Biased replay official?

[MikeyLikesIowa]

In the 12/2/2019 All Hawkeyes podcast, (link here - start listening at about the 52m 55s mark), Don Patterson had some interesting insight regarding the replay official for the Nebraska and Michigan games this year. Don said the same guy used to be a Big Ten official that Don recalled Hayden Fry saying about him "we never get any breaks out of that particular referee." Don goes on to mention that Sargent's fumble from the Michigan game that wasn't reviewed (although he thought the outcome would be the same). Another play from the Michigan game that I think should've been reviewed was a potential sack-fumble by AJE.

 

[SpiderRico]

If memory serves, I think Dave Witvoet was the replay official for the Nebraska game. He was the ref that essentially screwed us against Michigan in 2005 (probably because he's a Michigan alum and had Wolverine shit all over his office). So yeah, it wouldn't surprise me in the least if he tried to screw us.

When you look at the two major plays in question, the Ragani catch/no catch and the ISM targeting/no targeting, it blows my mind how both of the calls were over-turned. First off, there has to be "clear and convincing evidence" to overturn a call on the field. I'd like to know how there was any evidence to indicate that Ragani's catch should be overturned. By every definition, it was a catch. He established control before going down, his knee and elbow hit and he still had control. Only when he rolled over after establishing all criteria did the ball then come out.

On the targeting overturn, the rule clearly states that an excessive blow to the head or neck area of a defenseless receiver by the forearm, shoulder, or helmet of the opposition is targeting. There's no question that ISM was in a defenseless position when he caught the ball as he was completely stretched out. There is no question that the defenseman hit ISM in the helmet with his shoulder. And there's no question it was excessive based on how severe his head snapped forward and his immediate reaction in grabbing his head.

If I'm Gary Barta, someone at the B1G office owes an explanation for the overturn of those two calls.

 

[SteveGarvey1]

The problem with replay is that some refs look for ways to infer something happened or look for a plausible explanation to overturn or not overturn a call. So, instead of 100% video evidence being used, they'll figure in their minds that the likelihood of something that happened is 75% or greater and so they can overturn it. Maybe, this guy thought, the ball had squirted loose from Ragaini a split second before it had so it's plausible it wasn't a catch and maybe at least a 51% chance it wasn't so he overturned it.

Still don't know how that Penn St. guy's TD was overturned against us either.

Sub-consciously, it's been hypothesized, the refs try to please the home crowd. That's another factor in this.

 

[MelroseHawkins]

The problem with replay is that some refs look for ways to infer something happened or look for a plausible explanation to overturn or not overturn a call. So, instead of 100% video evidence being used, they'll figure in their minds that the likelihood of something that happened is 75% or greater and so they can overturn it. Maybe, this guy thought, the ball had squirted loose from Ragaini a split second before it had so it's plausible it wasn't a catch and maybe at least a 51% chance it wasn't so he overturned it.

Still don't know how that Penn St. guy's TD was overturned against us either.

Sub-consciously, it's been hypothesized, the refs try to please the home crowd. That's another factor in this.

Yea, it's just human nature. They don't want to get booed if they can help it. They might not do it on purpose. It might be subconscious like you state.

 

[kameltoez102]

The problem with all of this are the rules and how they are interpreted. There are too many grey areas that allow for the layman, ref, coach, and spectator to insert their own bias. The targeting calls and particular the catch calls are too damn complicated.

You are never going to make the right call when there are so many ways to interpret the rule. The biggest thing they can do for targeting is get rid of the automatic disqualification and move it to being disqualified if there is a repeat offense in the same game and then the player should not have to miss the next game. That never made any sense to me. If they want to increase the penalty then make it a 20 yard penalty if they don't think the punishment is harsh enough. When you factor in kicking a kid out and really affecting the game for sure there will be some hesitation on confirming that call, in some cases it has huge repercussions.


Secondly the catch rules need to be loosened up and get rid of the verbiage about completing the catch act etc. Then make all catches required to have both feet down like the NFL You either catch it or you don't there are too many variables complicating things. It puts all the refs in bad situations and ultimately it ends up affecting their judgement.

