menu
Logo
99+
Bobcat Attack Menu
Logo
99+
Ohio Football Topic
Topic: League Admits Officiating Errors
Page: 3 of 3
C Money
General User
Member Since: 8/28/2010
Post Count: 3,420
mail
C Money
mail
Posted: 11/8/2013 1:02 PM
settings_applications edit_note
Egregious: "extraordinary in some bad way; glaring; flagrant". When everyone in the stands, and everyone watching on TV, and the league office, and the referees themselves after the fact, watches the play and says, "that was a really bad call," I think the standard of "extraordinary in some bad way; glaring; flagrant" is satisfied.

The 2011 FSU/Miami game I referenced above--Manuel's pass is described in the ESPN story as "a desperation pass near his own goal line." I didn't see the game, so I don't know what "near his own goal line" means. But I would not, and I believe most college football fans would not, consider a pass from the 4 yard line a pass near the goal line.

That the referee had a decent excuse (not wanting to be crushed) as to why he was distracted doesn't change the fact that he was distracted, and the call was an egregious error that could have been and should have been reversed on review.

If you don't think it was an egregious error, please lay out the additional facts that would make it an egregious error.
Last Edited: 11/8/2013 1:08:36 PM by C Money
BillyTheCat
General User
BTC
Member Since: 10/6/2012
Post Count: 10,802
person
mail
BillyTheCat
mail
Posted: 11/8/2013 1:12 PM
settings_applications edit_note
C Money wrote:expand_more
Egregious: "extraordinary in some bad way; glaring; flagrant". When everyone in the stands, and everyone watching on TV, and the league office, and the referees themselves after the fact, watches the play and says, "that was a really bad call," I think the standard of "extraordinary in some bad way; glaring; flagrant" is satisfied.

The 2011 FSU/Miami game I referenced above--Manuel's pass is described in the ESPN story as "a desperation pass near his own goal line." I didn't see the game, so I don't know what "near his own goal line" means. But I would not, and I believe most college football fans would not, consider a pass from the 4 yard line a pass near the goal line.

That the referee had a decent excuse (not wanting to be crushed) as to why he was distracted doesn't change the fact that he was distracted, and the call was an egregious error that could have been and should have been reversed on review.

If you don't think it was an egregious error, please lay out the additional facts that would make it an egregious error.


My point is, have you ever seen this section of the rules enforced?  I have not, and since we did not see this section enforced and the Director of MAC officiating did not say that this should have been reviewed, I'd say they do not term this an egregious error.

As per the FSU/Miami game, the QB's body was straddling the goal line when the ball was thrown....(I have not seen the play, but after your reference spent my lunch hour looking it up.)
Last Edited: 11/8/2013 1:13:24 PM by BillyTheCat
Robert Fox
General User
RF
Member Since: 11/17/2004
Location: Knoxville, TN
Post Count: 2,039
person
mail
Robert Fox
mail
Posted: 11/8/2013 1:25 PM
settings_applications edit_note
BillyTheCat wrote:expand_more
Egregious: "extraordinary in some bad way; glaring; flagrant". When everyone in the stands, and everyone watching on TV, and the league office, and the referees themselves after the fact, watches the play and says, "that was a really bad call," I think the standard of "extraordinary in some bad way; glaring; flagrant" is satisfied.

The 2011 FSU/Miami game I referenced above--Manuel's pass is described in the ESPN story as "a desperation pass near his own goal line." I didn't see the game, so I don't know what "near his own goal line" means. But I would not, and I believe most college football fans would not, consider a pass from the 4 yard line a pass near the goal line.

That the referee had a decent excuse (not wanting to be crushed) as to why he was distracted doesn't change the fact that he was distracted, and the call was an egregious error that could have been and should have been reversed on review.

If you don't think it was an egregious error, please lay out the additional facts that would make it an egregious error.


My point is, have you ever seen this section of the rules enforced?  I have not, and since we did not see this section enforced and the Director of MAC officiating did not say that this should have been reviewed, I'd say they do not term this an egregious error.

As per the FSU/Miami game, the QB's body was straddling the goal line when the ball was thrown....(I have not seen the play, but after your reference spent my lunch hour looking it up.)


