Ever Seen a Play Reviewed, Called on the Field and then Reversed a couple minutes later? | Page 3 | The Boneyard

Ever Seen a Play Reviewed, Called on the Field and then Reversed a couple minutes later?

topogigio said:
I watched the play over and over, and as much as I hate the reversal of the call, it was correct. Jackson's helmet hit the QB in the facemask, Doesn't make a difference if he was "pulling up". That rule needs to be enforced. Mora asked his players to be "maniacal", a term he has used in many of his previous positions. Be careful what you ask for!
Expand ...

Even if you agree with the call, not sure how you can say the highly unusual reversal was also justified.



It was strange call, and even if you agree w end call, doesn’t justify the reversal IMO.

I don’t agree with your analysis but has wished that JMitchell had not make it such a close call and aimed just a hair lower as to not invite the call in the first place.
 
giddyup said:
Rule is an absolute travesty to the game. Unless there is top of head direct and primary contact, it’s utter foolishness.
Expand ...
Some teams now are teaching their backs and tight ends to lower their head before anticipated contact with the tackler to draw the targeting call.
 
We can debate the merits of the targeting call all day long. A lot of that is left to referee and officials interpretation. I can live with a referee's opinion, no matter how questionable it is. That judgement is well within their purview.

What is NOT subject to interpretation is a 2nd review of a call that was already reviewed and decided.

What is the protocol? Who is responsible to initiate a 2nd review? Who is in charge of deciding when a 2nd review is necessary? These are the answers that I need to hear. Because next week vs Utah State, I want to know which reviews are eligible for a 2nd review.

The precedent has been set, but the mechanism and the criteria is still unknown. Somebody from the Uconn AD needs to ask the tough questions and find out how a 2nd review was ever granted, and who initiated it.
 
Kgun7 said:
We can debate the merits of the targeting call all day long. A lot of that is left to referee and officials interpretation. I can live with a referee's opinion, no matter how questionable it is. That judgement is well within their purview.

What is NOT subject to interpretation is a 2nd review of a call that was already reviewed and decided.

What is the protocol? Who is responsible to initiate a 2nd review? Who is in charge of deciding when a 2nd review is necessary? These are the answers that I need to hear. Because next week vs Utah State, I want to know which reviews are eligible for a 2nd review.

The precedent has been set, but the mechanism and the criteria is still unknown. Somebody from the Uconn AD needs to ask the tough questions and find out how a 2nd review was ever granted, and who initiated it.
Expand ...
With our luck they’ll start retroactive calls.
 
I hope a major sports news outlet puts something out this week talking about this bizarre decision and the ACC explains their pov.

I also hope Taylor Swift stops by my house this week.

Maybe I should start a BY poll predicting which event is more probable. Nah.
 
.-.
I would’ve gotten myself ejected maybe even arrested if I were the coach. After that ejection I call TO I tell my defense all 11 guys to go offsides and hit the qb on the first cadence, and we’re gonna get into an all out brawl. I look right at the refs and say look what you started there will be blood shed and guys are going to get hurt. You get a rabid crowd and you intimidate the refs, sure we might get our asses kicked but we need to stop letting officials being the gate keepers.
 
All fans see what they want to see. Every fan base in the country thinks the refs are out to get them.

There are horrible calls and non-calls affecting both teams in every game. It’s incompetence more so than corruption.

The patanoia runs deep in us fans....part of being partisan.
 
billybud said:
All fans see what they want to see. Every fan base in the country thinks the refs are out to get them.

There are horrible calls and non-calls affecting both teams in every game. It’s incompetence more so than corruption.

The patanoia runs deep in us fans....part of being partisan.
Expand ...
How about all coaches? Would you give them the same criticism??? Jim Mora came right out and said the ACC refs cheated UConn on some calls.

???
 
billybud said:
All fans see what they want to see. Every fan base in the country thinks the refs are out to get them.

There are horrible calls and non-calls affecting both teams in every game. It’s incompetence more so than corruption.

The patanoia runs deep in us fans....part of being partisan.
Expand ...
Questioning a ref's judgement on a holding or pass interference call is subjective and up for debate.

Adding a 2nd review, to a play that was already reviewed and decided, is a complete abuse of the rules. That's not paranoia or fanaticism. That's a blatant attempt to influence the outcome of a game by violating the rules, as they are currently written.

