Horrid Officiating

[acbearkat]

SDFS mentioned this in the MVFC Megathread earlier today, but there was horrid officiating in the South Dakota/Missouri State game in the final five minutes of the game. There were three egregiously missed calls. The first one was an obvious block in the back that would have ended up having a Missouri State touchdown called back (it might not have impacted the outcome of the game, as if the penalty had been called, Missouri State likely chews up more clock, and might have scored a touchdown later on the drive and Missouri State was ahead 24-23 on that drive). The second was blatant pass interference in the end zone that wasn't called on Missouri State. South Dakota ends up turning the ball over on downs. The third was a no fumble call because the officials declared the Missouri State running had his forward progress stopped. It was obvious the runner fumbled sometime before he hit the ground. South Dakota ended up recovering the ball, but was not awarded possession. That particular play was never reviewed. The very next play Missouri State fumbled the ball and South Dakota recovered the ball. Missouri State won 31-23.

I also heard about terrible officiating from both Sam Houston and UCA fans in that game last night. I was out running around doing some things I needed to do, so I didn't watch the entire game, so I missed the calls in question.

If you have an ESPN+ subscription, go to NCAA Football on demand on your phone, and go to the South Dakota/Missouri State game, and move ahead to about five minutes left in the fourth quarter, and you will see what SDFS was talking about. In the Megathread, SDFS thought the fumble on the play after the play where the runner's forward progress was deemed to have been stopped was a questionable fumble, but I disagree, and I thought it was a clear fumble. I also heard the officiating in that game was just plain bad.

[Professor Chaos]

I didn't catch the first two you mentioned but did see the 3rd (fumble that wasn't since the officials ruled the runners forward progress had been stopped). I'm pretty sure that's not reviewable since it's a judgement call as to whether the runner's forward progress had been stopped. I believe that's why officials are usually hesitant to make that call because they have to replay safety net. I'd agree that it was an awful call. But USD did end up getting the ball back to almost the exact same spot they would've gotten it had the better call been made and ended up throwing an INT in the endzone to seal the game so while the refs played much too big of a part in the game than they should've I don't think you can say with any degree of certainty that they changed the outcome of the game.

I'd still be pissed as hell if I were a Yotes fan.

[ElCid]

Either the whistle blew or it didn't. If his forward progress was stopped then there would have been a whistle, no? I don't recall one. There might well have been. I watched that fumble/no fumble live and was dumbfounded at their conclusion. I also think you have to be careful saying they got the ball back to the same spot anyway. They were under the gun later on. Totally different situation. Might never have thrown an int. It was just a bad call and the refs need to explain themselves.

[Chalupa Batman]

Either the whistle blew or it didn't. If his forward progress was stopped then there would have been a whistle, no? I don't recall one. There might well have been. I watched that fumble/no fumble live and was dumbfounded at their conclusion. I also think you have to be careful saying they got the ball back to the same spot anyway. They were under the gun later on. Totally different situation. Might never have thrown an int. It was just a bad call and the refs need to explain themselves.

There probably wasn’t a whistle because the refs will generally give a runner a few seconds to try and break free from a tackle and regain forward progress, and then essentially if the runner doesn't break free anything that happens after forward progress has been stopped is considered to not have happened. Say a runner gets pushed back 5 yards from the 25 yard line to the 20, the ball is spotted at the 25. If he is able to get free after being pushed back from the 25 to the 20 and regains forward progress to the 22, the ball will be spotted at the 22.

I remember the 49ers losing a chance to win the NFC championship a few years ago against the Giants on a fumble that was overruled because of forward progress being stopped. Ahmad Bradshaw was pushed back a couple of yards from where he had advanced and then lost a fumble deep in his own territory late in a tie game, but forward progress ruled the play dead before the fumble preventing the 49ers from getting the ball already in FG position. As bummed as I was as a 49er fan (and still am) it was properly called according to the rules.

In this case it seems that forward progress was called VERY, VERY quickly, almost instantly the moment he stopped moving. Not sure if that’s the correct call or not, I wouldn’t think so but maybe technically it is? The runner wasn’t getting pushed back, just had his forward momentum stopped, and I don’t know if the runner needs to be moving backwards for forward progress to be called. If I were the Coyotes I'd be very pissed.

[acbearkat]

Either the whistle blew or it didn't. If his forward progress was stopped then there would have been a whistle, no? I don't recall one. There might well have been. I watched that fumble/no fumble live and was dumbfounded at their conclusion. I also think you have to be careful saying they got the ball back to the same spot anyway. They were under the gun later on. Totally different situation. Might never have thrown an int. It was just a bad call and the refs need to explain themselves.

I watched the replay of the last five minutes of the game, and how did the officials determine the runner's forward progress was stopped without looking at the replay? All they did was discuss it amongst themselves, and then they came to that conclusion. If you're not sure, just look at the replay. It was just bad officiating, and having watched the Big 12 for as long as I have, I've seen some horrible officiating. For example, the Texas Tech/Baylor game back in 2019, the Baylor center snaps the football off his butt, the ball falls to the turf, and an illegal snap is called instead of a fumble and Tech recovery. That call could have easily had an outcome on the game, as that was Baylor's first possession in overtime.

[Professor Chaos]

I watched the replay of the last five minutes of the game, and how did the officials determine the runner's forward progress was stopped without looking at the replay? All they did was discuss it amongst themselves, and then they came to that conclusion. If you're not sure, just look at the replay. It was just bad officiating, and having watched the Big 12 for as long as I have, I've seen some horrible officiating. For example, the Texas Tech/Baylor game back in 2019, the Baylor center snaps the football off his butt, the ball falls to the turf, and an illegal snap is called instead of a fumble and Tech recovery. That call could have easily had an outcome on the game, as that was Baylor's first possession in overtime.
Like I said I'm pretty sure a ruling that forward progress was stopped prior to a fumble isn't reviewable so they didn't have an option to go to replay there.