 

[archiehawk]

Noone will ever convince me that the fix was in. They wanted nubby to win in order to have another Big Ten team in a bowl. Millions were on the line. The old saying is " follow the money".

 

[Fryowa]

If memory serves, I think Dave Witvoet was the replay official for the Nebraska game. He was the ref that essentially screwed us against Michigan in 2005 (probably because he's a Michigan alum and had Wolverine shit all over his office). So yeah, it wouldn't surprise me in the least if he tried to screw us.

When you look at the two major plays in question, the Ragani catch/no catch and the ISM targeting/no targeting, it blows my mind how both of the calls were over-turned. First off, there has to be "clear and convincing evidence" to overturn a call on the field. I'd like to know how there was any evidence to indicate that Ragani's catch should be overturned. By every definition, it was a catch. He established control before going down, his knee and elbow hit and he still had control. Only when he rolled over after establishing all criteria did the ball then come out.

On the targeting overturn, the rule clearly states that an excessive blow to the head or neck area of a defenseless receiver by the forearm, shoulder, or helmet of the opposition is targeting. There's no question that ISM was in a defenseless position when he caught the ball as he was completely stretched out. There is no question that the defenseman hit ISM in the helmet with his shoulder. And there's no question it was excessive based on how severe his head snapped forward and his immediate reaction in grabbing his head.

If I'm Gary Barta, someone at the B1G office owes an explanation for the overturn of those two calls.

I'm staying out of the did he/didn't he try to F Iowa debate, but I've always been of the opinion that you shouldn't be able to work in a conference that you're an alumnus of. Not necessarily because you can't be impartial, but because it raises people's doubts about your impartiality and that's enough.

 

[Fryowa]

The problem with all of this are the rules and how they are interpreted. There are too many grey areas that allow for the layman, ref, coach, and spectator to insert their own bias. The targeting calls and particular the catch calls are too damn complicated.

You are never going to make the right call when there are so many ways to interpret the rule.

How would you simplify it yourself? Give me any judgement call rule like PI, holding, block/charge, checked swing/swing, and people will blast it into orbit picking it apart. If you want it simplified then you have to give an example.

Then make all catches required to have both feet down like the NFL.

The feet are the simplest part of catch/no catch. I don't see what that would do to help?

You either catch it or you don't there are too many variables complicating things. It puts all the refs in bad situations and ultimately it ends up affecting their judgement.

Lol. So then tell us what defines a catch. And then a thousand different people are going to have a thousand different interpretations no matter how you word your rule.

 

[koralakers]

If memory serves, I think Dave Witvoet was the replay official for the Nebraska game. He was the ref that essentially screwed us against Michigan in 2005 (probably because he's a Michigan alum and had Wolverine shit all over his office). So yeah, it wouldn't surprise me in the least if he tried to screw us.

When you look at the two major plays in question, the Ragani catch/no catch and the ISM targeting/no targeting, it blows my mind how both of the calls were over-turned. First off, there has to be "clear and convincing evidence" to overturn a call on the field. I'd like to know how there was any evidence to indicate that Ragani's catch should be overturned. By every definition, it was a catch. He established control before going down, his knee and elbow hit and he still had control. Only when he rolled over after establishing all criteria did the ball then come out.

On the targeting overturn, the rule clearly states that an excessive blow to the head or neck area of a defenseless receiver by the forearm, shoulder, or helmet of the opposition is targeting. There's no question that ISM was in a defenseless position when he caught the ball as he was completely stretched out. There is no question that the defenseman hit ISM in the helmet with his shoulder. And there's no question it was excessive based on how severe his head snapped forward and his immediate reaction in grabbing his head.

If I'm Gary Barta, someone at the B1G office owes an explanation for the overturn of those two calls.

Dear God, plz tell me Witvoet is NOT a BIG replay official. His crews blatantly screwed us so many times in early 2000’s

 

[Fryowa]

If memory serves, I think Dave Witvoet was the replay official for the Nebraska game. He was the ref that essentially screwed us against Michigan in 2005 (probably because he's a Michigan alum and had Wolverine shit all over his office). So yeah, it wouldn't surprise me in the least if he tried to screw us.

Actually, Witvoet didn't graduate from Michigan, he's just (allegedly) a huge UM fan.