appreciate Northwestern's offense after our debacle Thursday night.

 

[Gorm]

I wonder if we will see a Big Ten apology letter. Big 12 seems to put one out about every 10 games.

 

[BoxsterCy]

It how officiating works when a "power" plays a regular team in conference.

Next thing you know it might come out that NCAA basketball is corrupt to.

 

[Cyclonepride]

Clear fumble in NW-Wisky game. Replay fails to overturn. If replay cannot correct those kinds of mistakes, do away with it. If time is taken to stop the game to correct easily correctable mistakes, then it had better do so on those that are slam dunks.

I have no horse in the race. I can appreciate Northwestern's offense after our debacle Thursday night.

I love how these kinds of calls fail to overturn, but if you're the "right team", you get the benefit of the doubt. Like a called fumble where you cannot possibly see the fumble itself and the knee going down at the same time.

 

[stormchaser2014]

We've fumbled 5 times today.

 

[BigLame]

It how officiating works when a "power" plays a regular team in conference.

Next thing you know it might come out that NCAA basketball is corrupt to.

Hate to throw the tinfoil hat on & always claim conspiracy theory, but when it's that blatant it's difficult not to jump to this conclusion.

 

[Yellow Snow]

The replay wasn't about whether it was a fumble or not. It was about who controlled the ball "immediately" after. The whisky QB grabbed it before the guy that stripped it pulled it away in the scrum.

 

[alarson]

My biggest gripe is that the standard of 'indisputable' isnt followed enough. There should be more times where you go 'the call mightve been wrong but it was too close to tell on replay'.

Too often its far too close to tell, and theyre inferring things that may or may not be there, especially when you apply slow motion to things .

 

[BoxsterCy]

Hate to throw the tinfoil hat on & always claim conspiracy theory, but when it's that blatant it's difficult not to jump to this conclusion.

I don't buy into it as a conspiracy but there is obviously bias to favor the "favorites". I'll maybe be convinced otherwise when I see "apology letters" given to Alabama, USC, Ohio State, Auburn, etc.

 

[BigLame]

& my kiss of death to the NW offense for the 2nd half. But my point on replay remains.

 

[CycloneDaddy]

The replay wasn't about whether it was a fumble or not. It was about who controlled the ball "immediately" after. The whisky QB grabbed it before the guy that stripped it pulled it away in the scrum.

you are correct. Wisconsin QB fumbled it but then clearly recovered it.

 

[cyclones500]

I'm pro-replay, in principle. Sometimes I feel like they over-complicate it. The basic guideline is: Call on field is upheld unless there's clear evidence to overturn it.

Many times, it can take 3 minutes to make a decision that viewers can determine after 2 replays or fewer.

ISU vs. Texas --- the "fumble-for-TD" play (the "backward pass" play). From a fan perspective, I reeeeally wanted the call on the field to be correct. When I saw the replay, I could tell it was wishful thinking. ... and how long did it take for them to make the conclusion? It was several minutes.

I have a radical suggestion: I'm in favor of as many camera angles as possible, but review officials cannot watch a replay in slow-motion --- true-speed only.

 

[WooBadger18]

The replay wasn't about whether it was a fumble or not. It was about who controlled the ball "immediately" after. The whisky QB grabbed it before the guy that stripped it pulled it away in the scrum.

I was at the game, so we could only see one of the replays, but the announcer didn't do a great job explaining it because he made it sound like they were reviewing whether it was a fumble. It was clearly a fumble, but there was no way to overturn that. Either way, Northwestern didn't get hosed on that play

 

[Gunnerclone]

My biggest gripe is that the standard of 'indisputable' isnt followed enough. There should be more times where you go 'the call mightve been wrong but it was too close to tell on replay'.

Too often its far too close to tell, and theyre inferring things that may or may not be there, especially when you apply slow motion to things .

When you’re a ref you’re on a higher plane of awareness than the common folk.

 

[BigLame]

I was at the game, so we could only see one of the replays, but the announcer didn't do a great job explaining it because he made it sound like they were reviewing whether it was a fumble. It was clearly a fumble, but there was no way to overturn that. Either way, Northwestern didn't get hosed on that play

QB never secured the ball after the fumble. It was a BS call.

 

[WooBadger18]

QB never secured the ball after the fumble. It was a BS call.

So here's my impression of what happened (like I said, I wasn't watching on TV because I was at the game): Hornibrook fumbles, then there's a scrum for the ball, and the refs said Wisconsin has it. Is that correct (and anyone can answer, it doesn't need to be big lame). If so, how was Northwestern hosed? There wasn't going to be the clear and convincing evidence to overturn that; there never is

 

[cyups2323]

It was clearly a fumble and the qb and defender had a 50/50 shot at the ball. The nw defender got control of the ball. Did it fall in his hands immediately. No. But at no time did the wisconsin qb have complete control of it either. Nw got screwed.

 

[cyclonespiker33]

Video?

 

[theshadow]

ISU vs. Texas --- the "fumble-for-TD" play (the "backward pass" play). From a fan perspective, I reeeeally wanted the call on the field to be correct. When I saw the replay, I could tell it was wishful thinking. ... and how long did it take for them to make the conclusion? It was several minutes.

A good chunk of that time, on an overturned call, is figuring out the game clock, ball spot, hash mark, and line to gain (if the chains were moved).

 

[Rogue52]

I have no doubt that if Iowa State had fumbled the ball on the kickoff in the same way that Texas did, replay would have determined that there was not indisputable video evidence to overturn the call on the field. Just like 2013.