If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Deadspin)   Not news: Refs miss a safety call. Fark: Missed it by five yards   (deadspin.com) divider line 45
    More: Asinine, Rapid Equipping Force, intentional grounding, Tyler Tettleton  
•       •       •

2853 clicks; posted to Sports » on 07 Nov 2013 at 1:12 PM (49 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



45 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-11-07 11:07:36 AM  
dataswap2013.com
 
2013-11-07 11:21:52 AM  
AND missed it on replay too, I think. I didn't read tfa to check
 
2013-11-07 11:32:35 AM  

cameroncrazy1984: AND missed it on replay too, I think. I didn't read tfa to check


No replay. I don't think safety calls are reviewable in the NCAA.
 
2013-11-07 11:38:38 AM  

exick: cameroncrazy1984: AND missed it on replay too, I think. I didn't read tfa to check

No replay. I don't think safety calls are reviewable in the NCAA.


That makes zero sense whatsoever.
 
2013-11-07 11:40:20 AM  

exick: No replay. I don't think safety calls are reviewable in the NCAA.


So the ref could call a safety at the other end of the field and there's no recourse. Yeah, that makes sense.
 
2013-11-07 11:53:45 AM  

cameroncrazy1984: That makes zero sense whatsoever.


kronicfeld: So the ref could call a safety at the other end of the field and there's no recourse. Yeah, that makes sense.


Based on what the MAC officials said, Rule 12, Section 3, Article I states that the location of a pass attempt is not a reviewable play.
 
2013-11-07 11:55:15 AM  

exick: cameroncrazy1984: AND missed it on replay too, I think. I didn't read tfa to check

No replay. I don't think safety calls are reviewable in the NCAA.


I don't know anything about football, but isn't there at least some kind of catchall "the ref is on drugs" review for when something is blatantly wrong?
 
2013-11-07 12:02:34 PM  

kronicfeld: So the ref could call a safety at the other end of the field and there's no recourse. Yeah, that makes sense.


In the game? No, no recourse. The ref won't have much of a career after a call like that, though.
 
2013-11-07 12:04:07 PM  
Oh good, I get to be the first to make the Get Smart reference:

img.fark.net

::looks upthread::

darn, missed it by *that* much.
 
2013-11-07 12:07:15 PM  

exick: Based on what the MAC officials said, Rule 12, Section 3, Article I states that the location of a pass attempt is not a reviewable play.


Which is ridiculous, because the location of the attempt is relevant to a correct determination of (1) an illegal forward pass and (2) an incomplete forward pass versus a lateral/fumble.
 
2013-11-07 12:11:16 PM  

exick: cameroncrazy1984: That makes zero sense whatsoever.

kronicfeld: So the ref could call a safety at the other end of the field and there's no recourse. Yeah, that makes sense.

Based on what the MAC officials said, Rule 12, Section 3, Article I states that the location of a pass attempt is not a reviewable play.


Except that 12-3-1 is:

SECTION 3. Reviewable Plays
Scoring Plays
ARTICLE 1. Reviewable plays involving a potential score include:
a. A potential touchdown or safety. [Exception: Safety by penalty for fouls
that are not specifically reviewable.]

One could argue that it means you can't review that there WAS a penalty, but you should be able to review the location of the penalty, as it relates to the score. At least, that should be the intent of the rule, but it's not the explicit letter of the rule. However, there is also 12-3-6:

Limitations on Reviewable Plays
ARTICLE 6. No other plays or officiating decisions are reviewable. However,
the replay official may correct egregious errors, including those involving the
game clock, whether or not a play is reviewable. This excludes fouls that are
not specifically reviewable (Reviewable fouls: Rules 12-3-2-c and d, 12-3-4-b
and 12-3-5-a).

The reviewable fowls are illegal forward passes (beyond the neutral zone) or forward handoffs and illegal participation. One should be able to argue that the clear evidence that he was at the 4 yard line should be an "egregious error". Again, arguing intent not letter of the rule.
 
2013-11-07 12:18:00 PM  

Donnchadha: ARTICLE 1. Reviewable plays involving a potential score include:
a. A potential touchdown or safety. [Exception: Safety by penalty for fouls
that are not specifically reviewable.]

One could argue that it means you can't review that there WAS a penalty, but you should be able to review the location of the penalty, as it relates to the score. At least, that should be the intent of the rule, but it's not the explicit letter of the rule.


I think I see where they're getting it. If a grounding penalty isn't reviewable (and I think that's the case), then a safety based on grounding isn't reviewable either.
 
