Minnesota Game

[Fryowa]

Can't stand Fleck and his quarter zip with a tie, hate Minnesota, and hate all their dumb ski-u-mah row the boatness, but they got screwed.

Here's my question...

Can anyone here give me a legitimate, non-sarcastic reason why that situation should not be reviewable, or at the very least challengeable? Been racking my brain as to what potential downsides there can be to it and I can't come up with one. The ball is dead, the clock is stopped, and there's no interference with the flow of the game or resulting action after the play that would be negated by reversing it.

I know full well that the NCAA and [insert literally any sports governing body here] want to keep officials as the sanctimonious 3rd team participating in the game so that's not the point here, but if for example stepping out of bounds or not stepping out of bounds is reviewable, why would this one not be?

This is a totally rhetorical question by me because we all know the answer, but the NCAA trying to paint itself as doing the right thing by just changing the position of the official during kickoffs is kinda bullshit. If you have the technology, use it. The job of an official is to make sure the game is played within the framework of the rules, period. There are some judgement calls that have to be made such as interference, etc. and you'll never get away from that. But in situations where there's a clear and obvious error, it needs to be fixed. The "integrity" of the game isn't diminished by taking calls out of the hands of the officials...it's enhanced. Saying, "Sorry, them's the breaks" when you have technology to fix calls is degrading to the game.

I go to several minor league games every year and I can't say enough how awesome the ball/strike challenges are. Each team gets 3 challenges per game and if they win the challenge they get to keep it. If a manager or catcher disagrees with a called ball/strike they simply stand up, tap their head, the ump signals to the booth and they get a yes/no from the booth. The whole process takes less than 10 seconds and I'm not exaggerating. It's great for the game and takes bad strike zones out of the equation.

Some of you here have probably officiated a sport at some level. I umpired high school and NAIA collegiate baseball for several years. I don't know about you guys, but as an official I'd totally welcome anything that made my job easier. Would it expose me if I got a lot of calls wrong? Yep. But If I got a lot of calls wrong it'd probably mean I should get benched like players who don't perform.

 

[NorthKCHawk]

Totally agree. It was not a fair catch and Iowa won the game.......

 

[dagdaj]

Well, I mean, if you look at the data, the NCAA's big on getting offsides calls against Big 10 teams on successful onside kicks.

'06 Outback Bowl
#neverforget

 

[haydensly]

The easy answer is that penalties aren't reviewable. That's also the wrong answer. I heard an interesting take yesterday from Danny Kanell on his morning radio show. He compared the onside kick to a turnover. All turnovers are reviewable. He made the point, and I agree, that this is just like a turnover. And to your point, it wouldn't disrupt the game much. Seems like an easy fix. We'll see.

 

[dagdaj]

But, to your point....
What they decide to review and what they don't is always fascinating. I get a non-reviewable call because a whistle/inadvertent whistle makes the play dead.

But, why is it up to a coach to challenge something? Why aren't we putting a grid of sensors all over the field? Lasers and stuff. And one in the each nose of the ball. I mean, let's go all tennis on this.

I'm a proponent of either review everything or don't bother. You catch a guy grabbing a facemask away from the play, call it. You catch a hold on the review, call it. You could put a little air cannon on the referee's backside. Review official hits a button and the cannon goes off firing a yellow hanky into the air. Radio to the ref with the call. Maybe get a color coded thing. It would look kinda like the carhop change thing. You see Chik Fil A drive thru workers wearing those things these days. A series of air cannons. Green for offsides....red and white stripes for holding....have about 8 different ones.

 

[Grady]

To Fry's original question, there's no good reason to not review onside kicks, other than they would need to have a camera looking directly across every 5 yd marker to get a completely accurate video picture. And you couldn't just have one camera looking across the 35 yd lines, in case of 5 or 15 yd penalties prior to the kickoffs.
The irony of this is, of course, that off-sides on kickoffs is not typically enforced. If you watch, players are off-sides on probably 50% of all kickoffs by an arm here, half a leg there. But those violations are never called, because they don't significantly impact the game -- much like holding by the offense is rarely called if it's not done at the point of attack.

 

[#1DieHardHawk]

Does anyone know how off-sides is defined with the on-side kick attempt? Is it any body part crossing the "plane" or is it when the body part touches beyond the line?

That distinction would be important if trying to use some type of sensor such as a laser.

As far as reviewable calls, I agree. There are many calls that could and should be reviewable. The most obvious one to me has always been the personal foul penalty. Almost every game you will here an announcer point out how it's "...always the second guy that gets caught."

With today's technology, that's B.S. It's probably reasonable to flag a player for retaliating inappropriately, but there's no reason why the play can't be reviewed to determine if an opposing player did something egregious to instigate the act. If confirmed, that player should be flagged (at the very least).

Players routinely take advantage of that to draw personal fouls on the other team, something that should be punishable.

There was a play around 10 years ago where a player subtly hit another player in the nuts during a dead ball situation, then flailed to the ground when the player responded with a push. It may have been Vontaze Burfict. Not sure, but it's a perfect example of something that should be reviewable.

 

[NorthKCHawk]

My problem with refs is phantom calls where a ref thinks they see something. To me, the standard should be a clear foul that the ref confidently sees. Otherwise keep the flag in the pocket. Some of the NFL games are getting unwatchable because of all the flags. I would rather have 10 no calls that could have been fouls, than even one flag that had no business being thrown. Let them play.

And yes, this should have been reviewable for the Boat Rower. Somehow someway. Get it right.

 

[Hawkboys]

There was a play around 10 years ago where a player subtly hit another player in the nuts during a dead ball situation, then flailed to the ground when the player responded with a push. It may have been Vontaze Burfict. Not sure, but it's a perfect example of something that should be reviewable.

That's football!