Big 10 Refs

[awbuzz]

Someone posted pics of their kids? Really? That's just wrong!

FWIW, the officials names are listed on the 1st page of the box score on ramblinwreck.com. That information is not cloak and dagger stuff.

Let's let folks dig it up their selves if they choose, don't want to aid in potential doxing. Granted I don't think most here would do that.

 

[forensicbuzz]

Let's let folks dig it up their selves if they choose, don't want to aid in potential doxing. Granted I don't think most here would do that.

I would be shocked if anyone in here did that (doxing). Shocked.

 

[RonJohn]

Are you saying the ball hit the Vandy player before Stockton and therefore should have been dead? That was never a point I commented on.

The ball hit the foot of the Vandy player that tackled Stockton. The ball hit the ground, bounced up and immediately changed rotation after hitting the Vandy player's foot. That was around the 19 yard line. There was MORE than enough time for the booth to review that after the flag, discussion, announcement of no-call, and arguments about the no call. Why did the booth not review that and notice something that was clearly shown on TV? (I was at the game instead of watching on TV, but I saw some people post that video afterwards)

EDIT: Here is a video. Also, if you listen to the announcers at this point, they are talking to the rules official who says he believes it was kick catch interference:

 

[bobongo]

The ball hit the foot of the Vandy player that tackled Stockton. The ball hit the ground, bounced up and immediately changed rotation after hitting the Vandy player's foot. That was around the 19 yard line. There was MORE than enough time for the booth to review that after the flag, discussion, announcement of no-call, and arguments about the no call. Why did the booth not review that and notice something that was clearly shown on TV? (I was at the game instead of watching on TV, but I saw some people post that video afterwards)

EDIT: Here is a video. Also, if you listen to the announcers at this point, they are talking to the rules official who says he believes it was kick catch interference:

Thing is, there was a little push in the back. I don't know the particular rule that deals with this, but I'm guessing maybe the push negates not only the personal foul but also the ball hitting the foot of the one who was pushed. The push was very light and perhaps shouldn't have been regarded as a cause of either the personal foul or the touching of the ball, but just saying it is there and maybe that was the reason for the call.

 

[RonJohn]

Thing is, there was a little push in the back. I don't know the particular rule that deals with this, but I'm guessing maybe the push negates not only the personal foul but also the ball hitting the foot of the one who was pushed. The push was very light and perhaps shouldn't have been regarded as a cause of either the personal foul or the touching of the ball, but just saying it is there and maybe that was the reason for the call.

No way it would negate touching the ball.

 

[forensicbuzz]

The ball hit the foot of the Vandy player that tackled Stockton. The ball hit the ground, bounced up and immediately changed rotation after hitting the Vandy player's foot. That was around the 19 yard line. There was MORE than enough time for the booth to review that after the flag, discussion, announcement of no-call, and arguments about the no call. Why did the booth not review that and notice something that was clearly shown on TV? (I was at the game instead of watching on TV, but I saw some people post that video afterwards)

EDIT: Here is a video. Also, if you listen to the announcers at this point, they are talking to the rules official who says he believes it was kick catch interference:

I never saw a discussion of the ball hitting the Vandy player. That’s bad. With all the argument, I went back and reviewed the push in the back about 30 times and then went back to live TV. Totally missed the possible touch.

 

[bobongo]

No way it would negate touching the ball.

Really hard to see clearly that the ball touched his foot. Slowed it down, stopped it at the moment it passed his foot, and it looks to me like it may well have missed. Certainly not definitive.

 

[stinger78]

No way it would negate touching the ball.

If there was no causative push, then the interference call has to stand. 15 yards from spot of foul.
If there is a causative push, the touching of the ball by the kicking team marks the placement.
If there is a block in the back on the return team, but it is not causative of interference, then the kicking team is charged with interference or holding (if after ball has hit the ground).

 

[RonJohn]

Really hard to see clearly that the ball touched his foot. Slowed it down, stopped it at the moment it passed his foot, and it looks to me like it may well have missed. Certainly not definitive.

Watch the rotation of the ball. It clearly changes after touching his foot.

 

[bobongo]

Watch the rotation of the ball. It clearly changes after touching his foot.

It's an oblong spheroid that could well, in fact probably did, change direction and rotation bouncing off the ground. The ground was only maybe ~8 inches from his uppermost clete. The ball itself is longer than that. Speaking strictly for myself, even slowing it down frame to frame, it is impossible for me to discern whether it changed direction in that miniscule space between the ground and the foot. Maybe you can see that, but I can't say for sure. It didn't hit his foot on the way down, and I don't see how it can be determined that it hit it on the way back up.

 

[stinger78]

It's an oblong spheroid that could well, in fact probably did, change direction and rotation bouncing off the ground. The ground was only maybe ~8 inches from his uppermost clete. The ball itself is longer than that. Speaking strictly for myself, even slowing it down from to frame, it is impossible for me to discern whether it changed direction in that miniscule space between the ground and the foot. Maybe you can see that, but I can't say for sure. It didn't hit his foot on the way down, and I don't see how it can be determined that it hit it on the way back up.

