Game 4 #GTvsWF Postgame

[GaTech4ever]

Four penalties and four sacks. I'll take it.

I know this is somewhat tongue in cheek, but as a mini thought exercise, in a single game vacuum, would you take four sacks over four penalties by an individual player? Especially knowing that at least two of those penalties were 15 yarders. I’m not sure the sack yardage would ever equal penalty yardage. And a sack doesn’t guarantee a non-first down, but a 15 yard penalty does guarantee a first down. But then again, a sack also had the potential for a fumble.

 

[leatherneckjacket]

Sorry, meant to quote this:
Replay officials review all challenges, all scoring plays (including open-field plays that could have resulted in a touchdown), all unsuccessful convert attempts, and turnovers stemming from fumbles or interceptions.

Source? Where did you find this? I cannot find it anywhere.

 

[LongforDodd]

Pinning the ball between your one and chest constitutes control. Between forearms is no different. Once you have control, ball movement alone does not constitute loss of control. The booth ref was satisfied with what he saw, as he didn’t call for a field review. Obviously, in his opinion Singleton has possession with a foot down. From one angle it looked unclear. From the other angle it was less unclear.

I don't want to belabor this point anymore as there are other "possession" qualifiers that need to be brought into this. Let's just agree to disagree, at this point, as they say.

I will lastly say that if this were the MNC game the "review" by the refs would have come under a bit more scrutiny.

 

[bobongo]

I know this is somewhat tongue in cheek, but as a mini thought exercise, in a single game vacuum, would you take four sacks over four penalties by an individual player? Especially knowing that at least two of those penalties were 15 yarders. I’m not sure the sack yardage would ever equal penalty yardage. And a sack doesn’t guarantee a non-first down, but a 15 yard penalty does guarantee a first down. But then again, a sack also had the potential for a fumble.

Yes, because the sacks indicate probable further QB pressures and hurries by perp as well as the rest of the defense, along with wear and tear on the QB. And the penalties indicate aggressiveness and attitude.
Generally speaking, a four sack, four penalty package is a net plus IMO.

 

[Augusta_Jacket]

Ultimately, it depends on when the penalties happen in the game. Sacks, if offset by personal foul penalties on the same play, don't help us, but rather give free first downs to the defense.

Classic case in point is the 2011 VT game. We had just taken the lead, had momentum going in our direction, and had VT in a 3rd and 19 inside their own 20. Jeremiah Attaochu sacked the QB for a 2 yard loss, but then threw the infamous punch that gave them the first down. Momentum swung and VT pulled away in the 4th qtr to win.

If we play aggressively, penalties are sure to follow. Kyle Kennard's offside penalty for timing the snap wrong I can handle. The inadvertent roughing the passer or incidental facemask pull are understandable. Taunting and deliberate personal fouls born of frustration will doom us.

Fortunately, I think Key will keep all this in check.

 

[MWBATL]

Source? Where did you find this? I cannot find it anywhere.

Cannot recall at this moment, but just google "are all TDs reviewed in college football" and it should pop up. It's been this way for about 10 years I believe. They also mentioned it during the telecast on TV.

 

[roadkill]

Cannot recall at this moment, but just google "are all TDs reviewed in college football" and it should pop up. It's been this way for about 10 years I believe. They also mentioned it during the telecast on TV.

I found this: https://ncaaorg.s3.amazonaws.com/ch...tball/d2/2019-20D2MFB_InstantReplayManual.pdf

Pages 2-5 list all the types of reviewable plays (there are a lot of them). Every TD is on the list.

Page 6 describes the review process. "The Instant Replay Official will review every potentially-reviewable play to either confirm the call on the field was correct or to look for evidence that the play may need to be reviewed." (emphasis mine)
There is potentially some semantic confusion over their use of the verb "review" when ascribed to the routine part of the process for every reviewable play, and the term "be reviewed", which is apparently about a particular event in the review process where the replay official can stop play and make a formal evaluation to let the call either stand, be confirmed, or be overturned. Rather poorly written manual in my opinion, but I think the officials understand how it's supposed to work.

 

[leatherneckjacket]

Cannot recall at this moment, but just google "are all TDs reviewed in college football" and it should pop up. It's been this way for about 10 years I believe. They also mentioned it during the telecast on TV.

I did. Nothing came up.

 

[roadkill]

I did. Nothing came up.

I did as well. See post above.

 

[leatherneckjacket]

I did as well. See post above.

I do not read that as a formal review like in the NFL where they wait until the call us confirmed. The review official may have watched the replay and not felt it was warranted given the initial view, or he may not have seen the bobble until after the extra point was made and at that point it is moot. Either way, no one knows what the reviewing official actually thinks, because it is not a review in the sense that most people mean

 

[forensicbuzz]

I do not read that as a formal review like in the NFL where they wait until the call us confirmed. The review official may have watched the replay and not felt it was warranted given the initial view, or he may not have seen the bobble until after the extra point was made and at that point it is moot. Either way, no one knows what the reviewing official actually thinks, because it is not a review in the sense that most people mean

I do not believe that part is true. The first angle made everyone go "ooo!" That was the live angle and the one the review official would have seen first. The other angle was more "meh." I truly believe the replay official saw it and decided it didn't warrant further review. I was surprised it didn't get reviewed, but that's because they didn't show the other angle until later.

 

[leatherneckjacket]

I do not believe that part is true. The first angle made everyone go "ooo!" That was the live angle and the one the review official would have seen first. The other angle was more "meh." I truly believe the replay official saw it and decided it didn't warrant further review. I was surprised it didn't get reviewed, but that's because they didn't show the other angle until later.

You are speculating on what he saw. You do not know. Regardless, it has little to do with my larger point. It is not formal review like the NFL where the game is held up until the official confirms the play. If the review official in college does not tell the on field crew in time, he loses his chance to have a formal review. Maybe he saw it and said it was OK. Maybe he did not notice the bobble until later. Either way, it does not matter. It is not a formal review as was implied by the other font.

 

[forensicbuzz]

You are speculating on what he saw. You do not know. Regardless, it has little to do with my larger point. It is not formal review like the NFL where the game is held up until the official confirms the play. If the review official in college does not tell the on field crew in time, he loses his chance to have a formal review. Maybe he saw it and said it was OK. Maybe he did not notice the bobble until later. Either way, it does not matter. It is not a formal review as was implied by the other font.

It is a formal review. If the official feels they need more time, they stop the game. Per the rules, every TD is reviewed. That rule, by definition, means it's official. The fact that it didn't delay the game in no way indicates that the replay official didn't review it, officially.

 

[Augusta_Jacket]

It is a formal review. If the official feels they need more time, they stop the game. Per the rules, every TD is reviewed. That rule, by definition, means it's official. The fact that it didn't delay the game in no way indicates that the replay official didn't review it, officially.

At this point, the matter has been discussed ad nauseum, and I doubt anyone is convincing anyone at this point. If you or @leatherneckjacket wish to keep debating it, take it to DMs.

 

[leatherneckjacket]

It is a formal review. If the official feels they need more time, they stop the game. Per the rules, every TD is reviewed. That rule, by definition, means it's official. The fact that it didn't delay the game in no way indicates that the replay official didn't review it, officially.

Sorry. Just saw the other message to stop