The Call, The Review, The Shaft

'10 Football College Football Headscratchers39
ACC officiating coordinator Doug Rhoads said today that Ron Cherry’s officiating crew handled the spot of the ball correctly on a key fourth-down play during the final minute of Maryland’s 38-31 defeat of N.C. State on Saturday. The officials gave Adams what appeared to be a generous spot of the ball, and coach Tom O’Brien was visibly frustrated when the officials’ measurement showed Adams gained the first down that clinched the win for Maryland with 48 seconds left.
But here is the damning evidence against ACC officiating from Sports by Brooks.
“A sideline video camera angle revealed that Adams never reached the first down marker. In fact, he wasn’t even close before his forward progress was stopped by the Wolfpack defense.”
ACC refs screw over NCSU
There is video to accompany this image here.
The ACC and SEC Blog has some thoughtful commentary regarding the call.

My beef is not with the spot Maryland was given, but who is giving it!

You have a line judge viewing the play from at least 70 feet away making the determination of how far the ball carrier gained. If you haven’t noticed, most officials are in the eyeglass wearing age category yet they need to have microscopic detail from 70 plus feet away on plays like this.  Its absurd!

When the runner is downed inside the hash why can’t the referee who is standing RIGHT OVER THE BALL make the spot!

It seems logical that the person closest to the action could make the best determination, right?

This need for a rule change on who spots the ball is further evidenced on goalline plays where, again, a referee must run in 70-80 feet to determine if the ball carrier crossed the plane.  While the eyeglass wearing, 50 year old official is running in to make the call players are eye gouging, clawing, and pushing.

I know, we all know, it should never have come to us needing that call, but that is no excuse for overlooking the incompetency of ACC officiating and their all too frequent reluctance to overturn a call, and especially one that has ACC Championship implications.

About BAM

I grew up on Jones Franklin Rd with a Wolfpack banner hanging over my bed. UNCW class of 2001.

'10 Football College Football Headscratchers

39 Responses to The Call, The Review, The Shaft

  1. bradleyb123 11/30/2010 at 11:15 AM #

    The quick review (something like 30 seconds) did not seem right to me. This was a review that could impact the game. It would seem they should take a minimum of 2-3 minutes, being that an ACC championship berth was on the line.

    It reminded me of another game a few years ago. Amato was here back then, and the opponent was UCF I believe. We were up 3, as I recall, and the other team had time for ONE play, and they were around the one yard line. Rather than kicking a FG to tie, they went for it, and scored. I remember the officials running off the field almost immediately, like they had to pee or something. Amato chased them, but to no avail. There was no official review of the scoring play. Videos surfaced not long after that (on YouTube, etc.) revealing that the player’s knee was town and the ball had not yet crossed the goal line.

    These outcome-changing reviews need to be mandatory. When a outcome-changing play happens at the end of a game, and it’s a close call, they should be required to spend X number of minutes reviewing it to make sure they got it right.

  2. bradleyb123 11/30/2010 at 11:28 AM #

    Another problem is Ron Cherry. My heart sank when I heard his crew was officiating this game. I told my wife we weren’t going to win (that was at the beginning of the game) because Cherry was the ref.

    I would like to see the last 10-15 years worth of data on NC State football games, along with who the officiating crew was. I bet, all things being equal, that we have more close games or losses when Cherry was the ref than we do with other officiating crews. I believe with enough data available, including rankings, projected winners, etc., that someone could draw a conclusion that Cherry is not good for NC State. When he’s in there, we get a bad spot here, a holding call there… stuff that just makes it a little harder to win. I think if there’s a play that is subjective, our opponent is getting the benefit of the doubt. Cherry leaves us NO room for error. He’s not going to make a bad call that benefits State. That’s the way I see it.

    I’ve been happy that he wasn’t the ref for us very often this year. But he did ref the ECU game. On those early drives where ECU was marching through our defense like a hot knife through butter, I thought I saw several players holding our would-be tacklers, that freed their runner/receiver for more yardage. Then I learned Cherry’s crew officiated that one, too.

    Someone with enough data could probably study this theory and see if I’m right. I already believe I am. I’d love to see some data to find out.

  3. Pack84 11/30/2010 at 12:08 PM #

    Of all the responses on this thread CylonWolf comes the closest to the problem.

    The spot of the ball isn’t bad at all. In fact, if forced to say one way or the other I’d say the spot was pretty generous in OUR favor.

    The problem lies in the fact that the line to gain stake is touching the 31 yard line as the stake is standing on the sideline. But when they bring the chains out to measure the line to gain stake is a full foot, if not more, short of the 31 yard line. That foot or more was the difference between getting the ball back and the end of the game.

  4. StateofthePack 11/30/2010 at 12:14 PM #

    I dislike Cherry immensely, although not for a perceived bias against State that many seem to believe, but more for the fact that every game I watch regardless of the teams involved there are clearly head scratching calls in every single one. The ineptitude of his officiating crew is an embarrassment to the conference and an insult to the two teams giving it their all on the gridiron.

  5. bradleyb123 11/30/2010 at 12:16 PM #

    They should have measured BEFORE that 4th down play, so the world would have known BEFOREHAND how much they needed for the first down. Then we’d have known the field marker(s) were wrong.

