VoyForums
[ 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: The Last Word?


Author:
Joe Friday
[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]
Date Posted: 11:07:42 11/30/21 Tue

https://www.dailyprincetonian.com/article/2021/11/princeton-harvard-football-game-bonfire-ivy-league

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

Replies:
[> Subject: Re: The Last Word?


Author:
Calvin
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 13:15:04 11/30/21 Tue

I see he lurks on this Board.

One wonders at the amount of time spent on such a matter.

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[> [> Subject: Re: The Last Word?


Author:
Joe Friday
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 13:46:36 11/30/21 Tue

Assuming his citations of authority are correct, makes me wonder how the IL could have issued their conclusory statement immediately post game without actually checking the rules prior to doing so. That office has publicly embarrassed itself, and I have to wonder if they’re even aware of it….or care…
One can credibly debate whether Princeton should have accepted the win as a matter of honor - which would have been a great public example of why the Ivy League is a cut above as per the Cornell/Dartmouth example of many moons ago - but for the present I do believe it does represent the last word on that game, and Harvard needs to get over it in order to move forward.

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[> [> Subject: Even assuming it was a lot...


Author:
Go Green
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 13:51:21 11/30/21 Tue


I have no doubt that the author had fun researching and writing the article.

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[> [> Subject: Re: The Last Word?


Author:
Tiger69
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 20:21:19 12/04/21 Sat

Thank you, Joe. Maybe next time John harvard will save his whining until AFTER he checks the facts.😁🐅

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[> Subject: Re: The Last Word?


Author:
Acob (A proper name)
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 14:27:39 11/30/21 Tue

Talented poster incisive Joe Friiday might amend to a monicker more acceptable to Holtsledge and sugary with Bengalian courtliness' such as Joe Fridaynight or Joe Saturday, Either is more depictiive of the actual dates and times of our Ivy football games.
This is just the facts.

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[> Subject: Re: The Last Word?


Author:
Two Cents
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 14:53:16 11/30/21 Tue

Ok, I’ll bite and beat a dead horse for the last time. The NFL instituted replay in 1999. NCAA football instituted replay in 2006. Over the thousands of games that have been played since then, nobody can reference an instance when a referee went to replay to award a coach a timeout that he had been trying to call. Has never happened until the H-P game this year. That is why H players, coaches, alumni and fans are bitter about the outcome of that game.

Someone posted recently that in the UM-OSU game that Harbaugh was sprinting down the sideline by a referee trying to call timeout in the fourth quarter. And the referee either did not see him or ignored him. No replay review conducted to award Harbaugh a timeout. I don’t buy the argument of trying to parse the rule book technicalities either, to prove that Princeton has the “Last Word” on this issue.

I’ll hang up and listen now.

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[> [> Subject: Re: The Last Word?


Author:
Go Green
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 15:01:04 11/30/21 Tue


I know that I shouldn't wade into this morass but...

My problem with going to replay in these circumstances is that it's not difficult to imagine a scenario that's open to abuse. A coach can surreptitiously signal time out that is only visible to a replay camera. If the play results in a favorable result, he remains quiet. If the play results in an unfavorable result, he demands that replay be reviewed and lo and behold, there is the coach signaling time out.

It's a heads-I-win-tails-we-try-again situation.

Obviously, that wasn't the case with Surace, who, by all accounts, was moving heaven and earth trying to get the officials' attention. But I think good reasons exist why replay is generally not consulted to see if a time-out had been called.

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[> [> [> Subject: Re: The Last Word?


Author:
JH
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 21:10:33 11/30/21 Tue

Agreed. And Harvard did get hosed in that game. Would bet Murphy and the team feels they are the true co-champs w Dartmouth.

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[> Subject: Princetonian Harvard Law School Alumnus Raises The Stakes For League Office


Author:
An Observer
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 14:17:50 12/01/21 Wed

I'm glad to see this guy put the Article 7 issue, which we have discussed at length here on this board, out in the sphere of public discourse.

I don't care which side of the argument you find more convincing, the Ivy League office took an extraordinary step in issuing its statement on the Sunday morning after the game. Robin Harris owes an explanation to Harvard football, Princeton football as well as the very few of us out there who still follow and support Ivy football.

You don't issue a statement which calls the game day officials incompetent at best and biased at worst without explaining why. In a football game, if a referee calls holding on an offensive lineman, the official is obligated to identify the individual player by number so that the rest of us can go to the video replay to see for ourselves.

