Bad calls...

[MattinBama]

PI no longer applies once the pass is tipped

Okay. Scenario- Two receivers in the same spot that could both obviously be eligible receivers in the line of the pass... One is tackled to the ground while the ball is in the air. The other goes for the catch and the ball is tipped. Somehow the one that was tackled is not pass interference. Makes perfect sense.

 

[B1GTide]

PI no longer applies once the pass is tipped

This demonstrates your lack of knowledge/understanding of the rule. PI does apply if the contact is made before the ball is tipped (touched). In this case, the contact was made well before Ridley touched the ball. So there should have been a PI call which Alabama would have declined since they scored on the play.

 

[RobK]

I honestly don't know if officiating is just worse now than it used to be, or if it has always been this bad and today's HD cameras, additional camera angles, and the ability to DVR/rewind/rewatch has simply made it more obvious than it used to be.

 

[day-day]

Who agrees that an un-sportsman like conduct foul should have been called against #30 when he did a little shove on the Georgia quarterback's helmet after the tackle?

 

[B1GTide]

Who agrees that an un-sportsman like conduct foul should have been called against #30 when he did a little shove on the Georgia quarterback's helmet after the tackle?

I think that it could have been called - not the same as should have been called. Alabama got lucky.

 

[MattinBama]

PI no longer applies once the pass is tipped

Also this post completely ignores the whole advantage/disadvantage aspect that you prop up... I'm guessing because it counteracts your mindset that there is somehow no advantage for the defensive player to tackle a possible receiver that is within a few yards of the play taking place.

 

[LA4Bama]

These philosophies have existed in the 20 years I've been doing this and I presume long before that. Coaches and players generally seem to understand them and agree with them (doesn't stop them from arguing when they think they wish something away from the play would have been called in their favor). A back side hold or a defensive hold away from the throw will usually get a talk to by the covering official. "The ball comes this way and that's a hold" usually gets a positive response from the offender. They know you are watching and saw what they did and it would have been different if the conditions are different. This works when the philosophies are taught consistently, applied consistently, and reinforced consistently through evaluations. From what I see at the levels higher than me, this is done pretty consistently. If you don't know or understand the philosophies I can definitely see why you would think it's selective or inconsistent.

We have officiating shortages all over the country at the high school level and below. If you have any interest in doing this please let me know and I would love to put you in touch with someone in your area.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

Thanks for taking the time to explain things.

Like a lot of the posts here, I see the "philosophy" but wonder if it's being taken to the point of creating an arbitrary game. An uncatchable ball is a fact which negates an interference. That to me illustrates the idea of not calling a penalty when it provides no advantage. But in the case of #22 in the end zone, the ball itself is clearly on target until #3 intervenes.
#22 is not off in a corner somewhere. He is integrally part of the action. To say the defense got no benefit implies the ref has omniscience about how the rest of the play will unfold. That is very different than an overthrown ball. In the uncatchable pass case the ref does have full knowledge that the ball could NEVER have been caught. And they frequently throw the flag anyway and then wave it off. Here it's a mere coincidence that in this case the ball didn't make it to #22... But it COULD have in the normal flow of the game, perhaps is goes through the hands of #3. If refs don't flag what clearly can't give an advantage, that's sensible. If they don't flag what merely happened not to give an advantage in this particular moment, they are really being arbitrary, indeed, playing God.


What if instead of it being an offensive player, it was a defensive player intercepting the ball? I just have the strong feeling the ref would be more likely to call that interference, even though substantially they are the same. That seems to be making calls based on outcomes instead of rules.

 

[Go Bama]

One play that I haven’t seen mentioned was the 3rd down interception where in JJ was hacked on the right arm which kept him from getting both hands on the ball. His left hand tips the ball to #24 Georgia who then intercepts OB. Bama gets 3 points instead of 6, 7, or 8.

I’ve watched this play a dozen times and it’s obviously a blown call. IMO this game was just called WAY too loosely.

 

[TIDE-HSV]

One play that I haven’t seen mentioned was the 3rd down interception where in JJ was hacked on the right arm which kept him from getting both hands on the ball. His left hand tips the ball to #24 Georgia who then intercepts OB. Bama gets 3 points instead of 6, 7, or 8.

I’ve watched this play a dozen times and it’s obviously a blown call. IMO this game was just called WAY too loosely.

Well, he might not have held on anyway, so, no harm, no foul, as I've been reading...

 

[day-day]

One play that I haven’t seen mentioned was the 3rd down interception where in JJ was hacked on the right arm which kept him from getting both hands on the ball. His left hand tips the ball to #24 Georgia who then intercepts OB. Bama gets 3 points instead of 6, 7, or 8.

I’ve watched this play a dozen times and it’s obviously a blown call. IMO this game was just called WAY too loosely.

I think the ref missed seeing that and it was not a judgement call by the ref.


Regarding the non-PI on #22 when Ridley caught the TD, I have seen a number of times when flags came out and hit the ground well after a pass was incomplete and then PI was called. I suspect that in those instances, the flags would not have been thrown if the pass was caught. Bama got the touchdown; what good would the flag have done except lengthen the time of the game by forcing an explanation on waving it off?

 

[TIDE-HSV]

I think the ref missed seeing that and it was not a judgement call by the ref.


Regarding the non-PI on #22 when Ridley caught the TD, I have seen a number of times when flags came out and hit the ground well after a pass was incomplete and then PI was called. I suspect that in those instances, the flags would not have been thrown if the pass was caught. Bama got the touchdown; what good would the flag have done except lengthen the time of the game by forcing an explanation on waving it off?

I agree, but it could and should have been called...

 

[Tidewater]

I think the ref missed seeing that and it was not a judgement call by the ref.


Regarding the non-PI on #22 when Ridley caught the TD, I have seen a number of times when flags came out and hit the ground well after a pass was incomplete and then PI was called. I suspect that in those instances, the flags would not have been thrown if the pass was caught. Bama got the touchdown; what good would the flag have done except lengthen the time of the game by forcing an explanation on waving it off?

I do not know, but it is really up to the coach to make that call.
I would expect the ref to throw the flag, as soon as TD is signalled, look at Coach Saban, use the hand and arm signals for DPI, make sure the coach wants the TD, and quickly wave off the flag. That could take ten seconds. In fact, if the pace of the game is an issue, we would not even have to have the usual two minute officials conference and the inevitable refs walking slowly to some point on the field where he can be the center of attention, deliberately turn on his mike and explain.
We have hand and arm signals for a reason.

 

[Tidewater]

This demonstrates your lack of knowledge/understanding of the rule. PI does apply if the contact is made before the ball is tipped (touched). In this case, the contact was made well before Ridley touched the ball. So there should have been a PI call which Alabama would have declined since they scored on the play.

Here is a favorite example. LSU at the Barn 2005. Gilbert (#38) gets burned by Early Ducet, so, having nothing to lose by interfering, tackles Ducet before the ball gets there.

After the interference, the Barn's #33 tips the ball.
Refs erroneously wave off the DPI because the ball was eventually tipped.

Horrible blown call (and I don't even have a dog in this fight since I'm no fan of either team).

This is a case of "Doucet was not going to catch the ball because #33 (Brock, I believe?) was going to bat it away, so Auburn gained no advantage by interfering with Doucet."
Well, the way I see it, Brock's great play of batting away the ball was negated by Gilbert who interfered with Doucet.

 

[BamaMike05]

Well, he might not have held on anyway, so, no harm, no foul, as I've been reading...

This is my biggest problem with officiating these days. Too many officials are trying to use “intent” or “how the play would have turned out” instead of just making the call based on the rule. This happens in basketball even more. Like when a players gets fouled on a layup; how many times do you see a ref wait to see if the ball goes in before he calls a foul?! This type of thing happens way too often in football and basketball now.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[gman4tide]

I honestly don't know if officiating is just worse now than it used to be, or if it has always been this bad and today's HD cameras, additional camera angles, and the ability to DVR/rewind/rewatch has simply made it more obvious than it used to be.

i think this

 

[LA4Bama]

I think the ref missed seeing that and it was not a judgement call by the ref.


