That call…

[Erial_Lion]

This is too much - you clearly have a mental cognitive disorder douche-wad - this is excepted DIRECTLY from the SEC's Official Statement on the matter:

"The replay booth was consulted to confirm the down prior to the punt. The replay booth had it as 4th down as well."

But now your speculation on these matters supercedes the actual FACTS as given by the SEC Officiating Office. God are you a douche!

This is what a formal replay review looks and sounds like...if this process wasn't followed, it was the simple review that happens via every play of the game as the replay official looks for spots where he needs to stop the game. Newsflash...they didn't formally review this sequence, and Franklin could have certainly challenged it.

RULE 12 / INSTANT REPLAY

SECTION 6. Reviewing an On-Field Ruling Procedures

ARTICLE 1. a. When a game is to be stopped either by the replay official or by a head coach’s challenge, the designated officials on the field will be notified by a paging system or other appropriate means.

b. If the review is initiated by the replay official, the referee shall announce: “The ruling on the previous play is ... (brief description of ruling). The play is under further review.” If the game has been stopped due to a head coach’s challenge, the referee shall announce: “The (name of institution) head coach has challenged the ruling of (state the ruling). The play is under further review.”

c. All reviews shall be based upon video evidence provided by and coming directly from the televised production of the game or from other video means available to the replay official that is also available to the television producer.

d. After the referee has conferred with the replay official and the review process has been completed, the referee shall make one of the following announcements:

• 1. If the video evidence confirms the on-field ruling: “After further review, the ruling on the field is confirmed.”
• 2. If there is no indisputable (conclusive) evidence to reverse the on-field ruling: “After further review, the ruling on the field stands.” (Exception: 12-3- 5-a — Stands is not an allowable ruling or targeting.)
• 3. If the on-field ruling is reversed (Rule 12-7): “After further review, the ruling is [followed by a brief description of the video evidence]. Therefore, [followed by a brief description of the impact of the ruling].”

 

[MacNit07]

New Study Proves Referees Are Totally Biased Against Your Team

CAMBRIDGE, MA—Sports researchers at Harvard have proven that the officials are totally biased against your favorite teams. Their report, entitled the Referee Equity and Fairness (REF) study, will be published next month in Sports Illustrated. Dr. James Fairplay, the lead researcher on the study...

babylonbee.com

Funny I am sure…whenever someone can detail what we have been subjected to since 1993, I will forward it to those eggheads at Harvard as evidence. I will be sure to include the quote from tbe Referine that “you are just lucky to be playing football.” Btw, anyone heard any O$U, UM, or Sparty players quoting Refs with similar statements?? Didn’t think so…

Don’t be a useful idiot.

 

[lazydave841]

You are obviously reading what you want to read into their statement. Nowhere in Franklin's comments or the Press Release did they state that a formal replay was initiated/completed on the sequence in question. The fact that you read that press release and somehow pull from it that the play was definitively formally reviewed (even though the Referee didn't have time to review it, didn't announce any type of review, and didn't come over to the West sideline's TV monitor) is staggering.

Though it's not as staggering as your continued inability to respond to a post without juvenile insults, and claims that anyone that has an ounce of objectivity must be anti- Penn State or anti-Franklin. Being a completely irrational fan-boy doesn't make you a bigger Penn State fan than others. I'm as big of a Penn State fan as you'll ever find, but it doesn't mean that I need to pretend that officials from every game in every sport over the last generation are all part of a grand conspiracy to take down PSU.

Just to break the vibe, curious:

What line do you expect vs Iowa?

 

[Erial_Lion]

Just to break the vibe, curious:

What line do you expect vs Iowa?

If we played them tomorrow, I think it's pretty close to a pick 'em. But that's more of a guess, as I don't really handicap college football.

 

[lazydave841]

If we played them tomorrow, I think it's pretty close to a pick 'em. But that's more of a guess, as I don't really handicap college football.

Thx bud.

@Grant Green what are you showing?

 

[CJFisJoePaII]

You are obviously reading what you want to read into their statement. Nowhere in Franklin's comments or the Press Release did they state that a formal replay was initiated/completed on the sequence in question. The fact that you read that press release and somehow pull from it that the play was definitively formally reviewed (even though the Referee didn't have time to review it, didn't announce any type of review, and didn't come over to the West sideline's TV monitor) is staggering.

