Kudos to the Refs Last Night

RTR91 said:

They blew the review of the WR being out of bounds.

They blew a clear horse collar on Jacobs during Alabama's first drive.

They missed calls against us.

Click to expand...

I am glad you pointed this out. So few people have said anything about that no call. They replayed it twice and no one said anything about it.

Didn’t read this entire thread but on the Ridley TD the DB leveled Najee before the pass got there - clear PI. Good thing Ridley was there to catch it. Maybe the flag would have come out if he had not.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

goodnightjonboy said:

Can someone explain the sideline interference call on the 80-yard touchdown? There was never another look or explanation on TV.

Click to expand...

Sideline interference means someone on the sideline was in the white area and made contact with an official. That's an automatic 15-yard enforced from the succeeding spot. If it happens a second time the head coach is ejected. I've never seen that happen.

If there is no contact made then it becomes a sideline warning with no yardage on the first offense. I believe that happened shortly after the interference play last night. The 2nd and 3rd offense are 5 yard penalties and 4th offense is 15 yards. Again, I've never seen it get that far.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

TIDE-HSV said:

The ref was suspended by the Big Ten in 2002 for poor performance, FWIW...

Click to expand...

The crew was benched for one game for bad calls (not made by the referee Dan Capron but they run crews and if one official makes a very bad call the entire crew is held responsible). Be careful before repeating everything you read.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sport...tate-greenstein-spt-1225-20161222-column.html

There were definitely calls missed on both sides. Nothing really affected the outcome of the game in my opinion.

IndyBison said:

He's out of bounds if he's on the white. If his foot is all on green (doesn't matter if there is no green between his shoe and the sideline) he's still in bounds. I saw a photo of the foot and had no idea what was called. My thought was in bounds but assumed replay upheld whatever was ruled on the field. Regardless I wouldn't use that to consider a call good or bad or say an official was horrible.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

Hmmm, I understand what you are saying and respect your position as a ref, but in my mind if the camera is looking straight down the line there would have to be green showing between the line and the shoe for the shoe to not be touching the line. Or at least that’s what high school geometry taught me. Of course, I haven’t been in high school for 45 years so ...




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Go Bama said:

Hmmm, I understand what you are saying and respect your position as a ref, but in my mind if the camera is looking straight down the line there would have to be green showing between the line and the shoe for the shoe to not be touching the line. Or at least that’s what high school geometry taught me. Of course, I haven’t been in high school for 45 years so ...




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

Yeah if there's no visible grass, that means the shoe is touching the white. That would indicate the player is OOB.

RTR91 said:

Yeah if there's no visible grass, that means the shoe is touching the white. That would indicate the player is OOB.

Click to expand...

That's not how it's called. There is a difference between next to and on the white. Nowhere in the rule does it say there has to be green between the shoe and the line. You are using your own personal definition and not the rule book definition.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

IndyBison said:

That's not how it's called. There is a difference between next to and on the white. Nowhere in the rule does it say there has to be green between the shoe and the line. You are using your own personal definition and not the rule book definition.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

But it's only logical - if there's nothing visible between two objects, that the two objects are touching. Therefore, the player is out of bounds.

IndyBison said:

That's not how it's called. There is a difference between next to and on the white. Nowhere in the rule does it say there has to be green between the shoe and the line. You are using your own personal definition and not the rule book definition.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

If no space exists between 2 objects they are touching. The criterion a ref should be looking for is green which is the proof that the shoe and the line don’t touch. (Blue if you’re calling a game in Boise). ;-)





Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I'm just saying you guys are changing the definition that is in the book and the understanding of the officials. You don't have to like it, but that is not how it's officiated. His shoe is entirely on the green and not on the white. He's still in bounds.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

IndyBison said:

I'm just saying you guys are changing the definition that is in the book and the understanding of the officials. You don't have to like it, but that is not how it's officiated. His shoe is entirely on the green and not on the white. He's still in bounds.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

Can you post the rule?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I understand what IndyBison is saying and I think you guys are missing the proper interpretation. Think of the field boundaries as a box. I can touch the sides of a box and still be inside the box, right? Same principle seems to apply here. He could be essentially touching the sideline but not actually crossed over the boundary between the sideline and the field - i.e. he's still 'inside the box' so to speak. That's the way I think of the 'by the book' application of the rule and I think what IndyBison is trying to say. No part of his foot is actually overlapping the interface between the field (i.e. the green part) and the sideline (the white part). It's splitting hairs at this point, but I can see why they didn't overturn it - I don't like the outcome, but I understand the application of the rule.

