Pass Completion Over Turned

ssckelley

Well-Known Member
A little help here, I forgot to record the game and I’m too lazy to dig through the game thread. Can anyone tell me what happened on that over turned pass completion? At the game we couldn’t figure out why they were even reviewing that play and we were all pissed as hell when they over turned it. What happened?
 

hawkinn3

Well-Known Member
I was more livid at that than I have been over sports in a very long time.

He caught it, clearly made a small move, bobbled it and it bounced up but then he caught it again in bounds. It never hit the ground. At worst it was a fumble he recovered. I have no idea how replay called that incomplete.
 

haydensly

Well-Known Member
I haven't seen the TV replays either and only know what I saw at the game and have read about it. I could not figure out what they were reviewing? And to turn it over on what appeared to be very limited evidence was ridiculous. Someone mentioned that the Fox referee who looks at reviewed plays said it should never have been overturned. That play needs to be reviewed by the B1G office and someone needs to answer to why they overturned it.
 

ssckelley

Well-Known Member
I haven't seen the TV replays either and only know what I saw at the game and have read about it. I could not figure out what they were reviewing? And to turn it over on what appeared to be very limited evidence was ridiculous. Someone mentioned that the Fox referee who looks at reviewed plays said it should never have been overturned. That play needs to be reviewed by the B1G office and someone needs to answer to why they overturned it.

I thought they were making stupid reasons to review plays, they reviewed that touchdown score when it was clear that LaPorta was in the endzone. So when they reviewed that pass completion we were all looking at each other like WTF are these referees doing? I didn't give it much thought until the official came back and said the play had been over turned. I'm sure those of you that were watching the game on TV could hear the boos, the entire stadium was booing.
 

HawkeyeTech

Well-Known Member
Tracy caught the ball, tucked it in his arm, took a stutter step (which established possession), then braced himself for the hit he was about to take. He went to the ground, the ball touched the ground and he bobbled it slightly then regained control. The replay official evidently didn't think Tracy had full possession before the d-back hit him. It was a horrific call, and both commentators and the rules expert were perplexed by it.
 

uihawk82

Well-Known Member
I mentioned earlier that 3 of the 4 replay angles showed the ball come a little loose from tracy's body but those 3 replays showed his hand/and or forearm under the ball. The 4th replay showed the ball slightly and quickly touch the ground but I thought by rule if the ball carrier/receiver did the catch and maintained his body between the ball and the ground that it was a catch.

I was furious and it was the only f bomb I yelled. Also tracy made the catch, turned and I think he took one stride and even iirc put out a stiff arm which to me means he made a football move in which case it might have been more of a catch, bobble, maybe even a slight fumble recovered by tracy.

Way too much over scrutiny and thinking involved when there was not any 100% overwhelming video evidence of a drop or non controlled completion.
 

PCHawk

Well-Known Member
Since he was down before the ball came loose, the only question was if he made a football move before it came loose. To me it was an easy yes.

In my opinion, instead of the football move rule, they should establish a set amount of time you need to have possession after a catch before you lose it. A group of rules experts can watch a bunch of replays like the Tracy one and find ones that look like a catch and ones that don't, then time those to establish the time to use. If they decide on a half second, the replay booth can time it in the replay. Anything over a half second is a catch. Anything under isn't. You could make a pretty weak argument against Tracy making a football move if you tried. But he had the ball waaaay too long to say he didn't catch it.
 

uihawk82

Well-Known Member
Since he was down before the ball came loose, the only question was if he made a football move before it came loose. To me it was an easy yes.

In my opinion, instead of the football move rule, they should establish a set amount of time you need to have possession after a catch before you lose it. A group of rules experts can watch a bunch of replays like the Tracy one and find ones that look like a catch and ones that don't, then time those to establish the time to use. If they decide on a half second, the replay booth can time it in the replay. Anything over a half second is a catch. Anything under isn't. You could make a pretty weak argument against Tracy making a football move if you tried. But he had the ball waaaay too long to say he didn't catch it.

Excellent points. And just like when I watch the Olympics I tend to really like the events that have actual physical measurements like track and field, speed skating, swimming, skiing, etc that measure time or distance rather than those events that have judges and bizarre judgmental rules like figure skating and gymnastics.

The half second rule could be a really good one for the catch vs no catch situation. The technology of video replay can be slowed down so much and timed frame by frame that a half second of control constitutes a catch.