Though it's not as staggering as your continued inability to respond to a post without juvenile insults, and claims that anyone that has an ounce of objectivity must be anti- Penn State or anti-Franklin. Being a completely irrational fan-boy doesn't make you a bigger Penn State fan than others. I'm as big of a Penn State fan as you'll ever find, but it doesn't mean that I need to pretend that officials from every game in every sport over the last generation are all part of a grand conspiracy to take down PSU.

Gee, I notice how you also ignore that the SEC Statement debunks all your nonsensical bullshit to deflect blame to everyplace EXCEPT where it actually belongs in regards to the genesis of how the down was changed in the first place. The down was ERRONEOSLY changed by the SEC Crew at the end of the 1st Down play where they called an Intentional Grounding that DIRECTLY CONTRADICTS the Rulebook for how an unpressured broken route pass is to be called - they did it when they set the ball for play at the conclusion of calling their penalty instructing scorekeeper and down-keeper it was 3rd Down! Again, this is in direct contradiction of all your speculation as to how this happened and who was responsible - go figure!!

 

[Erial_Lion]

Gee, I notice how you also ignore that the SEC Statement debunks all your nonsensical bullshit to deflect blame to everyplace EXCEPT where it actually belongs in regards to the genesis of how the down was changed in the first place. The down was ERRONEOSLY changed by the SEC Crew at the end of the 1st Down play where they called an Intentional Grounding that DIRECTLY CONTRADICTS the Rulebook for how an unpressured broken route pass is to be called - they did it when they set the ball for play at the conclusion of calling their penalty instructing scorekeeper and down-keeper it was 3rd Down! Again, this is in direct contradiction of all your speculation as to how this happened and who was responsible - go figure!!

What speculation did I make as to how it happened? Of course the crew got it wrong after the 1st down play...they had already set everything to 2nd down, made the penalty call very late, and at that point got mixed up thinking it was already 2nd down and fast forwarded to third down. And of course it was an awful penalty call. It was all the officiating crew's fault...however a well timed challenge from Franklin could have fixed it (though as I've said elsewhere, that's very much hindsight since it was such an unusual sequence and it all happened very quickly, so tough to fault him for it).

So tell me again...how is my "speculation" in "direct contradiction" to what actually happened?

 

[CJFisJoePaII]

What speculation did I make as to how it happened? Of course the crew got it wrong after the 1st down play...they had already set everything to 2nd down, made the penalty call very late, and at that point got mixed up thinking it was already 2nd down and fast forwarded to third down. And of course it was an awful penalty call. It was all the officiating crew's fault...however a well timed challenge from Franklin could have fixed it (though as I've said elsewhere, that's very much hindsight since it was such an unusual sequence and it all happened very quickly, so tough to fault him for it).

So tell me again...how is my "speculation" in "direct contradiction" to what actually happened?

Convenient that you skip the part that Franklin WAS TOLD A REPLAY BOOTH REVIEW HAD ALREADY BEEN CONDUCTED AND 4TH DOWN WAS CONFIRMED (a FACT that is supported by the SEC's Formal Statement on the matter) - go figure! LMAO and you wonder why I say you're a douche??? [insert eyeroll].

 

[Erial_Lion]

Convenient that you skip the part that Franklin WAS TOLD A REPLAY BOOTH REVIEW HAD ALREADY BEEN CONDUCTED AND 4TH DOWN WAS CONFIRMED (a FACT that is supported by the SEC's Formal Statement on the matter) - go figure! LMAO and you wonder why I say you're a douche??? [insert eyeroll].

My speculation as to what happened...

Franklin is yelling out "no, it should be 3rd down...it's just 3rd down"...finally gets Referee's attention, he pulls everyone together for a few seconds, they all say "we've got 4th down", Referee asks upstairs and they rewind to the last play quickly and see the marker said 3rd down and also say "yes, we agree, it was just 3rd down, it's now 4th down". They announce 4th down and we punt.

SEC is correct that the replay booth also got involved and said they also thought it was 4th down and checked quickly. Franklin says referees told him that everyone and replay all agreed on it being 4th down.