2013-11-07 12:23:51 PM  

exick: Donnchadha: ARTICLE 1. Reviewable plays involving a potential score include:
a. A potential touchdown or safety. [Exception: Safety by penalty for fouls
that are not specifically reviewable.]

One could argue that it means you can't review that there WAS a penalty, but you should be able to review the location of the penalty, as it relates to the score. At least, that should be the intent of the rule, but it's not the explicit letter of the rule.

I think I see where they're getting it. If a grounding penalty isn't reviewable (and I think that's the case), then a safety based on grounding isn't reviewable either.


That being said, everybody is pointing at the referee, but rest assured that the line judge (and possibly linesman as well) is getting chewed out for that one too.
 
2013-11-07 12:31:17 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: exick: cameroncrazy1984: AND missed it on replay too, I think. I didn't read tfa to check

No replay. I don't think safety calls are reviewable in the NCAA.

That makes zero sense whatsoever.


HUMAN ELENMENT!!!11
 
2013-11-07 01:22:12 PM  
Who wants to bet that this is gonna lead to some changes in the rulebook over the offseason?

(Or at least some changes in the MAC officiating roster.)
 
2013-11-07 01:25:32 PM  
Headline makes no sense.  The referees didn't miss a safety call, they made one up out of thin air!
 
2013-11-07 01:28:52 PM  

Donnchadha: exick: Donnchadha: ARTICLE 1. Reviewable plays involving a potential score include:
a. A potential touchdown or safety. [Exception: Safety by penalty for fouls
that are not specifically reviewable.]

One could argue that it means you can't review that there WAS a penalty, but you should be able to review the location of the penalty, as it relates to the score. At least, that should be the intent of the rule, but it's not the explicit letter of the rule.

I think I see where they're getting it. If a grounding penalty isn't reviewable (and I think that's the case), then a safety based on grounding isn't reviewable either.

That being said, everybody is pointing at the referee, but rest assured that the line judge (and possibly linesman as well) is getting chewed out for that one too.


If half the crew didn't see that he was an extra-special kind of wrong on this one, they're not fit to ref another game. I know that not all officials are watching that area of the field, but at least 2 or 3 should have told him that he was wrong before safety was officially called.
 
2013-11-07 01:30:40 PM  
Of course, an argument could be made that maybe the opposing coach should have had his QB just run back and kneel down in the endzone on their next play. I have no problem that he didn't, but I'd think it'd be the right thing to do.
 
2013-11-07 01:44:52 PM  
one would think a scoring play could be reviewable
 
2013-11-07 01:47:20 PM  

Shame Us: Of course, an argument could be made that maybe the opposing coach should have had his QB just run back and kneel down in the endzone on their next play. I have no problem that he didn't, but I'd think it'd be the right thing to do.


The ref probably would have then given him a touchdown.
 
2013-11-07 01:49:33 PM  

Olympic Trolling Judge: Who wants to bet that this is gonna lead to some changes in the rulebook over the offseason?

(Or at least some changes in the MAC officiating roster.)


sure, i was at the music city bowl that one year when UT lost famously to UNC because a penalty on UNC gave them time on the clock - just enough to score

they decided it wasn't fair for a team to get a penalty and benefit from it in that scenario, so the new rule was basically that any penalty under 2 minutes leads to a clock run-off of 10 seconds just to discourage that kind of scenario from happening again

it is a sport after all, not a bureaucracy, it's okay to say "that rule needs to be changed"
 
2013-11-07 01:56:10 PM  

Olympic Trolling Judge: Who wants to bet that this is gonna lead to some changes in the rulebook over the offseason?

(Or at least some changes in the MAC officiating roster.)


It'll result in a change in the officials roster because it was such a blatant missed call.

However, it may only result in a clarification in the case book that the location of a foul, as it relates to a score, may be reviewable, but not the foul itself -- mostly because I don't see that expressly forbidden by the rules, but not explicitly included either.
 
2013-11-07 02:15:54 PM  
Though it may be hard to believe, refs go over every game they ref, and they mark down every play they get wrong.  These games are also reviewed by the officiating board.  This ref is gonna see some consequences for such a blatant missed call.  My father is an NCAA football ref (though not division 1), and he gets almost as riled up over blatant bad calls as fans do.  Though he's also the first to defend a refs for a no-call that many people feel should have been called.  It's always interesting watching games with him and getting his viewpoint on things.
 
