Official Explanation on Controversial Call from UM Sports In

[EverettGriz]

This is even more ridiculous than Cat fans saying the Griz coaches were reading the MSU coaches' mouths when they were calling in plays a few years ago. Now we have conspiracy theories on technological glitches and calling a referee a liar for saying he got the page before the snap.

I didn't come on here to gloat or rub the loss in, I just wanted to see what the opinion on the game was and in particular the play in question. It is much worse than I had even feared.

Oh Please.

Given the enormous magnitude of this MAJOR F'UP by the officials, I think GRIZ fans are handling this extremely well and graciously. Few if anyone is saying it cost the GRIZ the game. But for you to suggest it wasn't a big deal, that GRIZ fans shouldn't be discussing it and that it wasn't a factor in the game is classic cat-fan-think. I shudder to think about the posts on bcn if this had happened to the cats in a playoff game. papaG would internally combust.

Oh wait. cats, playoffs???

Back to the litterbox with you.

Oh because no Griz fans gave us crap in 2010 or 2012 when we lost in the playoffs, with the Griz sitting at home. Besides I'm not even giving you crap in regards to the loss. Just commenting on the reactions to the review snafu.

I didn't say you shouldn't be discussing it. I'm saying the conspiracy theories are ridiculous. If you can't discern the difference well I don't know what to tell you.

I believe the refs got it wrong. I also believe the rules aren't written very well, especially when you have a crew from the FCS that doesn't have review during the regular season. But to suggest they were out to get the Griz is pretty absurd.

Look, anyone who thinks it was a conspiracy is the eGriz version of PapaG. On that point we agree completely.

We also agree it's silly to make fun of a team who went further than you in the playoffs.

 

[Eriul]

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

It certainly is. On all accounts.

Really though Eriul must be about 18 to think that I am an "old man" for having kids that are just beyond being toddlers. He is right, I am older than most parents of that age group, but I am still looking forward to my first prostate exam ... honestly, I don't even know what I am supposed to tip. As for PR, it's well-known that his emotional maturity seems to be a bit, well stunted.

Eriul, don't you have final exams you should be studying for? Your parents won't let you move out of the dorms if you don't bring home decent grades this term.

It's an exaggeration to emphasize the silliness of your "toughness" mentality. Sorry it swooshed over your head. I am in fact 23.
I waited tables early on in college and 18% is an average night with a good night being 20-25%. If you work at a fancier place, I worked at outback, you will probably receive less % as the cost of food is so high but you should tip the % based on your service in increments of ~3% with the bottom being 10%(waiting tables is actually a very high multi task job and often times the quality of your service has nothing personal to do with you.)

I take all my finals early as I am in fact in a work study program in my masters degree so I am currently on the road and I start wed. but I appreciate your concern and my mom has been single since I was 13 and my father has been passed away for 5 years so I pay for my own school and housing through students loans and working.

I appreciate the concern though

Fair enough about the old man schtick. But likewise the tip comment went over your head as well ... I am aware of what to tip at a restaurant, my query was more about what to tip a prostate examiner. But jokes explained are never good.

Yup I guess it did. . I don't get it but I've been up for like 18 hours so it could be something to do with that . I over explained everything out of sarcasm and in no way was trying to lecture . But as you point out jokes explained are never good.

 

[PlayerRep]

<disclaimer>I'm not saying this call changed the outcome</disclaimer>

Initially I wasn't even going to waste time looking this up but decided to go ahead over the lunch hour.

Game Stop
ARTICLE 1. There are two methods to stop a game to review a ruling on the
field.
a. The replay official and his crew shall review every play of a game. He
may stop a game at any time before the ball is next legally put in play
(Exception: Rule 12-3-5-c) whenever he believes that:
1. There is reasonable evidence to believe an error was made in the initial
on-field ruling.
2. The play is reviewable.
3. The outcome of a review would have a direct, competitive impact on the
game.

http://www.arbitersports.com/Groups/104777/Library/files/FBC13.pdf (emphasis added).

SECTION 6. Reviewing an On-field Ruling
Procedures
ARTICLE 1. a. When a game is to be stopped either by the replay official or
by a head coach’s challenge, the designated officials on the field will be
notified by a buzzer system or other appropriate means.
b. If the review is initiated by the replay official, the referee shall announce:
“The ruling on the previous play is ... (brief description of ruling). The play
is under further review.”

http://www.arbitersports.com/Groups/104777/Library/files/FBC13.pdf (emphasis added). I can't find anywhere else in the rule where it tells us who "the designated officials on the field" are. I've done a full-text search of the rule and this is the only time that phrase appears.

In our case the officials appear to be saying all it took was for the head replay guy in the booth to decide he wanted to review the previous pass play and take steps to communicate that decision to the on-field game officials. If the game officials failed to get the page or if one of them got it but failed to act on it, too bad, so sad (according to the officials).

The rules go into great detail about what kinds of plays are reviewable. They also provide many pages of examples. They don't provide rules or examples about what happens when the guy in the booth notifies "the designated officials on the field" that wants to stop the game but the on-field game officials don't get that communication or do get it but fail to act on it before the next play begins. The most reasonable interpretation is that the game isn't actually stopped unless and until the referee announces that the previous play is under review.

