OT: Wow, ND got screwed.
For once, their bitching will actually be for a legitimate reason.
What the hell did those instant replay judges see on that review, that the rest of the world didn't?
I don't think there was enough to confirm the ruling on the field, but OTOH not enough to overturn it either, so the ruling on the field should have stood as called.
I really couldn't believe that.
Exciting 4th qtr. to watch though.
November 14th, 2009 at 11:30 PM ^
That "fumble" wasn't even CLOSE. That replay ref should be banned.
November 14th, 2009 at 11:31 PM ^
It's one thing to have the replay officials get it wrong, it's another thing entirely for them to over-turn the correct call on the field. There have been some serious issues with the replay system this year.
November 14th, 2009 at 11:35 PM ^
There really have been.
They need to take a serious look at the system in the off-season, figure out what's going wrong, and fix it.
I mean, of all the aspects of officiating that there's no excuse for screwing up, this is it, and there have been some pretty riciculous errors.
November 15th, 2009 at 12:13 AM ^
There's really no problem with the structure of the system. I think they've finally gotten the actual process of review right. If you remember those first couple seasons, with malfunctioning buzzers and rushing to get plays off and officials changing how they called games to account for replay, the rules as they are now are quite fair for all involved. The problem is that once it gets to the booth, there's no telling what these people will come up with. It just leaves you wondering if they've ever watched a football game before.
November 15th, 2009 at 12:24 AM ^
Ahh so obviously we need replay for the replay booth, maybe a blue flag? or black something more sliming? :)
Or maybe they install those voting pads like on Who Wants to be a Millionaire, just have everyone in the stadium vote, hahaha man I am tired
November 15th, 2009 at 2:37 AM ^
Announcer #1: And it looks like Charlie Weis has thrown out the blue flag.
Announcer #2: Let's take a look at what was happening inside the replay booth.
Announcer #1: It looks like the equipment is hooked up properly, the replay official has his eyes glued to the screen. This may not be over-turned.
Announcer #2: Right there, pause it. You can see the replay official's chin smash into the screen, he's out cold at that point.
Announcer #1: You're right. It looks like this continues for several minutes; we may need to get some paramedics in to look at the official.
Announcer #2: No wait, he's back up. It looks like the official is a bit disoriented.
Announcer #1: Let's see if he'll take another look at the replay.
Announcer #2: Nope, it looks like he's looking at his watch and realizing how long he was unconscious. And now he's signaling to over-turn the call on the field!
Announcer #1: I haven't seen anything like this since Indiana-Iowa earlier in the season.
Announcer #2: It looks like that blue flag will pay dividends. You have to give credit to this Notre Dame coaching staff for the heady challenge.
Announcer #1: You're right, Kirk, now back to kissing?
Announcer #2: Maybe later, maybe later.
November 15th, 2009 at 10:51 AM ^
From the ND reversal, you can take the following 1) ND burned a timeout based on the call of incomplete pass that they never would used if it was ruled a fumble on the field, 2) the whistle blew and play was ruled incomplete pass, so not only did the booth make the wrong call, but the reveral also assumed that Pitt would have recovered the fumble if the whistle would not have blown. Instant replay is not being used to review penalties, and to project what "would have happened" in a game if the "right" call was made. IR cannot be used in this manner. I did not understand the problems many had with it before it was implemented but they are very clear now. I say scrap the whole thing.
November 15th, 2009 at 2:17 PM ^
the system is fine. the refs are bad.
November 14th, 2009 at 11:35 PM ^
I think you might have gotten screwed too...replay shows that someone posted this topic before you did!!! You probably typed slower and didn't see the topic.
November 14th, 2009 at 11:37 PM ^
At first I thought it was a fumble, but the replays had me questioning that. It did look to me that the ball was knocked loose before the forward motion, Clausen didn't have control, but managed to push the ball forward. Seems like a fumble to me, but I wouldn't be comfortable overturning the ruling on the field - didn't seem like there was enough evidence (and sounds like most people think there was enough evidence to confirm the incomplete).
November 14th, 2009 at 11:37 PM ^
goal line stuff was total BS. Since it had no impact on the final outcome (or even whether Mich would cover), I think I can be objective here.
I am becoming less and less a fan of replay. It seems to me that replay should significantly increase the accuracy of close calls. But with the overturning of the Indiana TD versus Iowa when viewers could see the IU receiver drag his foot on the artificial turf, the BG miscall, and other recent blown booth calls, I'm starting to wonder. What's the point of having a reviewing by replay when the review decisions get botched so often?
November 14th, 2009 at 11:40 PM ^
haha 2 minutes before me
November 14th, 2009 at 11:42 PM ^
"It seems to me that replay should significantly increase the accuracy of close calls."
Exactly! Which to me (as well as I'm sure everyone else) is why it's so weird.
Who exactly do they have doing these reviews? Is there a protocol they go through in reviewing it?
The NCAA has som 'splainin' to do.
November 15th, 2009 at 12:15 AM ^
NO - "It seems to me that replay should significantly increase the accuracy of close calls."
That is absolutely not the intent of replay as it stands. The intent is to correct obvious mistakes. There is a very big difference and it needs to be understood. The intent of the rule is NOT to re-officiate close calls.