2013-11-07 02:53:51 PM  
img404.imageshack.us

Uh, yeah. It's great to be here, Ref. Um.. listen, I just wanted to know, um.. are you totally blind, or just legally blind.. uh.. so that, you know, you can make out shapes and degrees of light, you know, that kind of thing?
 
2013-11-07 03:11:45 PM  
Does Mike Carey ref NCAA football games too? That's his kind of unbelievably screwed up call.
 
2013-11-07 03:20:24 PM  

Shame Us: Of course, an argument could be made that maybe the opposing coach should have had his QB just run back and kneel down in the endzone on their next play. I have no problem that he didn't, but I'd think it'd be the right thing to do.


Only if the original team agreed to fumble the return of the safety punt. That intentional grounding was going to make it like 4th-and-27 from their own 4. Giving away a safety in return would give them a fresh set of downs in a much better part of the field.
 
2013-11-07 03:33:19 PM  

IAmRight: Shame Us: Of course, an argument could be made that maybe the opposing coach should have had his QB just run back and kneel down in the endzone on their next play. I have no problem that he didn't, but I'd think it'd be the right thing to do.

Only if the original team agreed to fumble the return of the safety punt. That intentional grounding was going to make it like 4th-and-27 from their own 4. Giving away a safety in return would give them a fresh set of downs in a much better part of the field.


Fair enough. IDK if we have any idea what the score was at the time either. May not have made any kind of difference. If it's in the articel, pardon me. Deadspin is blocked at work.
 
2013-11-07 03:43:09 PM  
i94.photobucket.com

"Juuuuust a bit outside."
 
2013-11-07 03:47:35 PM  
cejiujitsu.com
 
2013-11-07 04:13:23 PM  
I watched the game (UB grad) and thought the call was hilarious. It sucks that Ohio got robbed, but it is one of the funniest calls I've ever seen.
 
2013-11-07 05:18:59 PM  

Shame Us: Of course, an argument could be made that maybe the opposing coach should have had his QB just run back and kneel down in the endzone on their next play. I have no problem that he didn't, but I'd think it'd be the right thing to do.

 
2013-11-07 05:20:35 PM  

buckeyebrain: Shame Us: Of course, an argument could be made that maybe the opposing coach should have had his QB just run back and kneel down in the endzone on their next play. I have no problem that he didn't, but I'd think it'd be the right thing to do.


Fark, No-Preview Fail...

i214.photobucket.com
 
2013-11-07 05:22:40 PM  

Shame Us: IAmRight: Shame Us: Of course, an argument could be made that maybe the opposing coach should have had his QB just run back and kneel down in the endzone on their next play. I have no problem that he didn't, but I'd think it'd be the right thing to do.

Only if the original team agreed to fumble the return of the safety punt. That intentional grounding was going to make it like 4th-and-27 from their own 4. Giving away a safety in return would give them a fresh set of downs in a much better part of the field.

Fair enough. IDK if we have any idea what the score was at the time either. May not have made any kind of difference. If it's in the articel, pardon me. Deadspin is blocked at work.


7-3 Buffalo at the time, so it was close at that point. But considering the final 30-3 score, I'm inclined to believe it didn't matter, just a hilarious footnote to the game.
 
2013-11-07 06:06:57 PM  
Incredibad
 
2013-11-07 06:39:02 PM  
So... he rules *both* intentional grounding *and* a safety? Unless that QB is Reed Richards or Stretch Armstrong, the safety call should have gotten the old "WTF" from the other officials on the field. That whole crew needs to be pulled and re-trained.
 
2013-11-07 06:49:14 PM  
I guess know what the NFL's potato refs are up to these days.
 
2013-11-07 06:51:32 PM  

Donnchadha: However,
the replay official may correct egregious errors, including those involving the
game clock, whether or not a play is reviewable. This excludes fouls that are
not specifically reviewable (Reviewable fouls: Rules 12-3-2-c and d, 12-3-4-b
and 12-3-5-a).


I like that rule, do you know how long it has existed? It would've been nice to reverse the unfair catch from a few years ago.

The #1 goal of the officiating crew, including the replay official, should be that the game is called fairly. If that means reversing an obvious mistake that isn't supposed to be reviewable, so be it.
 
2013-11-07 07:14:59 PM  

Twigz221: Though it may be hard to believe, refs go over every game they ref, and they mark down every play they get wrong.  These games are also reviewed by the officiating board.  This ref is gonna see some consequences for such a blatant missed call.  My father is an NCAA football ref (though not division 1), and he gets almost as riled up over blatant bad calls as fans do.  Though he's also the first to defend a refs for a no-call that many people feel should have been called.  It's always interesting watching games with him and getting his viewpoint on things.