In this case, the Ivy League office went way, way, way out its way to call a penalty on the game day officials, but did not cite the rule to which they refer. That is a terrible look.

JH, how can you have such a firm opinion that "Harvard got hosed" when you can't find any language in the rule book which supports your position? Because Robin Harris said so on the morning of October 24?

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[> [> Subject: Re: Princetonian Harvard Law School Alumnus Raises The Stakes For League Office


Author:
ivy guy
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 14:44:52 12/01/21 Wed

does anyone have the URL for the rulebook?

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[> [> [> Subject: Re: Princetonian Harvard Law School Alumnus Raises The Stakes For League Office


Author:
sparman
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 16:17:11 12/01/21 Wed

https://www.ncaapublications.com/c-82-football.aspx

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[> [> Subject: Re: Princetonian Harvard Law School Alumnus Raises The Stakes For League Office


Author:
JH
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 15:35:41 12/01/21 Wed

Harvard was hosed based on the following:

The Ivy League, not Harvard, reviewed the situation and the rules and determined the officials had erred

As Two Cents pointed out, there has never ever been a situation in the last 20 years since replay reviews were implemented, where a replay review awarded a team a timeout

The rule book may state that the replay official may correct obvious errors that may have a significant impact on the outcome of the game. I don’t believe a coach trying to call a timeout that was not seen or
Is ignored by an onfield ref as being an obvious error that had a significant impact on the game. Because this happens all the time in games where refs don’t see coaches calling timeout, many times at critical junctures. It is part of the game, and coaches like Harbaugh and Dabo have had similar situations recently where refs did not see them frantically calling timeout. Did they go to replay booth and award them timeouts? NO

Also, I watched the game and thought the Harvard players and Murphy were extremely deflated and dejected after they went to replay and gave the timeout to Surace. If anything THAT caused a significant impact on the result of the game. Emotional and physical letdown after that, leading to the Princeton victory.

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[> [> [> Subject: We Should Decide This on Principle or on The Letter of The Law. You Do Neither.


Author:
An Observer
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 18:50:59 12/01/21 Wed

JH,

I'll fully grant you two points.

First, Harvard players and Murphy were probably indeed deflated and dejected after the timeout was retroactively granted by the replay official. The players and Murphy were probably further deflated and dejected after the next scoring conversion was overturned on an offensive pass interference penalty. They might have been even more deflated and dejected after the third scoring conversion was overturned because Murphy himself had called timeout before the snap.

That's a lot of deflation and dejection for one team to undergo in the span of three short overtime periods.

Secondly, as Two Cents pointed out, it's been 15 years since college football introduced video replay. I, for one, cannot recall any precedent for a time out being retroactively.

So I agree with those two points. So what?

Those are interesting observations, but have nothing to do with how this matter should be decided.

A lot of things have never happened before they first happen, right? That's kind of what people mean when they say, "There's a first time for everything."

I can sympathize with Harvard having to maintain its focus after its starting quarterback was injured, just as Princeton had to maintain its focus after its starting running back was injured, or Yale had to maintain its focus after its savior second-string quarterback started handing out interceptions to Princeton and Harvard like they were party favors. Dartmouth had to maintain its focus after being punched in the mouth by Columbia on a cold night in Hanover.

That's why we admire people who maintain concentration and discipline in the face of adversity. Because it's hard.

No, those are not legitimate reasons to give the victory to Harvard.

In my opinion, there are only two legitimate, reasonable ways to decide this issue.

The first is on Principle and the second is on The Letter of The Law.

Principle means, "What is most fair? What most comports with what we want out of a sporting competition?" We want an unbiased competition as free as possible from factors outside the control of the two competitors.

That includes errors by officials. Nobody disputes that Surace was trying to call time out. When I spoke with the NCAA, they were able to describe to me in detail his exact path out onto the field. Everybody agrees Surace was doing his level best to call a timeout to which he was entitled. Officials not seeing or hearing Surace is an error that we have the technology to correct.

You don't want to correct that error because you say, "A full team of officials missing a head coach attempting to call time out is not reviewable. Those are the rules!"

Well, okay. If those are the rules, we should live by the rules. After all, we aspire to be a nation of laws, not men, right? I support that general principle, even as we discover it's not always straightforward to apply.

If we should live by the rules, then let's consult the rules.

Well, we've got a lot of people combing through the NCAA rule book and -- guess what? -- there is no rule which says an attempt to call time out cannot be reviewed by video replay. Indeed, the most applicable rule is the now oft quoted Article 7.

