This is more me just trying to figure out what happened. The refs didn't beat Furman yesterday (though they certainly played a role in the outcome).
Here's the play:
1. Refs initially didn't seem to realize Yates had the ball. Yates comes up with the ball and immediately Furman players appeal to the judge that Yates had intercepted it.
2. Notably, the refs did not blow the play dead. A live ball is "dead" when an official sounds the whistle or otherwise signals the play dead. (Rule 4, Sec. 1, Art. 2.) The play was not whistled dead until the players were on the ground.
3. The play goes under review and the call is "interception." Under rule, that is a "catch of an opponent's pass or fumble." (Rule 2, Art. 3). It is not clear whether the refs are alleging that the Samford player (1) never completed the catch because Yates had possession or (2) Samford player had possession and Yates just stripped him (i.e., fumble). We know Yates came down with the ball before the Samford player was on the ground.
4. At that point, the refs have determined that there is "indisputable video evidence" that the ball was intercepted. Whether a pass is intercepted is a reviewable play. (NCAA Division Football Instant Replay Coaches Manual).
5. You can review forward progress of a ball carrier, but only with respect to the line to gain or goal line. The ball carrier was nowhere near either spot, so honestly, there should never have been a review of "forward progress." Think a ball carrier stretching out the ball to reach the yard marker, that sort of thing. The Samford player was 6 yards or more from the first down line.
6. I can't help but think "forward progress" isn't the right terminology here. You can't review forward progress in that situation, in my opinion. You could potentially review that the ball should have been declared dead, but how do you declare a dead ball on a tackle before the play is complete and where the defender takes possession? I guess that was Hatcher's argument - the ref should have blown the play dead as soon as Yates hit his player.
7. Here's what I have no idea about - once the call on the field is overturned, does that now become the ruling on the field? I see nothing in the rules. Was Hatcher challenging a "ruling on the field" or was he just making more argument about the initial call on the field. Was he charged a "challenge" for re-reviewing the play? I've never seen a ref overturn a call, go over to the other coach, and then be convinced to go look at everything again and then change the call they just changed. Hatcher was still able to utilize a challenge later in the game.
At bottom, I have no idea what the refs thought process was on this. They missed the call on the field. They overturned the call on the field because it was clear they missed it. They then reversed the reversal because, I guess, it was "indisputable" that they missed the reversal of the initial call they claimed was "clearly" wrong and then used as a basis a type of play that cannot be reviewed.
Honestly, if they had just let the call stand we would have all been annoyed and griped about SoCon refs, but the game would have kept moving. What happened yesterday was an embarrassment to the Conference.
I'm interested to know how some of you saw this play out. Not in the "the call didn't go our way so I'm mad" type of argument, but honestly what did you see on this play? Will the SoCon office explain it?
Here's the play:
1. Refs initially didn't seem to realize Yates had the ball. Yates comes up with the ball and immediately Furman players appeal to the judge that Yates had intercepted it.
2. Notably, the refs did not blow the play dead. A live ball is "dead" when an official sounds the whistle or otherwise signals the play dead. (Rule 4, Sec. 1, Art. 2.) The play was not whistled dead until the players were on the ground.
3. The play goes under review and the call is "interception." Under rule, that is a "catch of an opponent's pass or fumble." (Rule 2, Art. 3). It is not clear whether the refs are alleging that the Samford player (1) never completed the catch because Yates had possession or (2) Samford player had possession and Yates just stripped him (i.e., fumble). We know Yates came down with the ball before the Samford player was on the ground.
4. At that point, the refs have determined that there is "indisputable video evidence" that the ball was intercepted. Whether a pass is intercepted is a reviewable play. (NCAA Division Football Instant Replay Coaches Manual).
5. You can review forward progress of a ball carrier, but only with respect to the line to gain or goal line. The ball carrier was nowhere near either spot, so honestly, there should never have been a review of "forward progress." Think a ball carrier stretching out the ball to reach the yard marker, that sort of thing. The Samford player was 6 yards or more from the first down line.
6. I can't help but think "forward progress" isn't the right terminology here. You can't review forward progress in that situation, in my opinion. You could potentially review that the ball should have been declared dead, but how do you declare a dead ball on a tackle before the play is complete and where the defender takes possession? I guess that was Hatcher's argument - the ref should have blown the play dead as soon as Yates hit his player.
7. Here's what I have no idea about - once the call on the field is overturned, does that now become the ruling on the field? I see nothing in the rules. Was Hatcher challenging a "ruling on the field" or was he just making more argument about the initial call on the field. Was he charged a "challenge" for re-reviewing the play? I've never seen a ref overturn a call, go over to the other coach, and then be convinced to go look at everything again and then change the call they just changed. Hatcher was still able to utilize a challenge later in the game.
At bottom, I have no idea what the refs thought process was on this. They missed the call on the field. They overturned the call on the field because it was clear they missed it. They then reversed the reversal because, I guess, it was "indisputable" that they missed the reversal of the initial call they claimed was "clearly" wrong and then used as a basis a type of play that cannot be reviewed.
Honestly, if they had just let the call stand we would have all been annoyed and griped about SoCon refs, but the game would have kept moving. What happened yesterday was an embarrassment to the Conference.
I'm interested to know how some of you saw this play out. Not in the "the call didn't go our way so I'm mad" type of argument, but honestly what did you see on this play? Will the SoCon office explain it?