Of course the eye judgment will still come into play sometimes but probably less often.
 

Fryowa

Administrator
Anyone else simply in favor of abolishing replays altogether?
No way. Football is better since they were implemented. There have been WAY more fuck-ups fixed than there have been caused.

What they need to do is put a time limit on them. 45 seconds and that’s it

Also, decisions need to come from an off site review HQ. 3 review officials physically separated from each other make their call, and majority rules. 2 out of the 3 make a call that’s the way it goes. As much goddamn money as their is in NCAA football they can afford it a million times over. Have say, 6 crews of 3 officials to handle all games. That’s enough for the workload at any given time.
 

uihawk82

Well-Known Member
Anyone else simply in favor of abolishing replays altogether?

I lean heavily towards keeping replay but there need to be some adjustments. Some people have mentioned minimizing the time for the replay and I agree with that. The auto play clock and the teams making the next snap will take care of when it is too late to stop play for a replay.

And as we have talked about make some changes to take the judgement of the replay officials out of the process.

I am still pissed about the Romo to Dez Bryant overrule in the NFC championship game about 5-6 years ago. My gawd Bryant caught the ball in the air, came down, took the two steps, was hit and lunged to the ground, when the ball popped loose. That is a CATCH!!!!! So if they cant get that right then go with someones' idea of half a second of possession makes it a catch.
 

Luftgekuehlt67

Well-Known Member
My feeling is replay has been a net positive in sports. By a pretty wide margin, really.

That said, there are occasional situations where I feel they become a bit heavy handed to the point where the spirit of the rule kind of gets a bit lost. I thought this particular play to be an example of such a situation.
 

AreWeThereYet

Well-Known Member
We have gotten to a place where we are waaaay overthinking everything. You can add the Logan Lee hit to this thread as well. Just look at what you are seeing and make a call accordingly...no reason to overthink this shit.

Logan Lee's jersey has a couple of holes in it, from the left tackle trying to pull it off on his way around him. I saw that Lee kind of glanced off of the quarterbacks back hip, and didn't really make any sort of solid contact. Did I miss something, or are we now penalizing anyone who touches the QB above the waste.
 

ssckelley

Well-Known Member
Anyone else simply in favor of abolishing replays altogether?

No, even after this screw up replays have made the sport better overall. What I would change is who views the replay, the referees on the field should be the one reviewing it and making the determination to over turn the call or not, not some dork sitting in New York or where ever. All of us fans in the stadium were booing the referees relentlessly after that call and they were not even the ones who over turned it.
 

BigD

Well-Known Member
It was clearly a poor call by the replay booth. There was no clear or disputable evidence for them to overturn the call on the field.

Kirk apparently felt very strongly about it as he usually doesn't talk about these types of things in his post game interviews.
 

PCHawk

Well-Known Member
Excellent points. And just like when I watch the Olympics I tend to really like the events that have actual physical measurements like track and field, speed skating, swimming, skiing, etc that measure time or distance rather than those events that have judges and bizarre judgmental rules like figure skating and gymnastics.

The half second rule could be a really good one for the catch vs no catch situation. The technology of video replay can be slowed down so much and timed frame by frame that a half second of control constitutes a catch.

Of course the eye judgment will still come into play sometimes but probably less often.
Funny you say that because just yesterday I was saying I would never play a sport where the winner was decided by someone's personal opinion.
 

PCHawk

Well-Known Member
I lean heavily towards keeping replay but there need to be some adjustments. Some people have mentioned minimizing the time for the replay and I agree with that. The auto play clock and the teams making the next snap will take care of when it is too late to stop play for a replay.

And as we have talked about make some changes to take the judgement of the replay officials out of the process.

I am still pissed about the Romo to Dez Bryant overrule in the NFC championship game about 5-6 years ago. My gawd Bryant caught the ball in the air, came down, took the two steps, was hit and lunged to the ground, when the ball popped loose. That is a CATCH!!!!! So if they cant get that right then go with someones' idea of half a second of possession makes it a catch.
If he would have dove to catch the ball he would have needed to maintain possession throughout the fall. It's like the refs never distinguished the difference between Dez diving and him jumping and then lunging forward. Common sense tells me when 2 feet touch the ground after the jump, it wasn't a diving catch. Terrible call that was equally as bad as the Tracy one.
 
Top