However, that's not a formal replay review. Franklin could have obviously still challenged the call to anyone that has any objectivity and understands the NCAA rules. If Franklin challenges, the Referee needs to come to the West sideline and go through the full formal replay process. In doing so, Franklin has time to explain his case when the Referee comes over to talk to him and ask why he's challenging. James tells him "that intentional grounding call happened on 1st down, and you took 2nd down away from us, look at it and you'll see".

People honestly believe that the referee tells him "nope, we already formally reviewed the play and you can't challenge it" even though it's clear to everyone that they didn't? Or that when they run the whole sequence back with the info that Franklin just gave them, they still can't see that Clifford's grounding call happened on 1st down?

Everything happened a little too quickly for all parties involved. And we end up with the huge screw-up...and Bushwood unable to put together a full paragraph without calling me an "asshole", "douche", "douche-wad", "Richard-Head", and whatever other insults BWI apparently allows since I guess there is no use in banning him yet again.

 

[CJFisJoePaII]

My speculation as to what happened...

Franklin is yelling out "no, it should be 3rd down...it's just 3rd down"...finally gets Referee's attention, he pulls everyone together for a few seconds, they all say "we've got 4th down", Referee asks upstairs and they rewind to the last play quickly and see the marker said 3rd down and also say "yes, we agree, it was just 3rd down, it's now 4th down". They announce 4th down and we punt.

SEC is correct that the replay booth also got involved and said they also thought it was 4th down and checked quickly. Franklin says referees told him that everyone and replay all agreed on it being 4th down.

However, that's not a formal replay review. Franklin could have obviously still challenged the call to anyone that has any objectivity and understands the NCAA rules. If Franklin challenges, the Referee needs to come to the West sideline and go through the full formal replay process. In doing so, Franklin has time to explain his case when the Referee comes over to talk to him and ask why he's challenging. James tells him "that intentional grounding call happened on 1st down, and you took 2nd down away from us, look at it and you'll see".

People honestly believe that the referee tells him "nope, we already formally reviewed the play and you can't challenge it" even though it's clear to everyone that they didn't? Or that when they run the whole sequence back with the info that Franklin just gave them, they still can't see that Clifford's grounding call happened on 1st down?

Everything happened a little too quickly for all parties involved. And we end up with the huge screw-up...and Bushwood unable to put together a full paragraph without calling me an "asshole", "douche", "douche-wad", "Richard-Head", and whatever other insults BWI apparently allows since I guess there is no use in banning him yet again.

So typically amusing and full of your arrogant blowhard nonsense. Suddenly you're the authority on precisely what Franklin was told when you spent the first-half of the evening that Franklin was never told anything and the extent of all discussions (that again never included Franklin) was "10 seconds"LMAO!! Again, now you're the final authority on precisely what Franklin was told - go figure LMAO. You're quite full of shit as to what the SEC Statement says - it specifically states that the Referee ASKED THE REPLAY BOOTH TO CONFIRM WHAT DOWN IT WAS! The Replay Booth reported back 4th Down according to the SEC Statement. You spent most of the night telling me the Referee never asked for such a review Doodles - remember that???

As far as you self-proclaiming yourself as the ultimate authority as to what Franklin was, or wasn't, told (when you originally claimed he was never told the Booth Reviewed it....only "10 seconds.... blah, blah, blah").... as John McEnroe would say, "You cannot be serious!?!?". Good Lord you're brutal.

 

[Erial_Lion]

So typically amusing and full of your arrogant blowhard nonsense. Suddenly you're the authority on precisely what Franklin was told when you spent the first-half of the evening that Franklin was never told anything and the extent of all discussions (that again never included Franklin) was "10 seconds"LMAO!! Again, now you're the final authority on precisely what Franklin was told - go figure LMAO. You're quite full of shit as to what the SEC Statement says - it specifically states that the Referee ASKED THE REPLAY BOOTH TO CONFIRM WHAT DOWN IT WAS! The Replay Booth reported back 4th Down according to the SEC Statement. You spent most of the night telling me the Referee never asked for such a review Doodles - remember that???

As far as you self-proclaiming yourself as the ultimate authority as to what Franklin was, or wasn't, told (when you originally claimed he was never told the Booth Reviewed it....only "10 seconds.... blah, blah, blah").... as John McEnroe would say, "You cannot be serious!?!?". Good Lord you're brutal.

I told you that the replay booth never conducted an actual, formal review...you know, where the Referee states that they are reviewing the play, goes to the monitor, and actually reviews the play. And that's a fact that you conveniently ignore.

I simply told you that the Referee never came over to Franklin to explain anything to him before or after the play...all of his communications were with the Line Judge until the TV timeout after the punt.

And the huddle of the referees did actually last less than 10 seconds...we don't know what they were saying to each other on the way to the huddle or how early they asked the replay official to also take a look, but the Referee didn't seem to realize the situation until there was about 12 seconds left on the play clock, so it wasn't too long.

But as usual, things like facts, reality, etc don't matter in your world...hell, you still can't accept the fact that a video that was posted that was clear as day wasn't edited, since your memory is more accurate than the video replay that we can all watch.

 

[PearlSUJam]

I told you that the replay booth never conducted an actual, formal review...you know, where the Referee states that they are reviewing the play, goes to the monitor, and actually reviews the play. And that's a fact that you conveniently ignore.

And the huddle of the referees did actually last less than 10 seconds...we don't know what they were saying to each other on the way to the huddle or how early they asked the replay official to also take a look, but the Referee didn't seem to realize the situation until there was about 12 seconds left on the play clock, so it wasn't too long.

But as usual, things like facts, reality, etc don't matter in your world...hell, you still can't accept the fact that a video that was posted that was clear as day wasn't edited, since your memory is more accurate than the video replay that we can all watch.

I say put body cams and mics on all the refs. Also, open them up to interviews from the press post game.

 

[AWS1022]

So yer telling me this hasn’t been discussed with St James’ OC and/or his coaching staff? They didn’t consult whomever is the rules expert on the staff or in the Athletic Dept? Yer sayin they didn’t contact the NCAA rules committee, or the head official, or the B1G officials, or the McAndrew Board Coaching Advisory Council....the final arbitrator of all arbitrators.....and ask what he should do should this ever happen again? Seriously? They aren’t discussing this and what to do should it happen again?

If you don’t see that or the problem here, I CAN help you. Go to the nearest large mirror and stare into it. You will then see the problem here.😉

Obviously he doesn’t need to do anything other than read this board, as usual. This is where he learns all his coaching knowledge. I’m sure someone will point out next game that he should have used a time out with 7 seconds left in a 66-0 win…that’ll educate him. Or maybe that he didn’t use a double knot on one his shoelaces. Nothing is too picky for this board, but you keep educating the coach on a message board, I’m sure he appreciates it. When you look in a mirror do you see the second coming of Vince Lombardi or Bear Bryant?

 

[AWS1022]

The crew didn't formally review the sequence...every play is "reviewed", but coaches are still entitled to challenge a call if there wasn't already a formal review. A formal review involves the Referee coming over to the sideline, putting on the headset, watching the play while speaking to the replay official, and making a decision.

Though I guess it's entirely possible that this happened, but ABC was also able to edit this out of the live game footage like they edited the skycam feed in Bushwood-world.

View embedded media

 

[AWS1022]

My speculation as to what happened...

Franklin is yelling out "no, it should be 3rd down...it's just 3rd down"...finally gets Referee's attention, he pulls everyone together for a few seconds, they all say "we've got 4th down", Referee asks upstairs and they rewind to the last play quickly and see the marker said 3rd down and also say "yes, we agree, it was just 3rd down, it's now 4th down". They announce 4th down and we punt.

SEC is correct that the replay booth also got involved and said they also thought it was 4th down and checked quickly. Franklin says referees told him that everyone and replay all agreed on it being 4th down.

However, that's not a formal replay review. Franklin could have obviously still challenged the call to anyone that has any objectivity and understands the NCAA rules. If Franklin challenges, the Referee needs to come to the West sideline and go through the full formal replay process. In doing so, Franklin has time to explain his case when the Referee comes over to talk to him and ask why he's challenging. James tells him "that intentional grounding call happened on 1st down, and you took 2nd down away from us, look at it and you'll see".

People honestly believe that the referee tells him "nope, we already formally reviewed the play and you can't challenge it" even though it's clear to everyone that they didn't? Or that when they run the whole sequence back with the info that Franklin just gave them, they still can't see that Clifford's grounding call happened on 1st down?

Everything happened a little too quickly for all parties involved. And we end up with the huge screw-up...and Bushwood unable to put together a full paragraph without calling me an "asshole", "douche", "douche-wad", "Richard-Head", and whatever other insults BWI apparently allows since I guess there is no use in banning him yet again.

And if you think they would have changed it, I’ve got some land in Florida to sell you.

 

[PSUFBFAN]

Yeah the stadium announcer didn't do PS any favors calling it 3rd down after the penalty. He was as wrong as the rest of them.

I posted this is another thread, but here is what happened:

The IG flag was thrown well after the play ended. Everybody in the stadium except the ref thought it was simply a matter of the receiver breaking off his route and SC throwing to a spot where he thought the receiver would be. SC wasn't under any defensive pressure. So, PSU lines up for 2nd down.

The ref then announces the penalty and declares "loss of down...its third down". That's where the f.u. truly began because he should have said it was 2nd down. Since the ref said 3rd down, the stadium PA announcer repeated it and the chain crew reset the marker to 3rd. CJF recognized the problem right away but had no luck convincing the bozo officials they were wrong until the tv timeout after the punt.

That's when the officials realized they screwed it up, but it was too late to do anything about it because psu had already punted. I am convinced this is why the officials tried to give psu a make up call on the next possession by giving psu a very generous spot which gave them a first down. However, the replay officials correctly reviewed the play and moved the ball back to the proper location which was short of the first down.

 

[Midnighter2]

We have time to discuss this too?

 

[AWS1022]

We have time to discuss this too?

View embedded media

When I’m watching other teams, on a play like that I think to myself, “that’s coming back”. When it’s against PSU, I think to myself, “that’s a completion.”

 

[AWS1022]

New Study Proves Referees Are Totally Biased Against Your Team

CAMBRIDGE, MA—Sports researchers at Harvard have proven that the officials are totally biased against your favorite teams. Their report, entitled the Referee Equity and Fairness (REF) study, will be published next month in Sports Illustrated. Dr. James Fairplay, the lead researcher on the study...

babylonbee.com

I know this was done to be funny, but I’ll bet if someone did real research based on where officials are from, they would find real evidence of bias. I know years ago someone did a study on home teams and they found that home teams do get a higher percentage of calls in all sports. People don’t have to look all the way to “conspiracy theories” to realize there is bias in all officiating. That’s why really good teams always seem to get the calls…refs have a bias that these good teams probably aren’t making as many mistakes as their opponent.

 

[Psugo823]

I know this was done to be funny, but I’ll bet if someone did real research based on where officials are from, they would find real evidence of bias. I know years ago someone did a study on home teams and they found that home teams do get a higher percentage of calls in all sports. People don’t have to look all the way to “conspiracy theories” to realize there is bias in all officiating. That’s why really good teams always seem to get the calls…refs have a bias that these good teams probably aren’t making as many mistakes as their opponent.

And none if it changes the fact that 3 or 4 agregeous calls all went against the same team. It's possible to state a fact, but not be a conspiracy theorist simply because you stated that fact. The crew was awful, the calls were horrible, and they all went against the same team. Most of the college football world admitted it, and the sec itself sent out an explanation while even a comical you tube video exposed it.

 

[The Spin Meister]

This is too much - you clearly have a mental cognitive disorder douche-wad - this is excepted DIRECTLY from the SEC's Official Statement on the matter:

"The replay booth was consulted to confirm the down prior to the punt. The replay booth had it as 4th down as well."

But now your speculation on these matters supercedes the actual FACTS as given by the SEC Officiating Office. God are you a douche!

And you believe the SEC.........🤦🏻‍♀️

 

[The Spin Meister]

Obviously he doesn’t need to do anything other than read this board, as usual. This is where he learns all his coaching knowledge. I’m sure someone will point out next game that he should have used a time out with 7 seconds left in a 66-0 win…that’ll educate him. Or maybe that he didn’t use a double knot on one his shoelaces. Nothing is too picky for this board, but you keep educating the coach on a message board, I’m sure he appreciates it. When you look in a mirror do you see the second coming of Vince Lombardi or Bear Bryant?

Way to avoid the obvious point. He and staff are discussing this issue and what could have been done and what to do in the future.