I keep hearing this, yet time and again I see college football and basketball refs screw up royally only to be back on the field or court the next game (much less getting reassigned or fired).  As the Donoghy incident revealed, much of officiating is still a good-ole-boy-friend-of-a-friend racket even at this level.  They cover for each other.
 
2013-11-07 07:47:32 PM  
Last year in NFL preseason Bills vs redskins the replacement refs did the same thing.  It was a touch back called after the bills clearly downed the ball at the 4 yard line.

http://awkwardsports.wordpress.com/2012/08/11/nfl-replacement-ref-ca ll s-touchback-at-the-4-yard-line-in-bills-game/

Would have been the worst call ever but packers/seahawks takes that because that was a game deciding call during the regular season.
 
2013-11-07 08:22:22 PM  

exick: Donnchadha: ARTICLE 1. Reviewable plays involving a potential score include:
a. A potential touchdown or safety. [Exception: Safety by penalty for fouls
that are not specifically reviewable.]

One could argue that it means you can't review that there WAS a penalty, but you should be able to review the location of the penalty, as it relates to the score. At least, that should be the intent of the rule, but it's not the explicit letter of the rule.

I think I see where they're getting it. If a grounding penalty isn't reviewable (and I think that's the case), then a safety based on grounding isn't reviewable either.


Except that grounding is reviewable, at least to determine whether the ball crossed the line (I don't believe the pocket is reviewable).  And they can obviously review where a player was when he threw the ball, re: illegal forward pass.  I really don't see why they couldn't review this here.

Either way, I expect we'll see this play become explicitly reviewable next year, especially since it's a scoring play.
 
2013-11-07 08:49:10 PM  
blogdanleavitt.files.wordpress.com

/Obligatory
 
2013-11-07 09:53:26 PM  

ClavellBCMI: So... he rules *both* intentional grounding *and* a safety? Unless that QB is Reed Richards or Stretch Armstrong, the safety call should have gotten the old "WTF" from the other officials on the field. That whole crew needs to be pulled and re-trained.


Penalty in end zone = safety.  So a play starts from the offense's one-yard-line and a lineman that's protecting his quarterback commits holding in the end zone.  That's a safety.

This official called intentional grounding on a quarterback that he apparently thought was in the end zone.  Had he been in the end zone, it really would have been a legitimate safety.

I've seen officials blatantly NOT call safeties in runaway games when the losing team is just getting beaten up.  "Get up kid and run out, so we can mark it at the two."
 
2013-11-07 10:29:37 PM  

JohnAnnArbor: This official called intentional grounding on a quarterback that he apparently thought was in the end zone.  Had he been in the end zone, it really would have been a legitimate safety.


Maybe the ref had already backed up so far he assumed they were in the end zone. I mean, dude DID run 20 yards backwards.

rugman11: Except that grounding is reviewable, at least to determine whether the ball crossed the line (I don't believe the pocket is reviewable).


They always show replays of it, but I don't think it's reviewable. Hell, no penalties are reviewable. Except now "targeting" penalties are reviewable (but only so they can't be ejected; even if it's overturned, the 15-yard penalty still stands).
 
2013-11-07 11:08:01 PM  

IAmRight: rugman11: Except that grounding is reviewable, at least to determine whether the ball crossed the line (I don't believe the pocket is reviewable).

They always show replays of it, but I don't think it's reviewable. Hell, no penalties are reviewable. Except now "targeting" penalties are reviewable (but only so they can't be ejected; even if it's overturned, the 15-yard penalty still stands).


Some penalties are reviewable.  Illegal Forward Pass is reviewable (whether the QB is behind or past the line of scrimmage).  Pass Interference is reviewable (at least if the ball may have been tipped before the interference).  12 men on the field is reviewable.

It just seems strange to me that the spot where a QB throws the ball is reviewable on an Illegal Forward Pass penalty but not on an Intentional Grounding penalty.
 
2013-11-07 11:17:36 PM  

rugman11: It just seems strange to me that the spot where a QB throws the ball is reviewable on an Illegal Forward Pass penalty but not on an Intentional Grounding penalty.


I suppose it's because there's a clear line, so it's not really a judgment call at all.

/but then again, I'm attempting to explain a rulebook that's just basically dumb.
 
Displayed 45 of 45 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report