The way I see it is, I THINK he stepped out but I can't definitively tell you he stepped out. And if that's the case I get why you don't overturn it.

gamersfuel said:

from a homer standpoint i guess u could say that.. but overall they did a pretty poor job for such a huge game.

Click to expand...

Thank you for your honesty and integrity! How anyone can say this was a well officiated game is beyond all imagination. No need to go over all the blown calls, because it won't change the results. To spare the next two teams, I hope the same crew is not invited back to referee in the championship game!

Special K said:

I understand what IndyBison is saying and I think you guys are missing the proper interpretation. Think of the field boundaries as a box. I can touch the sides of a box and still be inside the box, right? Same principle seems to apply here. He could be essentially touching the sideline but not actually crossed over the boundary between the sideline and the field - i.e. he's still 'inside the box' so to speak. That's the way I think of the 'by the book' application of the rule and I think what IndyBison is trying to say. No part of his foot is actually overlapping the interface between the field (i.e. the green part) and the sideline (the white part). It's splitting hairs at this point, but I can see why they didn't overturn it - I don't like the outcome, but I understand the application of the rule.

Click to expand...

Then let me ask this. If the football touches the goal line which is part of your "box", is it a touchdown?

The rules regarding out of bounds and a touchdown:

Rule 4-2 ARTICLE 1. a. A player is out of bounds when any part of his persontouches anything, other than another player or game official, on or outsidea boundary line (Rule 2-27-15) (A.R. 4-2-1-I and II).

Click to expand...

Rule 8-2 ARTICLE 1. A touchdown shall be scored when:

1. A ball carrier advancing from the field of play has possession of a live
   ball when it penetrates the plane of the opponent’s goal line. This planeextends beyond the pylons only for a player who touches the ground inthe end zone or a pylon. (A.R. 2-23-1-I and A.R. 8-2-1-I-IX).

Click to expand...

:wink:

IndyBison said:

I'm just saying you guys are changing the definition that is in the book and the understanding of the officials. You don't have to like it, but that is not how it's officiated. His shoe is entirely on the green and not on the white. He's still in bounds.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

I think the key words here are “the understanding of the officials.”

CmdrThor posted a rule which says if the player touches the line the player is OB. In my mind the Georgia receiver did if fact touch the line. I understand your interpretation to be that you could not tell that all of the foot was on the green.

I suspect these different interpretations are why fans think officials are often to blame for the results of the game.

Personally, I’m really glad to have an official here on Tidefans to discuss these issues with. Thank you, even though we disagree on this one. :wink:

IndyBison said:

I'm just saying you guys are changing the definition that is in the book and the understanding of the officials. You don't have to like it, but that is not how it's officiated. His shoe is entirely on the green and not on the white. He's still in bounds.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

If his shoe is entirely on the green, we would see green. That's why people use the grass as a good indicator to tell.

Yes, philosophy plays a huge role in officiating. It's one thing to know the rules. It's more important to understand the rules. What does the rule mean? The spirit of the rule is also part of that philosophy.

I understand the person trying to equate the goal line and sideline. That would be a logical connection. One big difference though is the goal line is a plane that extends vertically above the line. The same isn't true for the sideline. That's not necessarily retirement here.

I guess my key point here is try to explain what the official is looking at and considering on plays like this. In all my years I've never heard an official say a player is out of bounds if he's next to the sideline. I'm sure you can find one that agrees with you, but in all my study they are looking for something ON the white not NEXT TO the white to be out of bounds.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk