• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Season long College football thread

Meanwhile, Va Tech is going nuts.
45 points midway through the second quarter.

When was the last time a major college scored 100?
 
that wasnt above the uprights? when it went by the uprights it was good.
 
So it's reviewable when it's below the uprights but not when it's above them? What a stupid rule.

Scoring should be reviewable.
 
Last edited:
It would be near impossible to miss the call if the ball is between the uprights, so what's the point.
 
if the ball goes over the goal posts, then it becomes a de facto judgment call because the official is, in essence, deciding whether the ball would have gone through had the kick been at or below the level of the uprights. it's a strange rule because i can't think of any other scoring play that's considered a judgment call. it's also weird in that it incentivizes the kicker to kick it lower than he's capable of, which is dumb because it increases the likelihood of a block. that said, unless we're going to start retrying the kicks, i'm not sure what the solution is.
 
DeacinBama said:
if the ball goes over the goal posts, then it becomes a de facto judgment call because the official is, in essence, deciding whether the ball would have gone through had the kick been at or below the level of the uprights. it's a strange rule because i can't think of any other scoring play that's considered a judgment call. it's also weird in that it incentivizes the kicker to kick it lower than he's capable of, which is dumb because it increases the likelihood of a block. that said, unless we're going to start retrying the kicks, i'm not sure what the solution is.
Click to expand...

We really need to measure spots, OOB, breaking the plane, field goals, etc. electronically. It's pretty absurd. The more we can weed out the human element, the better.
 
It's no more of a judgment call than "did the ball (in the air) cross the goal line (on the ground) before the player was down?"

Scoring plays should be subject to review. Period.
 
Junebug said:
It's no more of a judgment call than "did the ball (in the air) cross the goal line (on the ground) before the player was down?"

Scoring plays should be subject to review. Period.
Click to expand...

I disagree. Whether a player was down is already subject to review, which reflects its objective, albeit inexact, nature. A failure to extrapolate the goaline accurately is not a judgment call, but rather a lack of appropriately placed technology. Put a camera on the goal line and that issue goes away almost entirely (with the exception of obstruction of view from players, which is no worse than a referee similarly positioned).

In the setting of a FG above the uprights, the situation is different. No one can reliably or reasonably predict whether a ball that hits the uprights will go through or bounce off. We can put technology in place to decide whether a high FG would have hit an upright, but that's not the same thing. So we're asking the referee to make a (educated) guess, also known as a judgment call.
 
Deacfreak07 said:
We really need to measure spots, OOB, breaking the plane, field goals, etc. electronically. It's pretty absurd. The more we can weed out the human element, the better.
Click to expand...

I'm really not sure what's stopping us from placing location technology in the football. The weight should be neglible, and placing a handful of reference points around a stadium should make it reasonably accurate.
 
DeacinBama said:
I disagree. Whether a player was down is already subject to review, which reflects its objective, albeit inexact, nature. A failure to extrapolate the goaline accurately is not a judgment call, but rather a lack of appropriately placed technology. Put a camera on the goal line and that issue goes away almost entirely (with the exception of obstruction of view from players, which is no worse than a referee similarly positioned).

In the setting of a FG above the uprights, the situation is different. No one can reliably or reasonably predict whether a ball that hits the uprights will go through or bounce off. We can put technology in place to decide whether a high FG would have hit an upright, but that's not the same thing. So we're asking the referee to make a (educated) guess, also known as a judgment call.
Click to expand...

Why do you think the ref is making a prediction about whether it would hit the post and go in or go out? As I understand the rule he's just supposed to ask whether the ball is inside the plane of the pole. If not, it's no good. If so, it is. That's easily verifiable by camera technology.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top