November 15th, 2009 at 12:01 AM ^
It is being misused. The intent of replay is to correct "obvious" mistakes. In the case of BG's stop I can almost sympathize with the officials in that it was not "irrefutable" - I think he did not score but reasonable people could have argued it. Some of the others, including Carlos Brown's lateral reversal are ridiculous.
November 15th, 2009 at 9:57 AM ^
but I continue to believe the refs did get the Indiana call right. He had his foot down -- but he briefly juggled the ball. I think that was the problem.
November 14th, 2009 at 11:39 PM ^
Replay is a friggen joke this year. Not that it mattered, but the goal line hit by Brandon Graham was definately not a touchdown.
November 14th, 2009 at 11:39 PM ^
Coach Weis better get his other knee fixed soon as his medical benefits from work are about to get revoked!
November 14th, 2009 at 11:41 PM ^
I could be wrong, but don't replay officials get additional views of the play that are not always shown on TV?
November 14th, 2009 at 11:45 PM ^
They got screwed on the call but would still be facing a 4th and 16. They screwed themselves with the chop block on 2nd and 1.
November 15th, 2009 at 2:55 AM ^
Very true, that was such a blatant chop block. But Pitt was also giving up some sickeningly long 3rd down conversions before then. I'd just feel a lot better seeing the game end on an incomplete pass on 4th and 16.
November 15th, 2009 at 12:07 PM ^
And with two timeouts remaining (when 3rd down ended), ND could conceivably have punted the ball and still had a chance to get it back.
November 14th, 2009 at 11:53 PM ^
The college replay officials are now doing what they are absolutely not supposed to do - "re-calling" the play. It should only be used when there is "irrefutable" evidence that the call on the field was wrong.
They did the same thing with the Carlos Brown lateral in the Illinois game. How could any reasonable person have concluded that on that play there was "irrefutable" evidence that the toss was forward?
November 15th, 2009 at 2:57 AM ^
First, I think you meant Purdue-- not Illinois.
Second, the officials saw irrefutable evidence that the toss was forward. The ball left his hands at the 13 and was received at the 12.5. They got that call right.
As for ND, somebody please answer this question. I was watching the game in a noisy ND bar (don't ask why) and couldn't hear if there was a dead ball whistle on the play they ended up reviewing and ruling a fumble. It seemed like the ND players gave up on the play which suggests that a whistle was blown indicating a dead ball. If so, that shouldn't be a reviewable play. So, was there a whistle after the original "incomplete pass" ruling?
FTR, I was rooting harder for ND than any other fan in the bar because I want Chuck Weis to coach ND until his arteries clog and heart stops.
November 14th, 2009 at 11:59 PM ^
...and it is a good reminder that you really don't want to ever put yourself in a position where a bad call is going to end the game.
November 15th, 2009 at 9:24 AM ^
Replay has become the replay official's best guess. Anyone watch the the West Virginia Cincinnati game. They reversed a fumble into a TD for Cincinnati, probably saving Cincy's undefeated season. I saw nothing that would reverse it, but yet it went in favor of the home, and undefeated team.
Replay in my opinion seems to favor the home team, which doesn't make any sense. It seems that questionable calls seem to be overturned in favor of the home team, that are not obvious mistakes.
It seems that for the Home team it just needs to be the official's best guess. For the away it needs to be conclusive evidence. Minor in the Illnois game and The ND Out of bounds td.
Both were correct calls, but man I wouldn't have overturned either.
I think that there should be a time limit of maybe 3 minutes for the process. This will prevent the replay official from looking at it 20 times. I think if the process takes more than 3-4 viewings, then it's not conclusive and the call should stand
November 15th, 2009 at 10:33 AM ^
with the replay system in college football is that the refs are hoping it bails them out because they don't know if they made the right call or not. they know if its a close play that the booth is going to look at it, which gives them a reason to call a close play which ever they want to.
as said above in the WVU/Cincy game, that was not a TD. the player lost control of the ball as he was stretching it out. also if you look at the replay the ref is calling it a TD before he even tries to stretch the ball out, and that ref was on the other side of the field....
the replay system needs to go the way of the NFL. let the coaches make the call if they want something to be looked at, instead of the booth calling the shots. yes, i know that the coaches can challenge if they want to, but whats the point.
i hate watching games where there was a catch on the side lines where the player was clearly inbounds and had control but booth needs to look at it. it slows the games down, and kills drives.
November 15th, 2009 at 11:00 AM ^
The people in the replay booth are terrible. I rather have the tv announcers be the judges.
November 15th, 2009 at 11:20 AM ^
Ahhh who cares if they got screwed. The fact they lost added some happiness to my day after our teams performance.
November 15th, 2009 at 6:32 PM ^
I only saw a replay but if that isn't a fumble then was it intentional grounding?
November 15th, 2009 at 7:10 PM ^
All I know is Pitt shouldnt have gotten the ball. The play was called dead. How can you review that and decide its a fumble and give Pitt the ball if the play is called dead. I cant believe none of the announcers brought this up. Unless there is some rule that Im missing.
Does anyone else not understand that?
November 15th, 2009 at 7:44 PM ^
yeah I didn't either, but the same thing happened last week though so there has to be a reason for it I guess