Question re: The Sack

[BAMAFAN IN NY]

Unless I'm mistaken, even if today's replay system were used when "The Sack" occurred, it would not have been a reviewable play since the official did not declare a fumble on the play. So, having replay would not have helped us on that play anyway. Please feel free to correct me if I'm mistaken.

It would have been reviewable.

 

[BrettStah]

And with this system, you just destroyed the no huddle/hurry up offense and games will take forever.

I disagree, because:
1) Most plays don't need to be reviewed
2) If I can quickly review a play with my own DVR at home before the next play is ready to be snapped, the replay booth should be able to do the same thing.

The way I envision it working would be like this:

The team on offense runs a play. As the on-field officials do their thing, the replay crew quickly re-watches the play. The vast majority of times they do nothing. If they see that the on-field crew got the call wrong, or they suspect it's likely that they got the call wrong, then and only then do they delay the start of the next play. The point is to get the call right, but to get it right quickly, to avoid slowing down the game.

Note that the on-field officials should not have to run to the sideline in order to communicate with the replay booth. That slows things down considerably. It would be much quicker if the replay booth could simply communicate via radio to the on-field crew and pass on something like: "Hey Joe, #82 was bobbling that ball as his feet hit the ground, and he didn't get possession until he was out of bounds". The on-field official can then quickly announce, "the replay booth has overturned the call on the field - it is an incomplete pass, and it's now 4th down." There's no reason for that type of thing to take 2-4 minutes - it can and should happen within 30 seconds or so. If they can't decide within 30 seconds, then the call stands as called on the field.

I have always thought the "reveiw every play" system where the officials decide if its reveiwed or not is far too imperfect.

It allows officials even more control of the game.

I agree that the existing replay systems are too imperfect - but MY system is perfect! :biggrin2:

I favor a system where coaches have challenges they can use per half, and once they are used up, no more challenges.

I don't like having the coaches involved at all - they should be dealing with players, play-calling, strategy, etc. But most of the time in the NFL (where coaches challenge calls), the teams have people up in a booth, with the quick ability to re-watch plays on a monitor, and then quickly decided whether it's worthwhile to challenge the call on the field. I want the replay booth crew to be able to do that instead (with more/better monitors and complete control over the video).

 

[Nick4Bama]

It would have been reviewable.

It would have been a 15 yard penalty on Alabama for for unnecessary roughness (leading with the helmet) and probably kicked Biscuit out of the game. I doubt they would review the fumble. The penalty would have wiped out the fumble.

A hit like that on a ND QB. Flags would have been thrown.

Just an opinion.....

If it happened today that is

 

[RkyMtnTide]

I agree that the existing replay systems are too imperfect - but MY system is perfect! :biggrin2:

Well, sure. I was not questioning the perfection of your system...
that's understood...

Just questioning the implementation of it:wink:

 

[FPBama]

Greg Richardson did return a punt for a touchdown after Notre Dame was given the ball after Curt Jarvis recovered the fumble.

 

[risingtide31-7]

It would have been reviewable.

I don't think it would have been reviewable because the play was ruled down on the field and non of the officials declared there was a fumble on the play. I think there was a similar situation that happened to us when we played Minnesota in the Music City Bowl a few years ago. If I remember correctly, Minnesota was driving down the field and the RB fumbled. However, he was ruled down on the field making it a non-reviewable play. Unfortunately, I think that was one of the drives where they scored a touchdown on us late in the game. Anyway, here is another example that I found where a missed fumble wasn't reviewable.

2005 Alamo Bowl
Summary of Officials’ Evaluation
Quarter 1 – 9:23: Head linesman rules the runner is down. The ball comes out just prior to the runner’s knee touches the ground. All three reviewers agree that this was an incorrect ruling. The runner recovered his own fumble so there was no impact on the game from this call. The TV announcers criticized the Replay Official for not reviewing the play. Replay guidelines do not allow the Replay Crew to review a fumble play once the runner has been ruled down by the officials on the field. Since the runner was ruled down, there can be no “over-turn.” Actions by the Replay Official were correct.

http://www.sunbeltsports.org/ViewArticle.dbml?DB_OEM_ID=4100&ATCLID=227126

 

[BAMAFAN IN NY]

I don't think it would have been reviewable because the play was ruled down on the field and non of the officials declared there was a fumble on the play. I think there was a similar situation that happened to us when we played Minnesota in the Music City Bowl a few years ago. If I remember correctly, Minnesota was driving down the field and the RB fumbled. However, he was ruled down on the field making it a non-reviewable play. Unfortunately, I think that was one of the drives where they scored a touchdown on us late in the game. Anyway, here is another example that I found where a missed fumble wasn't reviewable.


http://www.sunbeltsports.org/ViewArticle.dbml?DB_OEM_ID=4100&ATCLID=227126

I guess you are right, but nowadays, with replay, the officials usually rule in such a way that a review can be carried out. For example, they probably would have ruled it a fumble, to give the replay officials opportunity to review it.

 

[risingtide31-7]

I guess you are right, but nowadays, with replay, the officials usually rule in such a way that a review can be carried out. For example, they probably would have ruled it a fumble, to give the replay officials opportunity to review it.

Exactly... I completely agree. If I were an official, that is what I would do. Turnovers can be a game changer. To me, that's why it's so important to make sure those calls are right. Unfortunately, even in games this past season, I've still seen officials who did not rule a fumble and the commentators saying the same thing that they should at least rule it a fumble so it could be reviewed and get the right call.

 

[BrettStah]

What makes more sense to to expand the types of plays that can be reviewed. In the fumble example, just make is so that the replay booth can call it a fumble, and make sure that all teams know that if they see a loose ball they should continue to jump on it as soon as possible. Then if the on-field officials miss it, the replay can call it a fumble and determine who recovered.

 

[BamaMan12]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4RVcpD6uri0