[ Show ]
Support VoyForums
[ Shrink ]
VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 12345678910 ]
Subject: Thank You, Michael, and "Your Honor, Instruct The Jury That New Evidence Has Been Submitted "

An Observer
[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]
Date Posted: 18:58:02 10/25/21 Mon
In reply to: An Observer 's message, "Kerfuffle: 5% Probability That Eisgruber Forfeits The Win" on 13:52:43 10/25/21 Mon

Thank you for the kind words, Michael.

In the best tradition of Calvin doing primary research while the rest of us bloviate and pontificate, here is some language from Page 5 of the 2019 NCAA All Divisions "Instant Replay Coaches Manual."

Limitations on Reviewable Plays
ARTICLE 7. No other plays or officiating decisions are reviewable. However, the replay official may correct egregious errors, including those involving the game clock, whether or not a play is reviewable. This excludes fouls that are not specifically reviewable.

So the Ivy League office and even Erin McDermott, who in all her unsolicited graciousness kicked the game day officials while they were down, should really stop criticizing the referees.

According to the NCAA rules manual, the replay official essentially has what amounts to a "in the best interests of the game" Get Out of Jail Free card to "correct egregious errors" that he believes have affected the game.

I think that's what the guy on Saturday in Princeton Stadium thought he was doing.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

[> [> Subject: Re: Thank You, Michael, and "Your Honor, Instruct The Jury That New Evidence Has Been Submitted "

[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 19:28:22 10/25/21 Mon

Seems to put a new light on the subject. Surprised no one has cited this rule.

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[> [> Subject: Re: Thank You, Michael, and "Your Honor, Instruct The Jury That New Evidence Has Been Submitted "

[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 19:54:52 10/25/21 Mon

Also answers the question of why the booth was solely cited in the Ivy statement, which seemed oversimplistic. No matter the immediate chaos onfield (and it was significant) the booth review was both 1) the ONLY possible source of reviewing an unreviewable call and 2) SOLELY capable of changing it, whatever anybody else thought or not.

I do wonder whether that was really the literal intent of writing the rule, but that sure seems to be precisely what it says.

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]

Login ] Create Account Not required to post.
Post a public reply to this message | Go post a new public message
* HTML allowed in marked fields.
* Message subject (required):

Name (required):

  Expression (Optional mood/title along with your name) Examples: (happy, sad, The Joyful, etc.) help)

  E-mail address (optional):

* Type your message here:

Notice: Copies of your message may remain on this and other systems on internet. Please be respectful.

[ Contact Forum Admin ]

Forum timezone: GMT-5
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.