Rulebook Wednesday: NFL Replacement Officials Fumble the Rock and NCAA Reviews PT 2

Nov 6, 2010; East Lansing, MI, USA; The officials review a play during the game between the Michigan State Spartans and the Minnesota Golden Gophers at Spartan Stadium. Mandatory Credit: Rick Osentoski-US PRESSWIRE

With the Friday game last week, I never got a chance to come back to my topic, so I’m going to finish what I started last week, today. First I’d like to say that I’ve had my first “tune up” for the season with the first couple junior high girls basketball games. Let me tell you, there’s nothing quite as bad as junior high girls basketball, when one team can barely dribble and gets creamed by a team with a good coach who values fundamentals. It’s tough to watch 46-4. So is it officially basketball season? Nope, not quite.

Anyways, let’s get to the topic at hand. Last week we talked about the Replacements in the NFL and then the weekend happened and, well, you know all about what chaos was wrecked. So let’s talk about the NCAA’s reviewing of plays. I love the whole “review every score and every turnover” card, but when it comes to plays in the field of play that aren’t those, I think there should be a limit to the amount of plays that get reviewed and I think the coaches should have it in their hands just like the NFL. That may never happen, so it is what it is. I really wish though that when a play gets reviewed, the officials that do it would be consistent in their interpretation of the phrase “indisputable evidence”. It just outrages me when a play can be clearly seen and the officials say “the play stands” because there’s “not enough evidence”, or vice versa when a play is overturned that could not clearly be seen.

2 weeks ago Oregon State beat Wisconsin 10-7 and a play at the end of the game was overturned with no clear shot of evidence, dooming Wisconsin. It was a good ruling for the Pac-12, but in principle, it was a guess and incorrect. In another game this past weekend, a close play on an interception was made but called incomplete. To me the play was very obvious on replay, but when they reviewed the play, they said there “wasn’t enough evidence” to overturn it, when there clearly was. In the Arkansas/Alabama game, the announcers said that they both thought an interception (which clearly hit the ground) was going to stand because there wasn’t enough clear evidence. The officials got that play right though, using clear evidence to call it incomplete.

Of course when the element of too many reviews, small replay monitors and human interpretation come into play, not even slow motion can help get every play right. Let’s have a good weekend of football!

Signed,

The Ref