The rule ought to be that if the on-field game officials receive that communication but for whatever reason fail to stop the next play before it occurs, the result of the next play stands. Any other procedure is unworkable because it unfairly penalizes the team on offense for an avoidable mistake by the on-field game officials. Any other procedure is unworkable because it is the on-field game officials who are responsible for starting and stopping play with their whistles. Any other procedure is also contrary to the fundamental philosophy of the rule:

Philosophy
ARTICLE 2. The instant replay process operates under the fundamental
assumption that the ruling on the field is correct. The replay official may
reverse a ruling if and only if the video evidence convinces him beyond all
doubt that the ruling was incorrect. Without such indisputable video evidence,
the replay official must allow the ruling to stand.

http://www.arbitersports.com/Groups/104777/Library/files/FBC13.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; (emphasis added).

As noted above, the rule says little about how the replay official in the booth is supposed to go about communicating and implementing his decision to "stop the game." Article 3 talks about a phone connection to "the game referee":

Location
ARTICLE 3. a. All equipment used reviewing a play during the replay process
and the personnel using that equipment shall be located in a separate, secure
location in the press box. This room shall not be available or accessible to any
person not directly involved in instant replay.
b. Additional telephonic equipment needed to allow instant replay personnel
to communicate with the game referee when a game has been stopped
for a play review shall be located on a sideline near the field of play and
preferably outside a team area. Such equipment shall provide the game
referee and the replay official a secure and private means of communication.

Article 6 talks about "a buzzer system" between the replay booth and "designated officials on the field":

SECTION 6. Reviewing an On-field Ruling
Procedures
ARTICLE 1. a. When a game is to be stopped either by the replay official or
by a head coach’s challenge, the designated officials on the field will be
notified by a buzzer system or other appropriate means.
b. If the review is initiated by the replay official, the referee shall announce:
“The ruling on the previous play is ... (brief description of ruling). The play
is under further review.”

http://www.arbitersports.com/Groups/104777/Library/files/FBC13.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; (emphasis added). As noted, the rule doesn't define who the "designated officials on the field" are. What is clear is that "the game referee" is supposed to be the point man in communications about the replay process, which is consistent with all of the other rules and with what we know about the various officials' responsibilities.

Here "the game referee" admits not getting the page himself but says one of his underlings did (head referee Ken Ray explains "and I asked for clarification from anybody. ‘Did anybody get paged prior to the snap.’ One guy did say he did, so at that point in time by rule we have to go back and we have to review the play"). "The gamer referee" wouldn't have had to ask that question if he himself had received the page before the snap. The one (unidentified) official who did get the page before the snap on the next play may have been one of "the designated officials on the field" depending on what that undefined phrase means. But even if the "unidentified" official who got the page was "designated" to receive it, it's also clear that the referee made no announcement within the meaning of Article 6 before the snap on the screen pass that took Canada to the 3 yard line. Therefore their argument that "by rule" they had to nullify the screen pass to the 3 yard line seems thin.

I'm also not sure the play was "reviewable" within the meaning of the rule. The replay official in the booth said "I was told that the center had come over the ball." Not sure what he means by this (because I never played the game). To somebody like me with an incomplete understanding of the rules, this sounds like false start or illegal procedure. The rules about what is reviewable on passing plays mainly focus on what happens at the end of the play, not the beginning. Examples 58 through 61 on page 25 are examples of unreviewable on-field rulings about what happens at the beginning of a pass play. It depends on what the replay official means by "the center had come over the ball."

Again, I'm not saying this changed the result, so please spare me your "stupid-Griz-fan-is-blaming-the-refs" replies. I'm saying the rules need to be tightened up to keep this from ever happening to anyone else, and the officials charged with using this technology in playoff games need to have actual experience with it -- which is going to be a tall order in the case of officials from any FCS conference.

From the above post, with my commentary.

1. "He [replay official] may stop a game at any time before the ball is next legally put in play"

Replay did not stop the game before the ball was legally put in play. He may, or may not, have initiated a page before the play. There is nothing in the rules that say the page stops the play. And how could a page stop a play? Only the on-field refs can stop a play.

2. " When a game is to be stopped either by the replay official or
by a head coach’s challenge, the designated officials on the field will be
notified by a buzzer system or other appropriate means."

Note the "to be" stopped. That indicates that the replay official can't stop the play. He needs to notify the on-field officials to stop the play.

3. "If the review is initiated by the replay official, the referee shall announce:
“The ruling on the previous play is ... (brief description of ruling). The play
is under further review.”

The referee did not announce that the "previous play" was under review. He announced that the play 2 plays previous, was being reviewed.

4. Note the reference to the "designated official on the field". He's the only official who can stop the play. I wonder if the head ref is the actual designated official. If so, he admits that he didn't receive the page on time, and that the other official didn't notify him of the page, prior to the next play starting.

5. "The instant replay process operates under the fundamental
assumption that the ruling on the field is correct."

This is further indication that the refs screwed up, perhaps even twice. By allowing review of a play too late, and then nullifying another completed play.

6. Again, note that no. 3 above indicates that only the prior play can be reviewed. Besides being in the rule, this is common sense.

7. How these jokers could actually discuss this situation for several minutes, and come to this obviously incorrect conclusion is beyond me.

 

[Yukon]

Reminds me of the ref that called a safety on the griz when the kick off was caught in the end zone and the momentum carried the player out of the end zone. That ref was suspended. Why do these ass munch morons get a pass?

 

[GrizzleMoose]

Reminds me of the ref that called a safety on the griz when the kick off was caught in the end zone and the momentum carried the player out of the end zone. That ref was suspended. Why do these ass munch morons get a pass?

I was just talking about that call today to some people. Luckily that call did not effect the outcome of that game. That was a very bad call but this is worse in my opinion. Yes, that ref was suspended and these ones should be too, at the very least.