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?



November 27th, 2011 at 2:54 AM ^

I've thought about the "chip" too.  I think you'd really only need two, one in each tip of the ball.  that would balance the weight and be in the axis of rotation to minimize any impact with throwing.  If you know the two points of the ball, you should be able to determine the "skin" of the ball within a certain tolerance.

I would also like to see this used to measure field position in general.  I've always been amused by the 1st down measurements in this game.  Consider this:

If the play goes out on the far side of the field, the ref will spot it at the far hash.  That is over 100 feet away from the chain gang.  They have to eyeball where to place the chains from 100 feet away!  They repeat this dozens of times a game, and periodically the eye measurement needs to be more precise so they run out the chains to the spot of the ball (nevermind the estimation error as they bring the chains out) and they lay the chains on the ground and get an EXACT measurement....based on the sum of all of the previous eye measurements!

The practice just seems absurd to me.  It's outdated and the engineer in me thinks there must be a better, more accurate way of doing things.

If I had my way, I'd like 2 chips in each ball (hell an RFID chip is cheap, how much more would one of these cost?).  Put some kind of wires beneath the ground (say along the field of play, but perhaps also on the hash marks?)  The wires would sense the position of the two chips in the ball.  Voila.

Sensors in the FG posts could also help determine if FGs over an upright were "good" or not. 



November 27th, 2011 at 3:29 AM ^

You don't really need sensors in the ball. With multiple cameras you can triangulate the position of the ball fairly precisely. You just need to measure camera positions very accurately. The tech would be comparable to the way they track baseball pitch trajectories to within a fraction of an inch.

A replay official could play back multiple angles in exact synchronization and stop the playback at any point (like when the knee touches the ground) and a processor could identify the exact position and orientation of the ball at that time.

I would not expect to see this in the next few years, but it is technically feasible.


November 27th, 2011 at 6:49 AM ^

From where I was sitting, I could have sworn the ball broke the plane. 

In any event, in the end, this particular shit call didn't matter - we still won, fair and square. As for the replay officials, rather than write something sinister into it, such as betting, as the OP suggests, I like to believe it is unrelated to the game, such as his bitterness over there being no online version of "All My Children" now. 


November 27th, 2011 at 7:04 AM ^

We discussed this briefly in another thread, but my theory is that critical end-of-game replay reviews that are reasonably determinative of the game's outcome are reviewed on a different standard, understood by officials but unwritten otherwise.  The end-of-game standard is this: if you could basically be deciding the game, just make your best guess what the correct call is regardless of what was called on the field.  

Think of Sparty-Wisconsin hail mary.  There was intense pressure to get the call right.  The call on the field was no TD, and the replays, in my opinion, suggested the ball made it to the goal line for a millisecond but weren't "indisputable" in any sense of the word.  But in a situation like that, the replay ref just wants to make his best guess as to the correct call, period, and it was more likely than not that he scored.

Likewise for yesterday.  There's not enough evidence to be sure he was short, and under normal circumstances, the play stands.  But if they let it stand, the game is over.  He looks at it from the more-likely-than-not-what-is-the-correct-call standard, and decides Fitz is a bit short.  That's not unreasonable under that standard.

If I were the powers that be, and I wanted to keep the "indisputable" standard, I'd make this the guide for replay officials:  if you have to look at the replay more than once or twice because it's not obvious the first time, it's not indisputable and should not be reversed.

Or, possibly, this replay ref (the same from the Iowa game) is just an asshole.  Who cares.  We made the Buckeyes cry and the sweetness of their tears of infinite sadness is still on my lips this morning.  Mmmmm.  Buckeye sadness.


November 27th, 2011 at 8:02 AM ^

The other possibility is the replay official doesn't know jack about camera angles, which is alarming.  If the call on the field were he didn't make it in, no one would be in a position to bitch--the same thing would apply, there is not indisputable evidence one way or the other.  But, if they are applying a different standard at the end of games, then they need to either stop doing that or rewrite the rule book.  What I find amazing in all this, though, is how many bucknuts blame the officials at least in part for the loss.

As far as another poster mentioned, if they aren't calling holding, I guess that's o.k. as long as they aren't applying a different standard to each team. 

I shudder to think how Michigan fans (mysef included) would be reacting if OSU was somehow able to score a touchdown at the end.  Thank god the Michigan players were able to overcome and win!