Article 7 is clear. Very clear.

Article 7 grants the video replay official unfettered discretion to correct either "obvious errors which may have a significant impact on the game" (2021 edition) or "egregious errors which may have a significant impact on the game." (2019 edition)

So that's the Letter of The Law.

Which do you prefer? Principle or Letter of The Law.

I could be convinced to change sides on this debate if somebody could direct us to anything in the NCAA rule book which supersedes Article 7. That's what the Ivy League office needs to do now.

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[> [> [> Subject: another perspectives on the H-P OT


Author:
ivy guy
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 20:43:43 12/01/21 Wed

AO
Love ya' man, but ... Article 7 (or any section of the rules) are not the exclusive letter of the law.

It is not unusual for football officials, at any level, to disagree on a call or interpretation. That is why the rules have a specific structure for resolution.

The referee is responsible for the general supervision of the game and has the final authority on all rulings.

The video offical(s) is not the final authority.

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[> [> [> [> Subject: Re: another perspectives on the H-P OT


Author:
An Observer
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 21:07:34 12/01/21 Wed

Love you, too. I will never forget your relentless optimism and positivity in the darkest days of summer 2020, during the worst of the pandemic. The entire 2021 football season was a celebration of our return to the gridiron, vindicating your spirit of looking forward to a better future.

Your point about the hierarchy among game officials seems reasonable to me.

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[> [> [> [> Subject: Re: another perspectives on the H-P OT


Author:
sparman
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 21:47:09 12/01/21 Wed

"The referee .... has the final authority on all rulings." Do you have the cite to this rule (or other basis)? Presumably there are some limits to this authority - for example, can the ref require that a rule be ignored?

And taking this thought further, if the referee in this case agreed with the replay official (or at least declined to overrule the replay official), wouldn't that answer any debate over how the rule should be applied?

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[> Subject: Re: The Last Word?


Author:
Ivy Inquisitor (Compromise)
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 14:47:39 12/01/21 Wed

The game was decided on the field and it should stay that way. Had Harvard been awarded league champion along with Dartmouth and Princeton this issue would be resolved. We already have a split championship. What’s the harm of adding one more?

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[> Subject: Taking Your Chances and Other Thoughts


Author:
David Perry (Pox on All Houses)
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 23:36:50 12/03/21 Fri

As you might imagine, I have not been tremendously engaged by Ivy football this season (which is a pity, because before it started, I had the most anticipation I'd had for a season in a long time.) That being said, I have to admit this whole thing intrigues me, so at the risk of rushing where angels fear to tread, I'll give my opinions.