[JALMOND]

For as long as there has been sports, the feeling among fans is the losers lost BECAUSE OF the officials and the winners won IN SPITE OF the officials.

1. One of the so-called "greatest" plays in NFL history was when Roger Staubach of the Dallas Cowboys threw the "Hail Mary" touchdown to Drew Pearson, and Pearson pushed off Minnesota Vikings cornerback Nate Wright to make the catch.

2. One of the so-called "greatest" plays in NBA history was when Michael Jordan made the last second shot over the Utah Jazz' Byron Russell to win Game 7 of the NBA Finals, yet Jordan pushed Russell to make enough space to make the shot.

To date, none of these calls have been changed. To the contrary, they are considered two of the greatest plays in the history of sport.

[Reign of Terrier]

in the VMI-Wofford game, Wofford ran the ball to make it third and one and the chains moved and they had to stop the game to reset the chains. I've never seen that before.

[wapiti]

The NFL had some horrid officiating on last nights Green Bay @ San Francisco game.
Missed a blatant targeting foul, which would have been against the 49'ers and then a few plays later called an abusing the passer call in which the defender was pulling off as the QB was passing the ball and only minorly brushed the QA.

Point is, very bad officiating occurs at all levels of football.

[Libertine]

The NFL had some horrid officiating on last nights Green Bay @ San Francisco game.
Missed a blatant targeting foul, which would have been against the 49'ers and then a few plays later called an abusing the passer call in which the defender was pulling off as the QB was passing the ball and only minorly brushed the QA.

Point is, very bad officiating occurs at all levels of football.

For what it's worth, the NFL's targeting rule has a different standard than the NCAA does and is much more lenient on the defender. The play you're referring to could easily have been called for targeting except that, due to a change this year in where the NFL has their officials stationed on the field, there was no official who could actually see that collision on Davante Adams; unlike the NCAA, targeting calls can't be made from the replay booth in the NFL. The roughing the passer call, however, was completely legit. By rule, the defender is not allowed to make contact above the shoulders on a player in the act of passing and that's exactly what the GB blitzer did. Just because the QB could easily shrug off the contact doesn't mean it wasn't a foul.

[taper]

Either the whistle blew or it didn't. If his forward progress was stopped then there would have been a whistle, no? I don't recall one. There might well have been. I watched that fumble/no fumble live and was dumbfounded at their conclusion. I also think you have to be careful saying they got the ball back to the same spot anyway. They were under the gun later on. Totally different situation. Might never have thrown an int. It was just a bad call and the refs need to explain themselves.
Common misconception that's somewhat relevant here. The whistle doesn't stop the play, it's a signal to everyone that the play has stopped by something that happened earlier. There are dozens of ways a play can end and only inadvertant whistle actually involves the squeak. If you blindly play until the whistle you're going to start drawing fouls for things like late hits and roughing.

[wapiti]

For what it's worth, the NFL's targeting rule has a different standard than the NCAA does and is much more lenient on the defender. The play you're referring to could easily have been called for targeting except that, due to a change this year in where the NFL has their officials stationed on the field, there was no official who could actually see that collision on Davante Adams; unlike the NCAA, targeting calls can't be made from the replay booth in the NFL. The roughing the passer call, however, was completely legit. By rule, the defender is not allowed to make contact above the shoulders on a player in the act of passing and that's exactly what the GB blitzer did. Just because the QB could easily shrug off the contact doesn't mean it wasn't a foul.

The placement of the official made for a really bad no-call.

The defender was going full speed and was pulling off of the QB, but did not have space or time to completely avoid the QB. In my opinion the roughing call should not have been called as the defender was making a solid attempt to avoid the QB with what little time and space he had.

[acbearkat]

I saw another atrocious call this weekend in which a player was called for roughing the passer when all he did was touch the quarterback after the quarterback threw the ball. The quarterback wasn't tackled to the ground, he was just simply touched by the defender, and a flag was thrown. I want to say it was in the UC Davis/Weber State game.

[Bisonator]

For as long as there has been sports, the feeling among fans is the losers lost BECAUSE OF the officials and the winners won IN SPITE OF the officials.
This.

I think some of it also has to do with the stupid ways rules are put in now that allows "interpretation" or "judgement" calls. Oh and then of course there are the plays through out the game that draw flags but those same infractions don't get called when it's the last minute or so of a game. It's really frustrating.

[Uncle Rico]

Yote fan here. There were a number of bad calls that went against us in the final 5 minutes or so. Sure I was pissed about it, but it didn't change the outcome of the game. The Yotes failed to contain a mobile QB and he made enough plays to win the ball game. The way the Coyote offense played in the second half, it wasn't going to matter if we got the ball at the 15 or wherever the suspect 'no fumble' occurred. We got the ball right back to that spot like 3 plays later and failed to convert in the redzone - for the 3rd time in the half. Zero points on three trips. The Yotes didn't need help from the officials losing that game, they handled it just fine on their own.

[acbearkat]

This.

I think some of it also has to do with the stupid ways rules are put in now that allows "interpretation" or "judgement" calls. Oh and then of course there are the plays through out the game that draw flags but those same infractions don't get called when it's the last minute or so of a game. It's really frustrating.

I saw what you mentioned in your second to last sentence watching the Texas Tech/Texas game on Saturday. A Texas defensive back was called for unnecessary roughness on a tackle late in the game, when Darion Dunn, who transferred in from McNeese, did the same thing earlier in the game and he wasn't called for unnecessary roughness. It had no impact on the outcome of the game as Texas blew out Texas Tech 70-35. It was 42-14 Texas at halftime.