Regarding the non-PI on #22 when Ridley caught the TD, I have seen a number of times when flags came out and hit the ground well after a pass was incomplete and then PI was called. I suspect that in those instances, the flags would not have been thrown if the pass was caught. Bama got the touchdown; what good would the flag have done except lengthen the time of the game by forcing an explanation on waving it off?

Let's say the ref doesn't throw the flag because he sees Ridley catch a touchdown. Upon video replay the touchdown is overturned because the ball jiggles loose and touches the ground. Now what? Too late to throw the flag.

Remember, the foul was committed before Ridley touched the ball. At the moment it happened, if Ridley had not arrived it would have been a clear DPI. How does the coincidence of Ridley intervening change what just happened?

 

[Tidewater]

Let's say the ref doesn't throw the flag because he sees Ridley catch a touchdown. Upon video replay the touchdown is overturned because the ball jiggles loose and touches the ground. Now what? Too late to throw the flag.

Remember, the foul was committed before Ridley touched the ball. At the moment it happened, if Ridley had not arrived it would have been a clear DPI. How does the coincidence of Ridley intervening change what just happened?

This.
The official s can always pick up and wave off the flag.
Hard to drop one after the fact (except by replay officials and only on targeting fouls (I think).

 

[BamaInBham]

Let's say the ref doesn't throw the flag because he sees Ridley catch a touchdown. Upon video replay the touchdown is overturned because the ball jiggles loose and touches the ground. Now what? Too late to throw the flag.

Remember, the foul was committed before Ridley touched the ball. At the moment it happened, if Ridley had not arrived it would have been a clear DPI. How does the coincidence of Ridley intervening change what just happened?

Great point. I thought that a flag would have been thrown had it not been caught. I understand why it wasn't called, but had not thought of your scenario. Instant replay does throw a monkey wrench into the convention/unwritten rule of "did it affect the play?".

It becomes "another" game when you have conventions rather than rules, but if they simply followed the rules as they currently stand, the game would become unwatchable, though most would say the coaching/players would adjust. But the pass D in general and conversely, pass pro would be hurt badly, such that we would have a "another" game. I don't know what the answer is. We are probably stuck with "as is". It's been going on for a long time.

 

[day-day]

Let's say the ref doesn't throw the flag because he sees Ridley catch a touchdown. Upon video replay the touchdown is overturned because the ball jiggles loose and touches the ground. Now what? Too late to throw the flag.

Remember, the foul was committed before Ridley touched the ball. At the moment it happened, if Ridley had not arrived it would have been a clear DPI. How does the coincidence of Ridley intervening change what just happened?

Great point. I thought that a flag would have been thrown had it not been caught. I understand why it wasn't called, but had not thought of your scenario. Instant replay does throw a monkey wrench into the convention/unwritten rule of "did it affect the play?".

It becomes "another" game when you have conventions rather than rules, but if they simply followed the rules as they currently stand, the game would become unwatchable, though most would say the coaching/players would adjust. But the pass D in general and conversely, pass pro would be hurt badly, such that we would have a "another" game. I don't know what the answer is. We are probably stuck with "as is". It's been going on for a long time.

I change my vote; LA4Bama has convinced me as well as some of the other posts.

Can't believe I was defending the refs in the first place.:redface:

 

[KrAzY3]

I'm not sure if this has been posted here or not, but Alabama finished dead last in opponent penalty yards per game:
https://www.teamrankings.com/college-football/stat/opponent-penalty-yards-per-game

For those keeping count, this year they were 130/130, last year they were 128/128, the year before they were somehow 85/128 (I bet it was heavily skewed by a game or two), but that was proceeded by 127/128.

There's no way on earth to look at that and conclude that the refs are biased in favor of Alabama, clearly it is the other way around. It is a remarkable amount of bias, consider the just random chance of being 130/130, 128/128 and then 127/128 in a four year stretch.