Can we expect too see 2nd reviews going forward??? 3rd reviews??? The presedent has been set by the ACC officials that violating rules is within their jurisdiction.
 
UGo said:
Even if you agree with the call, not sure how you can say the highly unusual reversal was also justified.



It was strange call, and even if you agree w end call, doesn’t justify the reversal IMO.

I don’t agree with your analysis but has wished that JMitchell had not make it such a close call and aimed just a hair lower as to not invite the call in the first place.
Expand ...
I meant that I agreed with the call, not the reversal. The reversal was absurd. I’m old school and still don’t believe in replays for anything. The official/umpire etc. makes the call on the field and that’s it! Live with the call and move on.
 
billybud said:
I think that the refs sure might have...they have been free with targetting calls...they have been notorious about over protecting the players. They made that clear last year.

The UConn defender made contact with his helmet to the head and neck area...looking at the play, I could see the call...the rules call for calling when in question. The defender went from low to high in his tackle.

ARTICLE 4. No player shall target and make forcible contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless opponent with the helmet, forearm, hand, fist, elbow or shoulder. This foul requires that there be at least one indicator of targeting. When in question, it is a foul. ...

  • A crouch followed by an upward and forward thrust to attack with forcible contact at the head or neck area, even though one or both feet are still on the ground
Expand ...

QB in the pocket in the middle of an attempted pass isn't defenseless. Otherwise, virtually every sack is a penalty. The play in no way viokated any if the provisions of the targeting rule, as I proved above.

By this logic any wrap tackle is a penalty because it's impossible to tackle that way without making contact with the helmet.

It was a BS call, rightfully overturned, and corruptly reinstated. End of story.
 
.-.
uconnfan68 said:
He was pulling up. There was no intent. It was barely incidental.
Expand ...
Yes, I think you’re getting to the heart of what happened. Jackson Mitchell didn’t even go into the player. He kind of just stood up and tackled him with incidental contact. I can see the call being made in real time but can’t believe it got overturned after the replay.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Dip, hit, lift. Aim with head, then turn shoulder at last second. Technique was being taught in 1970s. Love Mitchell, but everyone should know by now you can't make any kind, i repeat, any kind, of helmet-to-helmet contact no matter how slight or benign. Yes, the double-review had 72 US-USSR Olympics written all over it. Don't give them a reason.
 
I called into my local Greensboro 93.7 FM sports radio show and asked them if they knew about this review the review situation. First off they were surprised I was a UConn fan living in Greensboro, They hadn't heard about this situation, but the host said if it happened the way I described it then UConn got abused.

Host did say that back in 2015 Duke fb had a controversy against Miami where they lost. Looking it up online the refs and the review refs missed several illegal plays involved in Miami's last TD play. Swofford suspended refs and review official with newspaper reporting:

In a statement announcing the suspension of the on-field crew, the replay official and the communicator, Commissioner John Swofford said that final play "was not handled appropriately."

Yes this is totally different from our "review the reviewer" situation, but I guess I was pleased that the ACC oriented host immediately said UConn most likely got screwed, but if didn't affect the game outcome.

UConn somehow has to get this out in the mainstream media.
 
billybud said:
This looks like the sort of contact the refs have been calling...
Expand ...
He was a little high and got the QB face mask. Didn’t have a problem with it being roughing the passer. Just wasn’t targeting.
 
.-.
NEforceUConn said:
I called into my local Greensboro 93.7 FM sports radio show and asked them if they knew about this review the review situation. First off they were surprised I was a UConn fan living in Greensboro, They hadn't heard about this situation, but the host said if it happened the way I described it then UConn got abused.

Host did say that back in 2015 Duke fb had a controversy against Miami where they lost. Looking it up online the refs and the review refs missed several illegal plays involved in Miami's last TD play. Swofford suspended refs and review official with newspaper reporting:

In a statement announcing the suspension of the on-field crew, the replay official and the communicator, Commissioner John Swofford said that final play "was not handled appropriately."

Yes this is totally different from our "review the reviewer" situation, but I guess I was pleased that the ACC oriented host immediately said UConn most likely got screwed, but if didn't affect the game outcome.

UConn somehow has to get this out in the mainstream media.
Expand ...
When Swofford left was when the ACC became ripe for the picking.
 