 

[PSUSignore]

It’s rule 12.6(e) from this year’s NCAA football rule book which contains spots where instant replay/coach’s challenges may be utilized…


Correcting the number of a down.
1. This includes the result of a penalty enforcement that includes an
automatic first down or loss of down.
2. The correction may be made at any time within that series of downs
or before the ball is legally put in play after that series.

Point #2 means they could have still corrected it during the media TO after the punt then, which makes it more inexcusable that they didn't.

 

[CJFisJoePaII]

We have time to discuss this too?

View embedded media

Another laughable non-call in Auburn's favor, but they just couldn't see the huge LT lined up in space (it was probably illegal formation probably as well as LT is not the required "within 1 yard of LOS as well) move a full half-second before snap LMAO. Gee, what a coinky-dink their egregious error allowed a big play and First Down for Auburn to stand when they should have been penalized and facing a difficult down and distance for series - go figure!

 

[CJFisJoePaII]

I know this was done to be funny, but I’ll bet if someone did real research based on where officials are from, they would find real evidence of bias. I know years ago someone did a study on home teams and they found that home teams do get a higher percentage of calls in all sports. People don’t have to look all the way to “conspiracy theories” to realize there is bias in all officiating. That’s why really good teams always seem to get the calls…refs have a bias that these good teams probably aren’t making as many mistakes as their opponent.

Douchey keeps ignoring that both CJF and the SEC say he was told that it was "Replay Booth Reviewed" and CONFIRMED to be 4th Down (also claimed Referee never spoke with Franklin or indulged his insistence on a Review! A claim also contradicted by both CJF's explanation and SEC's Formal Statement - originally claimed they never spoke with Franklin at all before he went into his arrogant I'll recreate and invent any convenient facts I like spin-mode!). Now any moderately intelligent person would ask themselves why an Official that is insistent, and positive, he was right would tell CJF that the play had already been Replay Booth Reviewed Reviewed and confirmed as 4th Down.... and the answer would be that CJF was demanding a Review (otherwise known as, a "Coach's Challenge") and the Referee RESPONDED to the Coach that it had already been REVIEWED by Replay Booth and CONFIRMED to be 4th Down - 100% consistent with what both CJF and SEC's Officiating Office have stated for the record! But according to Douchey, CJF never asked for a Review??? LMFAO!

 

[Erial_Lion]

Douchey…

All of your other BS aside…

I mean, you are an adult on a message board trying to insult another poster by calling them “douchey”…if that right there isn’t a reason to reevaluate your life, I don’t know what is.

 

[Erial_Lion]

Point #2 means they could have still corrected it during the media TO after the punt then, which makes it more inexcusable that they didn't.

I’m trying to get clarification on that part of the rule….I’m not sure how us punting impacts it, since I’m not sure if they can “undo” the punt in this instance.

 

[Parkland Fan]

Correct

They can go back multiple plays to correct it. I believe they could have even corrected it after the punt (before Auburn ran a play), but I’m waiting to hear exactly how that would have worked, as the rule book isn’t clear and the case book doesn’t cover it.

Lehigh- Lafayette game 2019. Refs had the downs wrong and Lafayette punted on 3rd down. They figured out the mistake and gave the ball back to Lafayette for the 3 rd down. Don’t know the sequence of plays prior to the screw up.

 

[PSUSignore]

I’m trying to get clarification on that part of the rule….I’m not sure how us punting impacts it, since I’m not sure if they can “undo” the punt in this instance.

That was my thought when reading what you posted. How in the world would they correct it after the punt happened?

 

[MacNit07]

When I’m watching other teams, on a play like that I think to myself, “that’s coming back”. When it’s against PSU, I think to myself, “that’s a completion.”

It’s not your imagination…

 

[Grant Green]

Thx bud.

@Grant Green what are you showing?

Hate to go against Erial, but I have PSU a 3 pt fav on a neutral, strictly by power ratings (no handicapping).

 

[Erial_Lion]

Hate to go against Erial, but I have PSU a 3 pt fav on a neutral, strictly by power ratings (no handicapping).

I was saying a pick ‘em at Iowa, so I think we’re in the same ballpark.

 

[Locolion]

So you are suggesting a coach is told by six refs it is fourth down. The sideline guy says it is fourth down. He complains and then is told the replay both confirmed is it’s fourth down. And he should have burned a time out to ‘strenuously object’?