Good Lord. If the Tettleton play was not egregious, then nothing is egregious. I've lost all understand of what you're trying to argue, BTC. Are you trying to defend a bad outcome at all costs, or just trying to be an a-hole?
Hawaiian Bobcat
General User
HB
Member Since: 2/1/2005
Location: Wailuku, HI
Post Count: 334
person
mail
Hawaiian Bobcat
mail
Posted: 11/8/2013 1:26 PM
settings_applications edit_note
BillyTheCat wrote:expand_more
Our QB also admitted that he had no clue where he was at on the field as well, and that's why he did not protest the call.  The Referee got caught in a bad angle and though he was looking at it, he was focused on getting out of the way, same reason TT had no clue where he was at, he was focused on getting out of the way of that Truck that was bearing down on him.  Interesting thing here, is really what is egregous?  One of those words/terms that has no definition as to how it would be defined on the field.  As rare as what we wittnessed on Tuesday is, I am not sure I've ever seen that part of the review or the rule book be implemented.


Willy,
If football is a game of inches, then being off by 12 feet is egregious!  Coaches challenge the spot when it is off a foot.  I don't see how it isn't egregious?
Hawaiian Bobcat
General User
HB
Member Since: 2/1/2005
Location: Wailuku, HI
Post Count: 334
person
mail
Hawaiian Bobcat
mail
Posted: 11/8/2013 1:33 PM
settings_applications edit_note
BillyTheCat wrote:expand_more
Egregious: "extraordinary in some bad way; glaring; flagrant". When everyone in the stands, and everyone watching on TV, and the league office, and the referees themselves after the fact, watches the play and says, "that was a really bad call," I think the standard of "extraordinary in some bad way; glaring; flagrant" is satisfied.

The 2011 FSU/Miami game I referenced above--Manuel's pass is described in the ESPN story as "a desperation pass near his own goal line." I didn't see the game, so I don't know what "near his own goal line" means. But I would not, and I believe most college football fans would not, consider a pass from the 4 yard line a pass near the goal line.

That the referee had a decent excuse (not wanting to be crushed) as to why he was distracted doesn't change the fact that he was distracted, and the call was an egregious error that could have been and should have been reversed on review.

If you don't think it was an egregious error, please lay out the additional facts that would make it an egregious error.


My point is, have you ever seen this section of the rules enforced?  I have not, and since we did not see this section enforced and the Director of MAC officiating did not say that this should have been reviewed, I'd say they do not term this an egregious error.

As per the FSU/Miami game, the QB's body was straddling the goal line when the ball was thrown....(I have not seen the play, but after your reference spent my lunch hour looking it up.)


There is a chance the officials were unaware of the egregious error rule!  Which is even more of an egregious error.  It is all mute there is no rewind button in life.  Hopefully the Bobcats can rebound from this set back and end the season on a positive note.
BillyTheCat
General User
BTC
Member Since: 10/6/2012
Post Count: 10,802
person
mail
BillyTheCat
mail
Posted: 11/8/2013 1:33 PM
settings_applications edit_note
hawaiian bobcat wrote:expand_more
Our QB also admitted that he had no clue where he was at on the field as well, and that's why he did not protest the call.  The Referee got caught in a bad angle and though he was looking at it, he was focused on getting out of the way, same reason TT had no clue where he was at, he was focused on getting out of the way of that Truck that was bearing down on him.  Interesting thing here, is really what is egregous?  One of those words/terms that has no definition as to how it would be defined on the field.  As rare as what we wittnessed on Tuesday is, I am not sure I've ever seen that part of the review or the rule book be implemented.


Willy,
If football is a game of inches, then being off by 12 feet is egregious!  Coaches challenge the spot when it is off a foot.  I don't see how it isn't egregious?