We are a technical school. Can we not design a product the measures the spin of a spheroid in fractional seconds to provide clear proof to the zebras?

 

[iceeater1969]

If there was no causative push, then the interference call has to stand. 15 yards from spot of foul.
If there is a causative push, the touching of the ball by the kicking team marks the placement.
If there is a block in the back on the return team, but it is not causative of interference, then the kicking team is charged with interference or holding (if after ball has hit the ground).

A 25 mph wind at top of stadium.
A long er than usual time before punt landed. Was the returner supposed to have a clock in his head and signal fair catch.

At stadium i thought he did signal fair catch as the ball and the gunner arrived at same time. I was at other end of stadium but was the ref watching the push in back and not the fair catch . The after action report should clarify that one ref saw no fair catch.

On the prevois punt the low punt took a bounce right to punt returner who made an aggressive move and got ball out to 40 plus. When he got to sideline it was all high 5s and player makes plays. Perhaps pr was over confident on high punt.

Does key think punt returner have gone for fair catch on high punt?

Do your job ?.

 

[bobongo]

We are a technical school. Can we not design a product the measures the spin of a spheroid in fractional seconds to provide clear proof to the zebras?

If they had one of those cameras that they use to take pictures of hummingbird wings in flight, we could probably see for sure whether it hit his foot. But they didn't so we can't.

 

[stinger78]

If they had one of those cameras that they use to take pictures of hummingbird wings in flight, we could probably see for sure whether it hit his foot.

We can also plot the motion vectors and show how they changed instantaneously. In these days of advanced optics there is just no reason to guess.

 

[bobongo]

We can also plot the motion vectors and show how they changed instantaneously. In these days of advanced optics there is just no reason to guess.

No doubt. But they didn't have the optics necessary and did the best they could with what they had to go on. There was just no definitive way for them to discern whether the ball hit his foot, IMO.

 

[stinger78]

No doubt. But they didn't have the optics necessary and did the best they could with what they had to go on. There was just no definitive way for them to discern whether the ball hit his foot, IMO.

Sure there is, depends in whether you’re a GT fan or a VU fan.

 

[RonJohn]

It's an oblong spheroid that could well, in fact probably did, change direction and rotation bouncing off the ground. The ground was only maybe ~8 inches from his uppermost clete. The ball itself is longer than that. Speaking strictly for myself, even slowing it down frame to frame, it is impossible for me to discern whether it changed direction in that miniscule space between the ground and the foot. Maybe you can see that, but I can't say for sure. It didn't hit his foot on the way down, and I don't see how it can be determined that it hit it on the way back up.

Slow the YouTube video down to 1/4 speed. The ball bounces off the ground. Then while in the air touches the heel of the Vandy player's foot. The rotation of the ball changes. Plus the direction of the ball changes. Not that it changes based on hitting the ground. When it bounces off the ground the ball is heading straight towards the camera, or slightly to the left. After hitting the heel of his foot, it is heading towards the right.

It is very close, and I could buy that the refs could miss it at full speed. The replay booth however, can slow it down much slower than 1/4 speed. They can use lines on the screen to see what direction the ball is travelling when it bounces off the ground and leave that line on the screen to see if it follows the same path after coming near to his foot. It did not follow that same path. The replay booth should have taken a look, and should have seen that.

 

[Richland County]

We are a technical school. Can we not design a product the measures the spin of a spheroid in fractional seconds to provide clear proof to the zebras?

Did you see the app a Tech grad mafe for MARTA? Rather impressive and disappointing at the same time. For obvious reasons.

 

[CEB]

Slow the YouTube video down to 1/4 speed. The ball bounces off the ground. Then while in the air touches the heel of the Vandy player's foot. The rotation of the ball changes. Plus the direction of the ball changes. Not that it changes based on hitting the ground. When it bounces off the ground the ball is heading straight towards the camera, or slightly to the left. After hitting the heel of his foot, it is heading towards the right.

It is very close, and I could buy that the refs could miss it at full speed. The replay booth however, can slow it down much slower than 1/4 speed. They can use lines on the screen to see what direction the ball is travelling when it bounces off the ground and leave that line on the screen to see if it follows the same path after coming near to his foot. It did not follow that same path. The replay booth should have taken a look, and should have seen that.

Agree.
It’s clearly visible from the endzone view and warranted a review.

To the “blocked into him” crowd, did the “block” cause the defender to drop his shoulder and wrap up for a nice form tackle? Vandy player made a mistake. He knew it, his teammates knew it, broadcast knew it, most viewers knew it, and for some reason the officials found a weak excuse to bail him out.

It was a BS call and warranted review from a multitude of perspectives. Not sure what aspects were reviewable, but should’ve been Tech ball where it hit Vandy player’s heel AT MINIMUM.

 

[Root4GT]

The penalty for blocking in the back can be declined. Therefore the point is moot. However, the flag should have still been thrown.

Actually the block in the back penalty yardage would have been assessed from where GT fell on the ball at the 2 yard line. The ball would have been spotted at the 1 vice the 2 yard line. No real impact.