Very similar hit in the Steeler game Sunday night. Called roughing but not targeting. Terry McCauley, a former official and the go to guy for the broadcast, said it was not roughing. McCauley comes on at 0:46 mark.

 
While that ACC review of a review was suspect in many ways, the good news is that Mitchell‘s frustration from the Duke targeting call was meted out in a superior effort vs Utah St. providing scouts with a lot more great looking film to help evaluate his draft status.
 
.-.
In the Utah State v Fresno State game Friday night a Utah State defensive player lowered his helmet and hit a Fresno State wide receiver in the head with the crown of his helmet while the Fresno State player was being tackled by a third player. TEXT BOOK Targeting. There was no call by the referees nor any mention by the two tv announcers at first. The Fresno State wide receiver was hurt on the play so there was a timeout and they went to a TV break. When the game came back on the announcers showed the replay of play and at that point they both agree it look like targeting. The play was never reviewed by the referees despite having plenty of time to do so. I don't know how someone who's job is to look for plays to review could possibly miss the play. The game was played in Utah.
 
Not to say that I buy into conspiracies (or maybe I do), but USU vs. Fresno State is a game of MWC teams, so no clear advantage to call the play (haven't seen it, so I'm taking @Tdaley at his word). In the UConn game, MWC refs looked to protect their own against the non-MWC UConn, even if it was for a less egregious play. We're on no man's land with no one to advocate on our behalf.:mad:
 
KryHavok said:
Not to say that I buy into conspiracies (or maybe I do), but USU vs. Fresno State is a game of MWC teams, so no clear advantage to call the play (haven't seen it, so I'm taking @Tdaley at his word). In the UConn game, MWC refs looked to protect their own against the non-MWC UConn, even if it was for a less egregious play. We're on no man's land with no one to advocate on our behalf.:mad:
Expand ...
Agreed.

I don’t think that as fans here we spend nearly as much time griping about calls as other D 1 teams. With that being said, it wasn’t until last game where I thought - heck this is a fairly well called game. And yes, when we were down 14-0 and I also thought that.

Right now, there must be some incentive for refs who are all non-tenured and counting on teams to hire them, to tilt the game towards the conference(s) that have the potential to rehire them for the remainder of the season/future ones.

The calls are so bad like the one in question here that it takes away from the game - it really does. I say scratch Duke and ACC for foreseeable future - there are plenty of other teams out there.
 
Did we ever get anything official from the ACC regarding what happened and why? They owe us that much.
 
ARTICLE 4. No player shall target and make forcible contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless opponent with the helmet, forearm, hand, fist, elbow or shoulder. This foul requires that there be at least one indicator of targeting. When in question, it is a foul. ...

Note 1: "Targeting" means that a player takes aim at an opponent for purposes of attacking with forcible contact that goes beyond making a legal tackle or a legal block or playing the ball. Some indications of targeting (emphasis NCAA's) include but are not limited to:
  • Launch-a player leaving his feet to attack an opponent by an upward and forward thrust of the body to make forcible contact in the head or neck area
  • A crouch followed by an upward and forward thrust to attack with forcible contact at the head or neck area, even though one or both feet are still on the ground
  • Leading with helmet, shoulder, forearm, fist, hand or elbow to attack with forcible contact at the head or neck area
  • Lowering the head before attacking by initiating forcible contact with the crown of the helmet
Note 2: Defenseless player (Rule 2-27-14). When in question, a player is defenseless. Examples of defenseless players include but are not limited to:
  • A player in the act of or just after throwing a pass
  • A receiver attempting to catch a forward pass or in position to receive a backward pass, or one who has completed a catch and has not had time to protect himself or has not clearly become a ball carrier
  • A kicker in the act of or just after kicking a ball, or during the kick or the return
  • A kick returner attempting to catch or recover a kick, or one who has completed a catch or recovery and has not had time to protect himself or has not clearly become a ball carrier
  • A player on the ground
  • A player obviously out of the play
  • A player who receives a blind-side block
  • A ball carrier already in the grasp of an opponent and whose forward progress has been stopped
  • A quarterback any time after a change of possession a ball carrier who has obviously given himself up and is sliding feet first"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Forum statistics

Threads
168,160
Messages
4,555,225
Members
10,438
Latest member
UConnheart


Top Bottom