    It’s possible that we could have lined up a little differently (although not likely). Still, what if it was 2 yards instead of 1 that is needed. A defense could line up to defend the pass, and give up one yard, only to learn one yard was all that was needed. Whereas, if one yard was needed, they might stack it up more at the line.

  6. wolfman1959 11/30/2010 at 1:32 PM #

    Well said Pack 80 !! We gave ourselves the business…..pitiful performance with soooo much to play for !!!

  7. phillypacker 11/30/2010 at 1:38 PM #

    The technology exists to more or less eliminate these errors. Professional tennis uses the “Hawkeye,” “an electronic “line” to verify human calls. It would show exactly where a first down line would be. It could also determine the correct new line of scrimmage by signaling where the ball ends its forward progress on any given play. It could also determine whether a player has at least one foot in-bounds on catches and runs and even touchdowns. This is such an easy solution, of course no one is for it. I’m sure referees would hate to make calls given the fact that they would always be overruled on bad calls. But then the game does not exist for the refs, but for the players and fans.

    Here is a comment from earlier this year on how well this works from http://www.tenniscountry.com/blog/2009/02/hawkeye_increases_peace_of_min.html:

    “As a result, there are now rarely arguments between players and linesmen or chair umpires regarding line calls. Therefore, the players no longer waste time or energy debating line calls. The players also achieve a certain “peace of mind” with respect to line calls because of the generally-accepted belief that Hawk-Eye is always “right.” Players can therefore focus even more on simply playing better tennis.”

    I have never heard any discussion of this possibility. Anyone else have thoughts on this?

  8. phillypacker 11/30/2010 at 1:40 PM #

    For you folks who feel compelled to reply again and again “we didn’t lose because of the bad spot,” please think for an extra few seconds about whether or not your comment is anything but redundant or asinine. All, or at least most of us, realize that there were other contributing factors.

  9. bradleyb123 11/30/2010 at 2:14 PM #

    I don’t think that tennis “hawkeye” thing will work in college. In tennis, the lines don’t move. The court is where it is and I presume the hawkeye is in a “fixed” location. In football, it would have to be re-located with every new first down. I don’t really think that’s feasible. It would also slow the game down (probably).

  10. Mike 11/30/2010 at 3:39 PM #

    The hawkeye would also not be able to judge whether a receiver is juggling the ball as he goes out of bounds. Calibration would also be an issue as bradleyb mentions, and of course, what happens when a player takes it out on a hard tackle?

  11. phillypacker 11/30/2010 at 3:40 PM #

    Bradley B, the “line” in terms of boundary lines do not move either. I don’t think the Hawkeye is in a fixed location. I don’t think this is a matter of if but of when. If we can have a virtual yellow line, we put some kind of sensing device in the football so that if the ball touches the virtual line, it is ruled a first down. This could be developed to work in a number of ways:

    1. It could mark exactly where a fumble, punt or kick goes out of bounds.

    2. It could end the discussion of whether a QB’s arm is going forward so as to cause a fumble or not.

    3. It could confirm whether a pass hits the ground or is caught by a receiver.

    The refs ability to make a call when the ball is under a mass of bodies would be done away with since the position of the ball would be measured by a sensor, not video evidence. As victimized as we have been jobbed by incompetent ref’s, State should be the first crew to run with this idea.

  12. phillypacker 11/30/2010 at 3:41 PM #

    Oh and it would speed up the game because we would never have humans in some booth examining things for 3-5 minutes with an extremely high threshold to overcome to contradict an official’s bad call.

  13. phillypacker 11/30/2010 at 5:07 PM #

    This is true, Mike. I didn’t say the Hawkeye would fix every problem. It would not necessarily help with strips or fumbles, or juggles. I can imagine ways it could be set up to do that, perhaps. However, it will improve the quality of games in a number of ways. Some conference is going to try this first. The ACC should lead. Debbie, are you listening? As far as calibrating, would you rather have a mechanical process that could be checked and verified or Cherry giving us the business?

  14. wolfy85 12/01/2010 at 12:12 AM #

    Good Point Regular, the real first down was right at the 31, as was marked by the YELLOW LINE put up across the screen by the ESPN people. When the refs went to measure the first down i was shocked as i watched the ref stop about a half yard short of the yellow line (I have never seen the yellow line even close to that far off in any game). My first thought was that the ESPN people had the line wrong and maybe it was just a poorly spotted first down. It was poorly spotted, but furthermore the officiating crew botched the first down marker by a good half yard, accounting for the yellow line being so far off by the ESPN people.

    However, it should never have come to us needing a miracle stop and a :50 second drive, as so many have said on this forum. But it should piss off everyone the way that call was botched. Then for the ACC to say it was handled properly is buffoonery at it’s finest. I think the quality of officiating is severely lacking in the ACC, and this is evident in many games.

    On the upside, seeing the Holes lose again in basketball is fun to watch. The crowd has been chanting “overrated” almost the entire game, and the commentator won’t stop talking about how absurd it was for UNC to be ranked in the top 10. Good times, I love it!

1 2

Leave a Reply