WTF was up with replay ref?

Submitted by Gameboy on November 27th, 2011 at 12:31 AM

I am just glad we won, because I would have had an aneurism from that BS call at the end of the game.

I don't know HOW any ref in his right mind could reverse the call on the field on that play. They had two camera angles available for review and NEITHER of the cameras were placed exactly on th goal line. The camera from Fitz' backside was slightly inside the goal line which made it appear like Fitz was short, but the opposite angle camera was slightly short of the goal line and it made Fitz look like he was in.

There is no WAY anyone could be positive that he was in or not. You know it was not conclusive when even a Ohio homer like Spielman is saying you can't overturn that call.

If you ask me, that ref had some money riding on the game.

If Braxton hit that receiver right after that play, we would be in a world of hurt right now, because of the refs.

I just don't get it, how can anyone justify reversing that call?

Comments

sarto1g

November 27th, 2011 at 12:34 AM ^

"If Braxton hit that receiver right after that play, we would be in a world of hurt right now, because of the refs."

 

But we aren't!  Go Blue!  Enjoy yourself

joeyb

November 27th, 2011 at 1:16 AM ^

I thought my head was going to explode when he said that Omameh is our best pulling guard. There were two other things that he said at the beginning of the game that were blatantly incorrect, but I've already blocked what those were from my memory.

UMgradMSUdad

November 27th, 2011 at 7:46 AM ^

If I remember correctly, back then the PAC 10 allowed the home team to select the replay official, and it was some old dude who was a booster and fan, kind of the way the official running the clock used to be.  They changed the way replay officials were selected after that.

michiganfanforlife

November 27th, 2011 at 7:50 AM ^

I forget the year, but several years ago Carlyle Holiday was starting for Notre Dame against Michigan. The game was in South Bend, and I was sitting on the 20 yard line about 40 rows up. Notre Dame was inside the 10 and they had a bad shotgun snap. The ball never left the field where Carlyle should have recieved the ball, but he ran into the endzone like he still had the ball. It was called a TD, and I was looking at the Michigan D-lineman holding the ball up, dumbfounded that they could be so wrong. Can anybody find a clip of that? I would love to see it again...

DefenseWins

November 27th, 2011 at 1:00 AM ^

This can't be mentioned enough.  We may not have won the Iowa gm, but I'll always think that was a TD catch by Hemingway.

And WTF has been up with all the holding that has been allowed this year?  Perhaps it's some homerism, but I thought our DLine didn't get as many holding calls as they deserved.

Alton

November 27th, 2011 at 9:16 AM ^

It may have been the same replay guy--they don't print the replay guy's name in the box score--but it was a different crew of on-field refs.

Michigan at Iowa:  R-Capron, U-Neale, H-Ryan, L-Krispinsky, B-Lyman, F-Terry, S-Sagers.

Ohio at Michigan:  R-LeMonnier, U-Shaw, H-Dolce, L-Livas, B-Buchanan, F-Clay, S-Swanson

The crew for yesterday's game was the same crew as for the Michigan-Michigan State game.

Chunks the Hobo

November 27th, 2011 at 12:41 AM ^

And what was with the "personal foul" tacked on to the holding call? I don't even recall being shown it on replay, like, at all. Was there a personal foul?

But anyway...

Suck it, Ohio. Suck it, refs who tried to throw the game to Ohio. Go Blue!

DefenseWins

November 27th, 2011 at 1:02 AM ^

I initially thought that the defender just stopped and he ran into him on that play for the personal foul.  But that was pure homerism, it was definitely a personal foul.  FWIW, the holding call was legit too.  Frustrating as hell, but that wasn't bad officiating.  The Fitz TD, on the other hand...

BlueGoM

November 27th, 2011 at 12:48 AM ^

screw the refs. We beat tsio and we beat the refs too.

I'd have to watch the play where we got 2 fouls again - I can't believe that. Had we got a TD there it would have been all over.

denardogasm

November 27th, 2011 at 12:41 AM ^

I just cannot for the life of me understand why the cameras aren't just ON the goal line?!?! What possible benefit can there be to having them on opposite sides of the line??? 

Nardudeski

November 27th, 2011 at 12:42 AM ^

There's been a lot of calls reversed to be set at the one foot line since instant replay became a major factor in officiating. I wouldn't be surprised if that's one of the talking points in whatever happens in these "hey focus on this rule" officiating meetings that we hear about at the begining of the season (commentators pointing out the "don't blast them in the head" rules). That's the only reason I can see that they reversed it. Regardless, with the camera angles available, the ruling on the field (whether TD or down before) should have stood. There was really nothing to review. 

NoMoPincherBug

November 27th, 2011 at 12:52 AM ^

Why not fix the system by doing either putting true goaline cams in every stadium....

or better yet, imbed a small chip in every football and place detectors at every goal line.  When the ball crosses the goal, the sensor goes off ... TD

Or is that too futuristic to achieve?  I doubt that it is...

Nardudeski

November 27th, 2011 at 1:43 AM ^

I'm in favor of cameras, sensors is where I would draw the line. Have you ever spiked an IPhone? They don't like that so much. Designing against that, ontop of the cost of the football already, and at that volume leads to a product that just doesn't deliver enough benefits (that would be relevant what, once in the past couple years of Michigan football?) to outweigh the costs. I remember a segment on Good Morning America where they advertised a GPS outifttied golf ball, but it cost about ~$200 a golf ball (Not going to cite, dismiss if you please. This was about 2 years ago, for reference.). We could take the loses from that product sure, but you've got to sell that not only to Dave Brandon, but to every AD in D1-FBS, and not everyone can just write off a loss like that and keep their job. 

joeyb

November 30th, 2011 at 12:17 AM ^

I wasn't saying I was in favor of either of them, but to say that the cost of the sensors outweighs the cameras that they use for television is kind of ridiculous. Honestly, just instruct the camera men to be on the goalline next time and this won't be an issue.

Tacopants

November 27th, 2011 at 1:32 AM ^

I get tackled at the 1 and stick the football over the goal line after i'm down.  Sensors say TD.  How does that in any way help?

Sticking loads of cameras down there doesn't help either.  You would need humans at every one making sure they were in focus.  Those 48 people would cost lots of money and be super bored 99.9% of the time.  It just doesn't happen enough to justify this sort of attention.

In the end, you're relying on one replay official sitting upstairs to determine the result.  Easiest fix is to make it a panel of 3 with majority rules.  1 guy in the pressbox for routine events, have a replay screen for the ref on the field, and 1 guy at the B1G offices or something that gives him zero context of what the game/score/situation is when a replay is called for.  Leaving the decision in the hands of one really old crochety guy seems like a bad decision.

joeyb

November 27th, 2011 at 1:38 AM ^

Like they said, you either synchronize the signal with the film, or you have lights that go off.

The real problem, though, is that I don't think that you would get the pinpoint accuracy from sensors that others think you would get. With something that is within an inch of the goalline and with the receptors being 20 yards away, I could see a lot of false positives or false negatives.