November 27th, 2011 at 8:02 AM ^

a bitchy little ohio fan sitting behind me in the ALUMNI SECTION...COME ON FOLKS...STOP DUMPING YOUR TIX TO THESE PEOPLE...anyway...he was crying up a storm how horrible the refs were calling the game...because well...what else is he suppsed to do when they are FINALLY losing...and as I said and as I said to anyone who asked me about the Iowa debacle....if you are counting on the refs to win a game for you or take it from already lost your ass....WIN with what you have beyond all elements...then you've done something...the call sucked...but our team sucked it UP...Wx10!


November 27th, 2011 at 11:14 AM ^

This argument is never convincing, but it has perservered and popularized the notion that complaining about officiating is the province of sore losers and whiners alike.

LOOK: There are such things as close games; not every win occurs in blowout fashion.  In these cases, officiating matters, and it's important that the right calls are made.  Failing to whistle an obvious pass interference on a fourth and goal, overturning a called touchdown without indisputable video evidence, and similar blunders can and do have substantial impacts on the outcomes of games.  Nobody's counting on the refs to call, much less see, every single hold on the field; nobody thinks it's a conspiracy when the refs penalize the defense for being offsides when it's questionable whether an offensive lineman moved first; in other words, nobody expects a perfectly officiated football game.  What people want are fairly officiated contests where the vast bulk of the calls on the field are right, the obvious infractions are appropriately penalized, and the video review officials actually apply the standards mandated by the league.  That's not what Michigan got with the Toussaint touchdown, and it's certainly not what they got at Iowa.


November 27th, 2011 at 8:04 AM ^

Seems like the B1G should get together with the SEC on this. I was watching LSU v. Arkansas Friday and on reviewed plays, it seems like if there's even any question, they go with the ruling on the field. The couple of reviews I saw happened so fast; the calls were back from the booth in like 20 seconds. Like you say; if it's not an obviously bad call on review, go with the call on the filed.

(HOWEVA, I reserve the right to change my stance when my team is in the opposite situation.)

O Fo Sho

November 27th, 2011 at 8:23 AM ^

First of all, I believe it was a touch down watching the play full speed.  Secondly, you are absolutely right....the one camara angle showed the ball was clearly over the goal line when his knee hit.  Third, for them to place the ball at the 1 ft line was nuts, IF he was short it was by an inch at the most.  THEN LAST of all, the only thing I can figure is that the replay ref never looked at the one camara shot that showed the ball was over.  Not sure how that works in the booth, but if he was ONLY looking at the one shot, maybe that is all he was pulling from.  Bottom line, horrible!

O Fo Sho

November 27th, 2011 at 8:30 AM ^

They actually marked the ball down where his knee was on the ground.  You have to assume that the replay official is a 5 year old who has no understanding of the actual rules of the game.  His knee was down at the 1 ft line, the ball was definitely not directly above his knee.  Thank Bo we won this game, but that could have been bad.


November 27th, 2011 at 9:12 PM ^

...that next-to-last 4th down play by OSU should've been marked where Miller landed, instead of at the forward progress of the ball.
<br>I kept watching the replay thinking: but if they overturn it, they've got to spot the ball halfway across the white line.
<br>If the replay decision takes as long as a full Journey song, can it really be conclusive and indisputable?!?! If it were conclusive, they'd see it on the first replay, like Denard's fumble. Right?


November 27th, 2011 at 8:45 AM ^

camera angles.

I am glad we won too. I am glad we won it on a defensive play. I was not happy about the call back, but I was not happy about the unecessary roughness penalty either. And then I was real happy for Gibbons on that 43 yarder.

So all is well that ends well.

(I am still pissed about the touchdown at Iowa. They overturned the field call here, they should have overturned it there.)


November 27th, 2011 at 9:13 AM ^

How could the refs justify putting the ball at the half yard line as opposed to the 1 inch line?  Is there some rule that that's as close as they can spot it on an over turn? 


November 27th, 2011 at 9:03 PM ^

...they should've stood a sheet of paper on the goal line and butted the tip of the ball against it. Instead, they spotted it behind where his knee came down.
<br>I think Brady Hoke needs to insist that Michigan games are called by non-conference officiating that we can enjoy some impartiality.


November 27th, 2011 at 9:36 AM ^

The refs wiped two Michigan touchdowns off of the board, and gave Braxton Miller a ridiculously generous spot on the ensuing drive.  If it wasn't for the refs, MIchigan would have won this game by ten, and there would have been no chance for Ohio to pull it out on the last drive.  

Smash Lampjaw

November 27th, 2011 at 3:49 PM ^

IMO these clowns lost us the MSU game, with the bad spot on the 4th-and-one that should never have happened, and the backward pass that did happen. What would we be looking at with better officiating at MSU and Iowa, not that I would relish facing the mad hatter?