1.) The fundamental mistake the refs made was not watching for the timeout. In that situation, anyone who knows anything about football knows that there is a very strong likelihood that the defense will call a timeout once they see the offensive formation. How that crew could not have at least one person assigned to keep an ear cocked towards the Princeton sideline is beyond me.
2.) Once that mistake was made, the die was cast; there was no way to avoid someone getting screwed. Had the play been allowed to stand, Princeton would have the same right to complain that Harvard does now; they forcefully attempted to call a timeout they were entitled to and were ignored. The refs, through incompetence, put themselves in a situation where there was no good solution to the problem.
3.) The NCAA screwed up by writing an ambiguous rule. As others have pointed out, it basically says, "This isn't reviewable--unless it's really, really important that you review it." That is just begging for trouble like this. A similar situation occurred in the celebrated case of Brett v. Martin (1981), where one could reasonably make two interpretations: one, that having pine tar too far up the bat should be punished simply by requiring a change of bat, or two, that excessive pine tar should be grounds for ejection from the game and the nullification of any hit made on the play. In cases like this, I think there are two main factors to consider: precedent (what has the typical practice been) and equity (what is the fairest solution to the problem). In the older case, I think the the American League properly held that *both* factors favored the Royals: precedent said that no one had ever been ejected and had a hit thrown out for having pine tar too far up the bat, and equity argued that having too much tar did not give any competitive advantage; the rule was merely about keeping the ball clean. The current question, on the other hand, clearly set the two principles against one another. On the one hand, we know of no previous example of replay being used to determine if a timeout was called before a play started. On the other hand, the equitable response was that Princeton did everything they could to get a timeout, and should not lose the game because of the refs' failure to pay attention. Personally, I would have leaned towards equity in this one myself, both because the rule was ambiguous and also because ruling as they did still left Harvard with a chance to win, whereas going with precedent was guaranteed to screw Princeton.
4.) The League screwed up by not having their ducks all in a row. While I do think it was proper to point out that the refs messed up, they erred by not identifying the correct source of the problem, which was the failure to see the timeout being called, and also by not carefully reading the rules before making the statement and recognizing the ambiguity of the rules. As such, I think it was improper for them to them to suggest that the result was unjust, when it would have been at least as unjust if it had gone in the other direction.
5.) I do recognize what others have said about the potential to game the system with timeouts and replay, and in general I think that replay is becoming overused and is too much of a crutch for the refs. I would be in favor of the NCAA rewriting the rule to make it very clear that certain things are reviewable and other things aren't, and to allow no leeway for the importance of the situation. At the same time, however, I also think it would be appropriate to develop a Dick Tracy-type watch like the ones FIFA refs use to receive rulings on whether the ball has fully entered the goal or not, except that in this case it would be wirelessly connected to buttons on the sidelines, and when the coaches wanted to call timeouts, they could push the button, and the watch would display the name of the team asking for the TO.
6.) I have watched a lot of sports in my life and seen a lot of bad decisions, but in the absence of clear fixing or other blatant favoritism (which I don't think anyone is suggesting happened here), I have never fundamentally blamed the refs for my teams losing. My reason is this: there's always something you could have done better. If you win every game in a blowout, you never have to worry about the refs, but if you leave things to chance, sometimes that chance will go against you. The worst screwing one of my teams ever got was the infamous fog game between the Eagles and the Bears, but even there, the Birds had plenty of chances to take the lead in the first half when it was clear and did not do so; had they succeeded, it would have been Chicago who got jobbed by the NFL's pigheaded refusal to delay games. The fact is that Harvard, who had the second best offense in the league this season, failed to score a touchdown on offense in regulation, and therefore squandered a very good effort by their defense against the Tigers. Even after the contretemps, they had four more cracks at either winning the game or keeping it going and missed all four of them. I'm sorry, and it pains me greatly to take Nassau's side on anything, but ultimately, I can't be sympathetic to Harvard here.

Ceterum censeo Priore terminandam esse!

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[> [> Subject: Brett v. Martin case


Author:
Go Green
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 07:17:37 12/04/21 Sat


Also worth mentioning is that the Yankees knew full well that Brett was using too much pine tar on his bat, but waited until he did something to hurt them to complain.

I don't think that went over well with the American League.

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[> [> Subject: Re: Taking Your Chances and Other Thoughts


Author:
Calvin
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 07:28:43 12/04/21 Sat

Not everyone may be convinced, but your case is stated as cogently as possible and much more thoroughly than I have heard before.

Even if the final part seems a bit harsh.

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[> [> Subject: Robin Harris, America Turns Its Lonely Eyes to You


Author:
An Observer
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 15:12:03 12/04/21 Sat

David, thanks for a cogent and articulate summary of where we stand. In particular, I like that you shone a light on two points:

(1) We all know that the overtime rules changed this year, so everybody is getting familiar with the alternating two-point conversion attempts starting in the third overtime. You make a great observation that, in such a situation, officials should EXPECT the head coach of the defensive team to call time-out once the offense has revealed its formation.

This is especially true when it's the bottom half of the inning and the coach of the defensive team has no incentive to conserve his one time out for that inning. Princeton had already failed in its top half of the inning before Surace tried to call time out.

(5) [using your numbering of paragraphs] As Ivy Guy first noted in another, much older thread on this subject, we're just asking for trouble on these alternating two-point conversions because the coaches are confined to the coaching box thirty yards away from the goal line action.

The Dick Tracy watch would be fun, but failing that, how about a simple red flag that coaches could throw onto the field, a la the challenge flag in the NFL? Coaches would still have the traditional means of getting an official's attention, but the red flag would be an unambiguous method of calling time out which *IS* clear on video replay. Let's say you arbitrarily say a coach must throw his time out flag inside the numbers. As long as the flag is on the ground inside the numbers before the snap, the time out is valid. You could just do this for overtime, when each play's importance is magnified, especially starting in the third frame.

Finally, I like your even-handed take in your last full paragraph (6), a general admonition against teams complaining about the officiating too much. I agree with that broad sentiment, but I also feel strongly that, if Harvard deserves to win the game by even the narrowest margin, Harvard deserves to win. It's not incumbent upon Harvard to blow out Princeton, they just need to be one point better when the final, post-video replay gun goes off.

