Rutgers' muffed punt return

[Joe]

Blame Refs! Arrgh!

[outrunner]

After watching the replay of it, I have another question.

The nearest official to the attempted catch threw his bean bag marking a live ball, and ran and called a touchdown. No whistle was blown.

Why is it then that the refs can all huddle up and overturn the initial ruling on the field without reviewing the play?

Because one might have had a better view of the play than others. I don't know what you're suggesting, but if it's that the refs shouldn't be allowed to get together and discuss what exactly happened, it's not a good suggestion. I'm guessing, but don't know for sure, that the ultimate authority to determine what the call on the field is belongs to the referee, but he has to have input from the other officials. Otherwise, what purpose do they serve?

Okay, if as you say another official had a better view of the muff, instead of the nearest official who ruled it a fumble, why didn't that ref blow his whistle to rule the play dead? I don't have a problem with two refs seeing different things from different angles, making conflicting calls and then getting together to sort it out. What I do have a problem with is when a call that wasn't made during the course of the play is then made after the play is finished. And then that play is further challenged by a booth review. Meaning it was judged three separate times.

Lets say they had ruled the play a fumble recovered and returned for a TD, like it originally was called. If the play was then challenged by Rutgers that it was a muffed punt, would there have been conclusive evidence to overturn the call on the field?

I'm all for the refs getting the calls right, and I think in the end they did in this case, but the point of having replay is to correct the refs when they make a mistake. The refs should not be reviewing their own calls after the play without any assistance from the booth.

[TrujilloBull2013]

the ESPN commentator in that hilight video is a tard.

the touchdown wasn't negated by a running into the kicker call. how the **** could a touchdown by a team be negated by a foul committed by the other team?

the touchdown was negated by the dead ball muff rule that prohibits advancing the ball after a muff. period. we declined the running into the kicker penalty and the offense started at the spot of the muff recovery.

i've never heard such incompetence in my life. ESPN is horrible.

[gobulls83]

After watching the replay of it, I have another question.

The nearest official to the attempted catch threw his bean bag marking a live ball, and ran and called a touchdown. No whistle was blown.

Why is it then that the refs can all huddle up and overturn the initial ruling on the field without reviewing the play?

Because one might have had a better view of the play than others. I don't know what you're suggesting, but if it's that the refs shouldn't be allowed to get together and discuss what exactly happened, it's not a good suggestion. I'm guessing, but don't know for sure, that the ultimate authority to determine what the call on the field is belongs to the referee, but he has to have input from the other officials. Otherwise, what purpose do they serve?

Okay, if as you say another official had a better view of the muff, instead of the nearest official who ruled it a fumble, why didn't that ref blow his whistle to rule the play dead? I don't have a problem with two refs seeing different things from different angles, making conflicting calls and then getting together to sort it out. What I do have a problem with is when a call that wasn't made during the course of the play is then made after the play is finished. And then that play is further challenged by a booth review. Meaning it was judged three separate times.

No, it was judged twice. If the play was "judged" more than twice because more than one official had a part in it, than every single play is judged at least six or seven times. I'm not sure some other official didn't blow the play dead. Regardless, I don't know the specifics, I don't know what was talked about in their huddle, etc. You asked why the officials could huddle up and talk about the play without the review, and the answer is because that's what they always do. You misframed it, though, when you said they huddled up to "overturn the initial ruling on the field." That's not what they did - one guy signaled touchdown, but that wasn't the official ruling on the field. The only official ruling on the field was that it was a muff. The official ruling came AFTER the officials huddled, not before. There was nothing wrong with the officials' decision-making process there. You are assuming one guy signaling a touchdown means that must be the ruling on the field, but that's not the case.

Regardless, in my opinion, none of this matters, because even if it HAD been ruled a touchdown...

Lets say they had ruled the play a fumble recovered and returned for a TD, like it originally was called. If the play was then challenged by Rutgers that it was a muffed punt, would there have been conclusive evidence to overturn the call on the field?

I say yes, there would have been enough evidence to overturn it. To me, it was clear it was a muffed punt. The dude never had control. I'm sure there will be a couple people here who will insist otherwise - someone already has - but I don't see any valid argument that the guy had control. Just my opinion.

Edited September 15, 2012 by gobulls83

[gobulls83]

An analogous situation that comes up a lot: Many times on passes that are very close to being completed, where the receiver just misses getting a foot in bounds or traps a ball on the ground barely, the official closest to the play will signal completed pass because he has an obstructed view, and then the back judge will come running in signalling incomplete and telling the side judge or umpire or whatever other official what he saw. The official ruling isn't a completed pass, just because that's the signal we happened to have seen first on television. The official ruling is an incomplete pass (assuming that is what the officials decide after disagreeing). You seem to think this is an unusual occurrence, the officials getting together after disagreeing about a call, but it is fairly common.

[outrunner]

An analogous situation that comes up a lot: Many times on passes that are very close to being completed, where the receiver just misses getting a foot in bounds or traps a ball on the ground barely, the official closest to the play will signal completed pass because he has an obstructed view, and then the back judge will come running in signalling incomplete and telling the side judge or umpire or whatever other official what he saw. The official ruling isn't a completed pass, just because that's the signal we happened to have seen first on television. The official ruling is an incomplete pass (assuming that is what the officials decide after disagreeing). You seem to think this is an unusual occurrence, the officials getting together after disagreeing about a call, but it is fairly common.

I agree with that premise. But in the case of the muffed punt, where was the official coming in ruling the "incomplete" pass and blowing the play dead? As far as I could tell, there wasn't one until they huddled and discussed.

[TrujilloBull2013]

An analogous situation that comes up a lot: Many times on passes that are very close to being completed, where the receiver just misses getting a foot in bounds or traps a ball on the ground barely, the official closest to the play will signal completed pass because he has an obstructed view, and then the back judge will come running in signalling incomplete and telling the side judge or umpire or whatever other official what he saw. The official ruling isn't a completed pass, just because that's the signal we happened to have seen first on television. The official ruling is an incomplete pass (assuming that is what the officials decide after disagreeing). You seem to think this is an unusual occurrence, the officials getting together after disagreeing about a call, but it is fairly common.

I agree with that premise. But in the case of the muffed punt, where was the official coming in ruling the "incomplete" pass and blowing the play dead? As far as I could tell, there wasn't one until they huddled and discussed.

touche.