That would be galactically stupid

 

[CJFisJoePaII]

That was my thought when reading what you posted. How in the world would they correct it after the punt happened?

It's easy to rectify assuming they are permitted to (a poster above says he saw such a correction in a Lehigh - Lafayette game a couple years ago.... and they use the identical NCAA RULEBOOK). Red would merely reset ball for 3rd Down at spot prior to punt and reset clock using video review to establish when ball was set for play on incorrect play where Officials claimed it was 3rd Down. Nothing had happened on wrong 4th Down play that would really make a reversal all that difficult.

 

[CJFisJoePaII]

All of your other BS aside…

I mean, you are an adult on a message board trying to insult another poster by calling them “douchey”…if that right there isn’t a reason to reevaluate your life, I don’t know what is.

Still can't explain why they would be telling CJF that they'd Replay Booth Reviewed the call and CONFIRMED it was 4th Down other than CJF was demanding a Review (i.e., OKA a "Coach's Challenge") can 'ya Spinmeister? LMAO.

 

[WDLion]

We lost a timeout for that crowd noise example, didn't get a penalty. Still ridiculous though.

IMO Losing a timeout is a penalty.

 

[Erial_Lion]

Still can't explain why they would be telling CJF that they'd Replay Booth Reviewed the call and CONFIRMED it was 4th Down other than CJF was demanding a Review (i.e., OKA a "Coach's Challenge") can 'ya Spinmeister? LMAO.

I guess it’s your inability to understand the different uses of the word “confirm”. For the 10th time, an actual replay review involves announcing “the call of the field was xxx, this play is under further review”, coming to the monitor, announcing after the fact that “the ruling on the field has been upheld”, etc.

A ref spending 5-10 seconds talking to the replay booth and the Line Judge then telling the coach that they asked upstairs and they also confirmed that it was 4th down is not an actual Replay Review (and doesn’t stop Franklin from challenging it).

 

[CJFisJoePaII]

I guess it’s your inability to understand the different uses of the word “confirm”. For the 10th time, an actual replay review involves announcing “the call of the field was xxx, this play is under further review”, coming to the monitor, announcing after the fact that “the ruling on the field has been upheld”, etc.

A ref spending 5-10 seconds talking to the replay booth and the Line Judge then telling the coach that they asked upstairs and they also confirmed that it was 4th down is not an actual Replay Review (and doesn’t stop Franklin from challenging it).

Now you know precisely what CJF demanded as well as the precise wording of how the Ref responded to his demands - go figure! Your omniscient on all subjects just like God (at least in your own arrogant lame head that's the case) - so much so, you're just going to speak for both CJF, the SEC Ref & Crew and the SEC Officiating Office as to what precise language was used in communications between Franklin and the SEC Crew.... Good Lord you are such a fargging arrogant jackass, it isn't even funny. BTW, speaking for other people, when you have no phucking idea what they asked for or were told, is a very, very, very big asshole maneuver especially when you're made-up BULLSHIT is supporting your argument being CRITICAL of Franklin's actions. Again, you have no phucking clue what Franklin demanded from the crew or the Crew's response to those demands. What we do know FOR A FACT, is that both CJF's Post-Game PC summary of the event as well as the SEC's Official Statement on the matter ARE CONSISTENT with Franklin asking for a REPLAY BOOTH REVIEW (OKA, a "Coach's Challenge) and the SEC Referee (who heads the crew and is the only Field Official that communicates with Replay Officials) telling CJF that a Replay Booth Review was requested and received - the result being "4th Down Confirmed" AND that your suppositions as to what happened are all WHOLLY UNSUPPORTED by what CJF and the SEC Officiating Office have ACTUALLY STATED TO DATE!

 

[marshall23]

PSU won? Yet day 3 of this.

 

[Erial_Lion]

What we do know FOR A FACT, is that both CJF's Post-Game PC summary of the event as well as the SEC's Official Statement on the matter ARE CONSISTENT with Franklin asking for a REPLAY BOOTH REVIEW (OKA, a "Coach's Challenge)

Now Franklin actually did challenge the play in your world? I guess ABC was also able to edit that entire sequence out of the video (and didn’t charge us with a timeout).

To anyone that understands college football (and officiating), we know for a fact that the play wasn’t formally reviewed (and Franklin sure as hell didn’t call timeout and challenge the call).