Overralll, a terrific summaryy., David I think we all agree that the ball right now is the the court of the Ivy League office. Both Harvard and Princeton deserve a more throrough explanna ion of why the League office does not believe tor support the clear langauage in Article 7.

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[> [> Subject: Easy to be simplistic; hard to be simple.


Author:
Valmas (Sullen)
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 21:01:07 12/04/21 Sat

I chose to do us on the following paragraph, as recently put forward by Mr. Perry: "The fundamental mistake the refs made was not watching for the timeout. In that situation, anyone who knows anything about football knows that there is a very strong likelihood that the defense will call a timeout once they see the offensive formation. How that crew could not have at least one person assigned to keep an ear cocked towards the Princeton sideline is beyond me."

Note that the NCAA overtime procedure is such that the nearest on field official to a coach (Surace) is at least 75 feet away from him, and with his back to the coach. Factor in powerful crowd noise; an event that's already demanded four hours from each official in terms of the maximal mental and physical energy each has to offer; and finally, this small detail of bearing full responsibility to monitor a fast moving play that's about to unfold which could very well decide the game's outcome. As far as having "an ear cocked to the Princeton sideline"... officials are required to be certain the head coach is making the timeout request before it's actually granted-
assistants don't have that same privilege; not that knowledge of such will ever prevent assistants from muddying the waters by asking for a timeout, anyway!

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[> [> [> Subject: Re: Easy to be simplistic; hard to be simple.


Author:
observer
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 09:54:55 12/05/21 Sun

This is the Ivy League. "Powerful Crowd Noise" does not apply here.

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[> [> [> [> Subject: observer:Only responding to a man who says the refs' handling of the H v. P 4th OT was "beyond" him.


Author:
Valmas (Steaming)
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 12:06:44 12/05/21 Sun

10,500 people in a small stadium CAN generate quite a bit of noise; particularly at the overtime stage of a game where the outcome of the event hangs in the balance. Add to that, ten Princeton assistants, contributing to the maelstrom, by howling their own time out requests. Remember, the granting official needs to be certain Surace's the one requesting the time out- what of the possible scenario wherein an official grants a timeout request (having mistaken the assistant coach's cry for that of the head); Surace then uses the next five seconds to take inventory; realizes he doesn't really want the timeout in that instance; and then blurts out to the referees, "I never asked for a timeout!"

What the officials did that day was "beyond" this poor fellow, not because the referees were less than perfect, but rather because he's never been on the field to have any idea what the magnitude of this situation was all about.

Moreover, this same person submitted another self serving piece a month or so ago, wherein he wrote that if one has a problem with blowout games, blame the team getting blown away! Seems to me that if he'd ever taken part in a 63-0 ass whipping, on the losing end of things, he'd no doubt remember the taste of that as not being very good.

Easy for any one us to be (overly) simplistic- very hard sometimes to make matters simple.

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[> [> [> [> [> Subject: Probably worth mentioning...


Author:
Go Green
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 06:33:23 12/06/21 Mon

You could also probably say that the refs' attention was on the field.

They have to watch for false start/procedure penalties, count players, keep an eye on the play clock, you know--stuff like that.

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: That's absolutely right, GG!


Author:
Valmas (Sizzling.)
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 11:15:41 12/06/21 Mon

What happens on the field, from the moments prior to the snap till the instant the down ends, matters greatly, and can explode on you in a hurry if you're not completely tuned in. Typically, two officials line up in the backfield before any down commences; 25 or more yards away from the nearest head coach during an overtime period, and NEVER directly facing either sideline. One such official (the referee) prioritizes the quarterback and action around him at the snap and immediately thereafter. The other backfield official (the Umpire) concentrates on the snap, itself, any untoward action against the snapper and interior line play. Neither of the two backfield officials can be fixated on Bob Surace in possible observance of his potential time out request- that wouldn't be fair to the game, NOR to Coach Murphy, who may beat Surace to the punch by requesting a timeout, himself, in that situation.

So, there's a lot more going on as part of an overtime down scenario than meets the eye of an Observer, observer; or any delusional, pompous-assed Ivy League affiliate, believing the world can't do without his/her immediate input about who is to blame- for action(s) taking place on a carpet he's never in his life dared to place a toe upon!

