Sure let's add another 40 minutes to games. What was wrong with the old way?
The new review protocol blows!!!
- Thread starter Captain Nick
- Start date
This was the first time I've ever seen a targeting call reversed.
The old system had a guy in the booth making the decision and they seemed to go out of their way not to overturn calls.
It may take longer but when kids have been previously getting tossed for clean hits I'll wait the extra few minutes.
The old system had a guy in the booth making the decision and they seemed to go out of their way not to overturn calls.
It may take longer but when kids have been previously getting tossed for clean hits I'll wait the extra few minutes.
Who was on the verge of getting tossed? I wasn't able to watch the game... Just got updates on my phone...
Aaron Williams unloaded on a receiver and the official instinctively threw a flag because it was a big hit.
Aarons Williams made helmet-to-helmet contact and it was a big hit, but he was going for the ball (making a good football play). I believe the ref / replay official saw that and that's why they decided to reverse the call.
I was okay with them throwing a flag on the play, but it would have been ridiculous if the call / ejection would have stood.
You could see the look on the ref on the field when watching and talking to the guy in the booth.
If I remember correctly, it looked as if he disagreed with the guy in the booth as he made a "wtf, I don't agree" expression while watching his tiny tv on the field during the review.
I took it as the ref on the field made the decision to reverse the call.
The flexing after the hit is dumb. If I was the ref, I might have not reversed the call just because of the players dumb showboating after the hit. He deserved the unsportsmanlike flag for walking around and flexing for so long afterwards.
If I remember correctly, it looked as if he disagreed with the guy in the booth as he made a "wtf, I don't agree" expression while watching his tiny tv on the field during the review.
I took it as the ref on the field made the decision to reverse the call.
The flexing after the hit is dumb. If I was the ref, I might have not reversed the call just because of the players dumb showboating after the hit. He deserved the unsportsmanlike flag for walking around and flexing for so long afterwards.
I have zero issues with the new protocol. Whatever helps get calls right. If you want to take issue with anything with regard to how slow these games have become, then take issue with the asinine and infuriating Big Ten Newtwork for their 9,000 commercials. My God they are awful.
...and the poor ex-referee that they kept pulling in from the studio. That guy had nothing to say.
I agree, I don't mind the new protocol, IF it helps get the call right, the results were a bit mixed on that front. They shockingly got the call right on the hit by Aaron Williams (at least the overturning the targeting, the unsportsmanlike was pure crap, but there isn't a way to overturn that), but other than that, the unnecessary review of TAs TD run is the only other one I think they got right.
The targeting on Luke Gifford was nonsense. Hit wasn't late (despite what the officiating apologist... I mean analyst said, since when is hitting the QB the instant after he releases the throw late?), there was no helmet contact, nothing to show a penalty should have been called. I also think they blew it on Fresno State's fumble. Despite what the analyst/apologist said, I didn't see any conclusive video showing his elbow touch before the ball came out. It was hard to tell for certain, but there was certainly nothing conclusive, so however it was called on the field should have stood for lack of evidence to overturn. If he was ruled down on the field, that should have stood, if it was ruled a fumble, that should have stood.
If that's what you take from what I said, fine. I don't really count the targeting BS as "close calls", it's either targeting or it isn't. Neither of those were targeting, but I'm not really all that surprised that the moron refs, based on what other crap I saw from them in that game, would have come to that conclusion.
The only "close call" was the Fresno State fumble, and I already said I don't think there was enough video evidence to overturn anything, regardless of the call. So if they had called him down on the field, then the close call should have gone Fresno's way, and if they had called it a fumble, it should have gone Nebraska's way. Since it's pretty clear, with all the other BS calls in that game, the refs were out to get Nebraska or something, I'm not at all surprised they overturned it.
Here's an interesting question about that fumble play. If the Fresno State returner hadn't fumbled the ball, and had instead gotten up and continued running, do you think they would have gone back and reviewed it and called him down there? I'm going to go with I highly doubt it.
The FSU fumble wasn't close at all. He was clearly down.
The Williams call was terrible and rightly overturned.
Gifford was late enough that the flag isn't uncalled for but he went hands first into the shoulder and any helmet contact was incidental.
We got really lucky on the muff off Westercamp's foot. Even he said it hit him when talking to Riley on the sideline.
The Williams call was terrible and rightly overturned.
Gifford was late enough that the flag isn't uncalled for but he went hands first into the shoulder and any helmet contact was incidental.
We got really lucky on the muff off Westercamp's foot. Even he said it hit him when talking to Riley on the sideline.
Disagree, I didn't see a single angle that clearly showed his elbow hit the ground. I saw his wrist and the front part of his forearm hit, never saw his elbow hit conclusively, at least before the ball was already loose. I stand by what I said, I saw no real conclusive evidence either way. If he was called down on the field, it should have stood, if it was called a fumble, it should have stood.
I don't agree the hit was late at all. Was it after he threw the ball? Yes, but not so far after that you could call it late, he was clearly moving to hit him before the ball was released, and unless you can somehow stop yourself when you're moving full speed, there is no way he could have peeled off. Also, clearly not targeting.
No "luck" involved there, regardless of what he may have said he thought it may have hit him, so he ran after it, there is no obvious evidence it did hit him. If the ball had hit his foot, it would have kicked off a different way. The video didn't show evidence of it hitting, so it didn't happen.
