Sat Nov 14, 2009 8:48 am EST
Hopefully, the Big East got this week's replay row out of the way early
It's early still, but we already have a clubhouse leader for the inevitable "officiating controversy of the week involving an undefeated team," courtesy the review booth in Cincinnati's 24-21 win over West Virginia and the indisputable evidence if found to overturn an apparent goal line fumble by Cincy's (otherwise brilliant) Isaiah Pead in the second quarter. Gee, I don't see anything to dispute here, do you?
Pead's stretch went down in a first half in which Cincinnati had already lost its first fumble of the season and quarterback Zach Collaros had already thrown his first interception as a starter, and radically altered the trajectory of a first half that ended 14-14; ESPN's reaction at the stadium and in the halftime studio was "What are they thinking?" That's about all you can say about it. But it already seems headed for infamy at West Virginia, where the immediate backlash went all the way up the chain.
If this were Saturday afternoon in the SEC, national columnists would be pounding out their outrage, message boards would be busy compiling their version of the Warren Report and Mike Slive's suspending finger would be a-twitichin'. For Friday night in the Big East, even with the perfect season of a top-five contender at stake, I just hope I don't have to wade through conspiratorial comments and e-mails every time I mention the Bearcats for the rest of the year.
Dr. Saturday
Matt Hinton
Dr. Saturday is a college football blog edited by Matt Hinton. Email him tips and feedback.
- Contributors:
- Holly Anderson, Doug Gillett, Dan Shanoff,
Dr. Saturday | NCAAF
- Reggie Bush's hometown scholarship reportedly runs dry
- February 9, 2010
- Welcome, Pac-10, to the hypothetical expansion parade
- February 9, 2010
- In troubled times, America can still unite over common BCS hate
- February 9, 2010
Featured NCAAF Video
-
Posted Feb 3 2010
-
RivalsMinute: Bama wins the title
Posted Feb 3 2010
-
Posted Feb 3 2010
Y! Sports Blogs
-
Edited by MJD
-
Edited by 'Duk
-
Edited by J.E. Skeets
-
Edited by Greg Wyshynski
-
Edited by Matt Hinton
-
Edited by Chris Chase
-
Edited by Jay Busbee
-
Edited by Jay Busbee
-
Edited by Steve Cofield
-
Edited by Chris Chase
-
Edited by Chris Chase
-
Edited by Brooks Peck
-
Edited by Andy Behrens
Blog Roll
20 Comments
1 - 20 of 20
Report Abuse
The "indisputable" wording has never really been applied as such. Most of the time they seem to go with "most likely right" and not indisputable. So many of your replays like this are perhaps more obvious, but rarely indisputable if you can't see every knee and elbow or have an absolutely perfect angle. Or, put another way, you could find something legit to dispute in a great many cases of overturned calls.
Report Abuse
The ball clearly broke the plane. He didnt start losing the ball until after he reached maximum extension, and by that point, the point of the ball was the middle of the line.
He had full control on the outward motion, he lost it on the way back, which is why the ball came back into the field of play instead of into the endzone.
I thought the call of the field was good live, I thought the replay officials got it exactly right on a play that is almost impossible to call by the field officials but was easy for the replay officials.
Report Abuse
Standard: There must be indisputable video evidence for an on-field officiating decision to be changed by the Instant Replay Official working from a private booth in the press box. Indisputable video evidence can be described as sufficient, viewable camera angles that provide undeniable proof that a correction to the call is necessary. Additionally, the play must have direct competitive impact on the game to warrant game stoppage for review. Instant replay officials will be instructed to err on the side of caution when competition will be directly affected, but to refrain from stopping the game any more than necessary. The replay system will not guarantee that all officiating decisions are corrected.
Report Abuse
Report Abuse
Report Abuse
Report Abuse
I watched the same game, and the same replays. It's obvious to me that you clowns are on mushrooms.
Report Abuse
Report Abuse
At best, we're arguing whether there's indisputable evidence, and if you want to argue that the replay is inconclusive, then fine. I thought the replay was rather conclusive and was surprised that the ESPN crew was hammering that point as hard as they were. It was almost as if they were trying to create a controversy that wasn't there.
Now if you want a bad (albeit ultimately meaningless) replay call, there was a point in the Akron/Temple game where the Akron player blatantly fumbles the ball on a kickoff. I mean, his knee isn't even close to being down, and not only did they get the call wrong on the field, the replay officials got it wrong, too - despite having a perfect angle from the ESPNU crew.
Of course, in an act of football karma, Akron fumbles on the next play and Temple recovers anyway.
Report Abuse
And I'm a Cal fan, so this game has no bearing on me.
Report Abuse
Report Abuse
Report Abuse
Assuming it isnt directly on the goalline, it is only "impossible to determine" if you didnt take high school trig.
Report Abuse
The question is whether or not that rises to the level of the "indisputable evidence" that's supposedly required to overturn the call on the field, which was a fumble. I can see why WVU fans would say that it doesn't. But in the final analysis, it seems pretty obvious to me that it was, in fact, a touchdown. The guys in the replay booth got the call right, and that's the main thing.
Report Abuse
I know it isn't indisputable. Whatever was called on the field should have withstood the replay review. The start of correcting replay is getting officials who possess a 9th grade vocabulary. With the indisputable standard, 99% of replays should be over in 20 seconds or less, and only the most egregious errors should be reversed.
Report Abuse
top ranked team, they are good but the way that wv?? ran the ball down thier throat they would not even have a chance against m. ingram or trenton richardson from bama.
the sec is clearly the dominant conference and if not for the refs cincy would have lost
to a # 25 team. don't think they have even played anyone ranked higher than #20, yet they say they should play for a nc.please uc get for real.... pitt will beat the h$%& out them.
Report Abuse
and @ Bradley, the LSU interception thing wasn't overturned because you couldn't see his second foot when it came down, the camera person was too stupid to pan down even just a little bit, so you couldn't conclusively tell whether it was in-bounds or not. Perhaps I am one of few, but I had absolutely no problem with the call as it was called. If we should be mad about something, be mad about the fact that the camera guy decided the first row of seats was more important to the shot than the players' feet on the field.
And I have no stake in either game btw. I couldn't care who wins, but those be my opinions.
Report Abuse
Report Abuse
When Pead fully extended his arm, the ball was indeed in control by him and the ball clearly broke the plane.
I am not sure what Rod Gilmore was looking at.. Does the rule book say that the ball needs to stay over the plane for an certain amount a time? No it does not. As soon as that ball broke the plane (and it did) then it was a touchdown. The refs actually got it right this time.
If you don't believe it, then do a print screen on the replay to create your own "photo finish" and you will see that that ball is in control and across the plane. TD Bearcats!
Rod Gilmore should have tried this on his own computer instead of running his mouth.
Report Abuse
1 - 20 of 20