It's to the credit of men like you, GG, who've played the Ivy League version of the game so well, that the officials aren't asked to intrude on game action more often than is already the case. And it's a tribute to the Ivy League game officials -to their level of preparedness, competence and consistency in offering maximal physical exertion and mental concentration, from down to down- that an event as took place during that fourth overtime at Princeton is just an outlier, and not more of a commonplace occurrence. As chronicled on these pages, Ivy League football officials demonstrated a 99.75% success rate on plays they monitored during the just completed season- with a number such as that on your transcript, GG, you'd have surely been asked to give the valedictory address at Dartmouth College in any of our nation's recent two-hundred and fifty years.

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[> [> [> [> [> Subject: Only responding to a man who says the refs' handling of the H v. P 4th OT was "beyond" him.


Author:
joiseyfan
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 10:31:08 12/06/21 Mon

As someone who was as close to Surace as the ref (but behind him) the pandemonium was very much ss Valmas describes, exacerbated by the limits of the coaches’ box, and much yelling from BOTH sidelines, never mind the stands. And since the game had been reduced to the closed end of the stadium, fans had moved downfield to get a better look, which is easy in the lower deck with the broad concourse.

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[> Subject: Re: The Last Word?


Author:
Two Cents
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 09:30:41 12/04/21 Sat

Great analogy to the Brett vs Martin situation. Lest anyone forget, the Royals protested the game and the AL commissioner upheld their protest. They resumed the game at the point of the incident and the Royals ended up winning the game.

Maybe I am being thick in the head on this issue, and I am not an attorney, but does everyone who has scrutinized the NCAA rules truly believe that the Surace timeout replay review situation actually constituted the need to “correct obvious errors that may have a significant impact on the outcome of the game.” How does anyone know that if the refs had seen Surace and awarded him the timeout in real time, that the result would have been different on the play in question?

Also, if this were the intent of the rules, why didn’t the replay official stop the UM-OSU game in the 4th Q last week when Harbaugh was frantically sprinting down the sideline calling timeout right before a 4th down play that OSU ended up converting to put them down only 7 mid-way through the 4th? It was obvious to everyone in the stadium that Harbaugh was calling timeout. But officials either didn’t see him or ignored him. And replay official did nothing.

It would be great to have an actual referee with rules expertise weigh in on this issue ie Mike Pereira type.

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[> [> Subject: Princeton should have conceded to Harvard as did Cornell to Dartmouth


Author:
Diogenes
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 11:02:28 12/05/21 Sun

Ethics, sportsmanship and doing the right thing would have redounded to the great benefit of Harvard, Princeton and the entire Ivy League.

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[> [> [> Subject: Getting tired of this


Author:
Sparman
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 12:57:04 12/05/21 Sun

You may view the interpretation of the rule differently than Perry. I can respect that.

But I don't see how it is unethical, lack of sportsmanship, or doing the wrong thing thing when the refs followed a reasonable interpretation of the rule, as has been explained multiple times. The least you should do is explain how that is unethical or bad sportsmanship. To claim otherwise without articulating any logical argument is bad faith.

Are you going to assert that teams should always forfeit when they get a football call that is subject to interpretation? For example, on questionable pass interference call on final play of game? Or maybe on a final basketball shot when no foul is called on a go ahead basket?

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[> [> [> Subject: Harvard should have conceded to Yale as did Cornell to Dartmouth


Author:
An Observer
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 18:45:47 12/05/21 Sun

Harvard should have conceded to Yale after the season finale.

Why not? It was a close game. There were some borderline calls.

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[> Subject: The Unwritten Rules, They Get You In Trouble


Author:
An Observer
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 11:05:35 12/06/21 Mon

Over the weekend, I read an article which mentioned that, in the NFL, officials are asked to use a different standard for pass interference on Hail Mary passes even though there is no language in the rule book which says so.

It sounds like we may have a similar situation here.

There seems to be an unwritten policy in the college game that calling time out is not reviewable by replay. At least that's what Erin McDermott and Robin Harris believe. But that policy does not appear in print anywhere.

Meanwhile, meanwhile the actual verbiage in the rule book is explicit. The replay official can review just about anything he wants to look at again.

As Texas A&M learned to its dismay in regarding the unwritten rule that any SEC member could block a prospective new conference member from its home state, unwritten rules can create problems.

And in a field where there are documents all over the place, pages and pages of them, it's asking a lot to overrule the black and white on paper with one's claims of an unwritten rule.

Welcome to the SEC, UT-Austin.

[ 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.