I'm not saying it isn't egregious (in my opinion, please show me where I did), what I said is the league obviously did not find it egregious, because in their statement they stated the play was not reviewable.  I also asked has anyone seen this rule envoked? 
Last Edited: 11/8/2013 1:44:35 PM by BillyTheCat
Hawaiian Bobcat
General User
HB
Member Since: 2/1/2005
Location: Wailuku, HI
Post Count: 334
person
mail
Hawaiian Bobcat
mail
Posted: 11/8/2013 1:45 PM
settings_applications edit_note
BillyTheCat wrote:expand_more
Our QB also admitted that he had no clue where he was at on the field as well, and that's why he did not protest the call.  The Referee got caught in a bad angle and though he was looking at it, he was focused on getting out of the way, same reason TT had no clue where he was at, he was focused on getting out of the way of that Truck that was bearing down on him.  Interesting thing here, is really what is egregous?  One of those words/terms that has no definition as to how it would be defined on the field.  As rare as what we wittnessed on Tuesday is, I am not sure I've ever seen that part of the review or the rule book be implemented.


Willy,
If football is a game of inches, then being off by 12 feet is egregious!  Coaches challenge the spot when it is off a foot.  I don't see how it isn't egregious?


I'm not saying it isn't egregious (please show me where I did), what I said is the league obviously did not find it egregious, because in their statement they stated the play was not reviewable.  I also asked has anyone seen this rule envoked? 


I thought you were questioning if it was egregious but I understand that you think the league/official did not believe it was egregious. 
C Money
General User
Member Since: 8/28/2010
Post Count: 3,420
mail
C Money
mail
Posted: 11/8/2013 6:49 PM
settings_applications edit_note
If the conference truly does not believe that was an egregious error, I am joining the "get out of the MAC by any means necessary" team.
L.C.
General User
LC
Member Since: 9/1/2005
Post Count: 10,584
person
mail
L.C.
mail
Posted: 11/8/2013 7:53 PM
settings_applications edit_note
C Money wrote:expand_more
Egregious: "extraordinary in some bad way; glaring; flagrant". When everyone in the stands, and everyone watching on TV, and the league office, and the referees themselves after the fact, watches the play and says, "that was a really bad call," I think the standard of "extraordinary in some bad way; glaring; flagrant" is satisfied.

The 2011 FSU/Miami game I referenced above--Manuel's pass is described in the ESPN story as "a desperation pass near his own goal line." I didn't see the game, so I don't know what "near his own goal line" means. But I would not, and I believe most college football fans would not, consider a pass from the 4 yard line a pass near the goal line.

That the referee had a decent excuse (not wanting to be crushed) as to why he was distracted doesn't change the fact that he was distracted, and the call was an egregious error that could have been and should have been reversed on review.

If you don't think it was an egregious error, please lay out the additional facts that would make it an egregious error.

+1I don't think even one person has looked at it that didn't think it was flagrantly wrong, and extraordinarily bad. Obviously the guys in the replay booth knew it was wrong.  i'm guessing they weren't aware of, or weren't thinking of the "egregious error" exception. Situations don't come up often where this exception should be used, but this surely was one.
DesertDog
General User
DD
Member Since: 12/27/2004
Post Count: 25
person
mail
DesertDog
mail
Posted: 11/8/2013 7:54 PM
settings_applications edit_note
Yes. In the 2009 Big 12 championship game, one second was put back on the clock, which allowed Texas to kick a field goal and beat Nebraska 13-12.

I will spare the rant why that is such a bad call, but the "egregious rule" was cited to justify the replay overturn of call on field.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Big_12_Championship_Game
Pataskala
General User
P
Member Since: 7/8/2010
Location: At least six feet away from anybody else
Post Count: 9,465
person
mail
Pataskala
mail
Posted: 11/8/2013 9:04 PM
settings_applications edit_note
Seems to me that anytime the ref has a question about whether intentional grounding might be called he should mark the spot with a beanbag or his hat before walking upfield to discuss it with the other refs.  Grounding is the one foul that more often than not is called well after the play is over and refs shouldn't have to rely on memory.  They also could call the foul then check the replay to spot the ball.
BillyTheCat
General User
BTC
Member Since: 10/6/2012
Post Count: 10,802
person
mail
BillyTheCat
mail
Posted: 11/9/2013 1:18 AM
settings_applications edit_note
DesertDog wrote:expand_more
Yes. In the 2009 Big 12 championship game, one second was put back on the clock, which allowed Texas to kick a field goal and beat Nebraska 13-12.

I will spare the rant why that is such a bad call, but the "egregious rule" was cited to justify the replay overturn of call on field. 


