Welcome Guest!
Create an Account
login email:
password:
site searchwhere to watchcontact usabout usadvertise with ushelp
Message Board
BobcatAttack.com Message Board
Ohio Football
Topic:  The inequity in the booth review system

Topic:  The inequity in the booth review system
Author
Message
Pataskala
General User

Member Since: 7/8/2010
Location: At least six feet away from anybody else
Post Count: 9,339

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  The inequity in the booth review system
   Posted: 11/10/2018 10:09:12 AM 
I've noticed this several times during the season but I've been thinking about it more since Cox's fumble in Wednesday's game. There's a real inequity in the policy regarding booth reviews. If a turnover situation is a close call the refs let the play keep going and leave it up to the booth to sort it out. This isn't really a ref's determination about what happened. It's a non-call. But the standard for review is the play stands unless there's clear evidence that the call was wrong. So if the "call" isn't confirmed (i.e., it just "stands"), then all it means is that there wasn't clear evidence to overturn the ref's uncertainty that led to the play continuing. In other words, they "let stand" a "call" that wasn't made, i.e., a non-call. I don't know if that was the situation with Cox's fumble, but it seemed so.

We will get by.
We will get by.
We will get by.
We will survive.
Back to Top
  
Victory
General User

Member Since: 3/10/2012
Post Count: 2,270

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: The inequity in the booth review system
   Posted: 11/10/2018 6:52:41 PM 
I have always thought that a referee should be able to allow the play to continue and then say the ruling on the field is that the player was down before he fumbled.
Back to Top
  
BillyTheCat
General User

Member Since: 10/6/2012
Post Count: 10,015

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: The inequity in the booth review system
   Posted: 11/11/2018 11:20:51 AM 
Pataskala wrote:
I've noticed this several times during the season but I've been thinking about it more since Cox's fumble in Wednesday's game. There's a real inequity in the policy regarding booth reviews. If a turnover situation is a close call the refs let the play keep going and leave it up to the booth to sort it out. This isn't really a ref's determination about what happened. It's a non-call. But the standard for review is the play stands unless there's clear evidence that the call was wrong. So if the "call" isn't confirmed (i.e., it just "stands"), then all it means is that there wasn't clear evidence to overturn the ref's uncertainty that led to the play continuing. In other words, they "let stand" a "call" that wasn't made, i.e., a non-call. I don't know if that was the situation with Cox's fumble, but it seemed so.


Letting the play continue has zero to do with uncertainty. If the official on the field would kill a play and be wrong in his ruling or judgement, then what you would have upon review would be an inadvertent whistle, and the down would never count and a replay of the down would occur, which would be a bad thing.

The only real inequality is the number of cameras for any given broadcast and the quality of behind the camera talent.
Back to Top
  
Showing Replies:  1 - 3  of 3 Posts
Jump to Page:  1
View Other 'Ohio Football' Topics
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             



WHO'S ONLINE
There are 193 Active Visitors on BobcatAttack.com
192 Guests
1 Registered User:
 Ryan Carey
There are no other users looking at this page.


Copyright ©2025 BobcatAttack.com. All rights reserved.  |  Privacy Policy  |  Terms of Use
Partner of USA TODAY Sports Digital Properties