Not egregious, timing issues are a part of the replay process, actually in the job description. Penalties is not. Poor example, and is not covered by the cover-all of the egregious error rule.
BillyTheCat
General User
BTC
Member Since: 10/6/2012
Post Count: 10,802
person
mail
BillyTheCat
mail
Posted: 11/9/2013 1:21 AM
settings_applications edit_note
Pataskala wrote:expand_more
Seems to me that anytime the ref has a question about whether intentional grounding might be called he should mark the spot with a beanbag or his hat before walking upfield to discuss it with the other refs. Grounding is the one foul that more often than not is called well after the play is over and refs shouldn't have to rely on memory. They also could call the foul then check the replay to spot the ball.

That is what happened here. The wing official rushes in and tells the R that he had no receivers, then the flag. And your last sentence is totally off the mark to how things actually are. Penalties are not reviewable, the rule and situation is well documented in this topic.
BillyTheCat
General User
BTC
Member Since: 10/6/2012
Post Count: 10,802
person
mail
BillyTheCat
mail
Posted: 11/9/2013 1:23 AM
settings_applications edit_note
L.C. wrote:expand_more
Egregious: "extraordinary in some bad way; glaring; flagrant". When everyone in the stands, and everyone watching on TV, and the league office, and the referees themselves after the fact, watches the play and says, "that was a really bad call," I think the standard of "extraordinary in some bad way; glaring; flagrant" is satisfied.

The 2011 FSU/Miami game I referenced above--Manuel's pass is described in the ESPN story as "a desperation pass near his own goal line." I didn't see the game, so I don't know what "near his own goal line" means. But I would not, and I believe most college football fans would not, consider a pass from the 4 yard line a pass near the goal line.

That the referee had a decent excuse (not wanting to be crushed) as to why he was distracted doesn't change the fact that he was distracted, and the call was an egregious error that could have been and should have been reversed on review.

If you don't think it was an egregious error, please lay out the additional facts that would make it an egregious error.

+1I don't think even one person has looked at it that didn't think it was flagrantly wrong, and extraordinarily bad. Obviously the guys in the replay booth knew it was wrong. i'm guessing they weren't aware of, or weren't thinking of the "egregious error" exception. Situations don't come up often where this exception should be used, but this surely was one.
Will not disagree, since the advent of replay easily the 2nd or 3rd worse call I've ever seen.
anorris
General User
Member Since: 7/7/2010
Location: Bristol, CT
Post Count: 2,262
mail
anorris
mail
Posted: 11/9/2013 2:26 AM
settings_applications edit_note
Pataskala wrote:expand_more
What has somewhat surprised me about all this is the general lack of discussion among the talking heads.  Granted, I have a life so I don't watch all the shows, but I haven't heard anybody on ESPN talking about this.  It isn't even an item on the ESPN website.  Whenever the refs screw up in an AQ conference game, it's dissected and analyzed and discussed to death.   Maybe they think that it's the MAC and we should expect crappy refs.
I know it was discussed on College Football Live on Wednesday, because I had the lovely job of having to playback the video and watch it again.
NIU007b
General User
NIU007
Member Since: 11/26/2011
Post Count: 69
person
mail
NIU007b
mail
Posted: 11/9/2013 10:40 AM
settings_applications edit_note
I thought the call against Toledo in the Syracuse game was the worst call I've seen, until now. My god, how on earth can anyone call that a safety. If that isn't egregious nothing is. Just unbelievable. The ref must have been high or something.
anorris
General User
Member Since: 7/7/2010
Location: Bristol, CT
Post Count: 2,262
mail
anorris
mail
Posted: 11/9/2013 1:04 PM
settings_applications edit_note
NIU007b wrote:expand_more
I thought the call against Toledo in the Syracuse game was the worst call I've seen, until now. My god, how on earth can anyone call that a safety. If that isn't egregious nothing is. Just unbelievable. The ref must have been high or something.
That's the exact call that sprang to my mind at the time, too. That one was almost worse, in my mind, because they reviewed it and confirmed the clearly incorrect all. The fact that they didn't review this safety using the egregious rule as an in is pretty bad, too, but both were just horrendous. That Toledo/Syracuse call also had a clear effect on the outcome of that game.
DesertDog
General User
DD
Member Since: 12/27/2004
Post Count: 25
person
mail
DesertDog
mail
Posted: 11/9/2013 1:13 PM
settings_applications edit_note
Billy the Cat:

You asked if anyone had seen the "egregious rule" used and the 2009 Big 12 Championship Game was one instance when it was.


http://sportsblogs.star-telegram.com/colleges/2009/12/big...
Pataskala
General User
P
Member Since: 7/8/2010
Location: At least six feet away from anybody else
Post Count: 9,465
person
mail
Pataskala
mail
Posted: 11/9/2013 9:20 PM
settings_applications edit_note
BillyTheCat wrote:expand_more
Seems to me that anytime the ref has a question about whether intentional grounding might be called he should mark the spot with a beanbag or his hat before walking upfield to discuss it with the other refs. Grounding is the one foul that more often than not is called well after the play is over and refs shouldn't have to rely on memory. They also could call the foul then check the replay to spot the ball.



That is what happened here. The wing official rushes in and tells the R that he had no receivers, then the flag. And your last sentence is totally off the mark to how things actually are. Penalties are not reviewable, the rule and situation is well documented in this topic.


I'm not talking about reviewing the play AFTER the crappy call is made.  In a situation where the ref didn't know where the hell he was on the field, he should ask the replay official where to spot the ball BEFORE he calls a friggin safety that didn't occur.  The guy knew right away he had blown a call on national TV that would have an effect on the outcome of the game, plus bring tremendous embarrassment to the MAC and probably cost him some bucks with the league.  But his hands were tied.  Checking upstairs BEFORE he opened his damn mouth would have saved a lot of grief.  The point of having a replay official is to GET THE CALL RIGHT.  They should use it for that purpose BEFORE they make a lousy call.  If he can ask for help in determining whether there was a foul, why not ask for help in spotting the ball.
Last Edited: 11/9/2013 9:30:35 PM by Pataskala
BillyTheCat
General User
BTC
Member Since: 10/6/2012
Post Count: 10,802
person
mail
BillyTheCat
mail
Posted: 11/10/2013 1:06 AM
settings_applications edit_note
DesertDog wrote:expand_more
Billy the Cat:

You asked if anyone had seen the "egregious rule" used and the 2009 Big 12 Championship Game was one instance when it was.


http://sportsblogs.star-telegram.com/colleges/2009/12/big...
Thanks, that's good stuff right there and I remember that game being on the news! Very rare occurrence, but has been evoked.
BillyTheCat
General User
BTC
Member Since: 10/6/2012
Post Count: 10,802
person
mail
BillyTheCat
mail
Posted: 11/10/2013 1:08 AM
settings_applications edit_note
Pataskala wrote:expand_more
Seems to me that anytime the ref has a question about whether intentional grounding might be called he should mark the spot with a beanbag or his hat before walking upfield to discuss it with the other refs. Grounding is the one foul that more often than not is called well after the play is over and refs shouldn't have to rely on memory. They also could call the foul then check the replay to spot the ball.



That is what happened here. The wing official rushes in and tells the R that he had no receivers, then the flag. And your last sentence is totally off the mark to how things actually are. Penalties are not reviewable, the rule and situation is well documented in this topic.


I'm not talking about reviewing the play AFTER the crappy call is made. In a situation where the ref didn't know where the hell he was on the field, he should ask the replay official where to spot the ball BEFORE he calls a friggin safety that didn't occur. The guy knew right away he had blown a call on national TV that would have an effect on the outcome of the game, plus bring tremendous embarrassment to the MAC and probably cost him some bucks with the league. But his hands were tied. Checking upstairs BEFORE he opened his damn mouth would have saved a lot of grief. The point of having a replay official is to GET THE CALL RIGHT. They should use it for that purpose BEFORE they make a lousy call. If he can ask for help in determining whether there was a foul, why not ask for help in spotting the ball.
I'm pretty sure the Referee cannot ask the booth to review! I believe all replays are initiated by either a coach or replay official.
Showing Messages: 51 - 71 of 71
reply
vertical_align_top
vertical_align_center
vertical_align_bottom
add_comment
chevron_backward
MAC News Links



extra small (< 576px)
small (>= 576px)
medium (>= 768px)
large (>= 992px)
x-large (>= 1200px)
xx-large (>= 1400px)