Would You Change the Replay Rule?

Although I prefer the current replay system to having none at all, I do have a couple of problems with the replay rules in college football. First, I have always thought it was ridiculous to say that every play is reviewed AND also allow coaches to challenge. By allowing coaches' challenges (some of which are upheld), they are saying that they don't REALLY review everything correctly like they're supposed to. Pick one or the other. My preference would be having coaches' challenges, but allowing one or two more than in the NFL since the officiating isn't as good at the college level.



The bigger issue for me is the idea of "indisputable" evidence needed to overturn the call on the field. Very little is "indisputable," so it gives replay officials a huge loophole to comfortably stroll on through when they're afraid to upset a passionate home crowd -- a la BYU against the Aztecs and Utah against the Cougs. Additionally, due to officiating directives, the "fumble" is now given undue precedence over "down by contact." The idea is to let it play out because you can always correct an error with replay. Well, when the replay evidence has to be "indisputable," probable (and even some obvious) errors are not corrected after all -- especially when the network covering the game has fewer good camera angles. I would propose that "a preponderance of evidence" be used instead of "indisputable evidence" to determine the call.



On another note, I did not visit Cougar Corner after the SDSU game, so I don't know exactly what was said about the fumble that wasn't. Please forgive me for being redundant if I am repeating what has already been said. The purpose of replay is to get the call right. Logistically, however, only certain things can be reviewed for the system to work. In the case of the DiLuigi play, I would not be surprised if the replay official chose to get the call right according the spirit of the rule rather than the letter of it. J.J.'s helmet was being pulled off, which led DIRECTLY to him fumbling the ball before he was down. If the play had been officiated correctly, it would have been BYU's ball fifteen yards farther down field, regardless of whether he fumbled. I'm guessing that it's possible the replay official decided that the closest thing to getting it right was to use the "indisputable" evidence loophole. Since I'm a spirit-of-the-law kind of guy, I thought he made a good call -- and I would say that if it had been against BYU too.



Anyway, those are my thoughts -- kind of long for one who almost never posts.

My thoughts are unpopular here because I think that the officials on the field should call the game without video review, like baseball officials do. But I also understand that this is an unreasonable position considering how many TV sets are tuned in and watching replay after replay of wrong calls sometimes.



Regarding the JJ fumble: that should have been ruled a fumble. Not sure the facemask was a factor or not.



On the same note, Bradley's knee was down, and I hope he proclaims that loudly for the rest of his life whenever he's asked to speak publicly!



Maybe college football should go to a coach challenge review only. The way it goes these days, the booth almost always reviews the play in time and the coach isn't required to challenge a ruling. In fact, it's getting to be a cliche: team has questionable TD, team lines up quickly for the PAT, announcers wonder if the booth is going to buzz down to the field, ball gets snapped as the refs run in blowing the whistle, stopping play in the nick of time..."The previous play is under further review." Split to three-way camera view of each coach and the ref with the headset on, back to the camera. Headset comes off, announcers proclaim "here comes the call." I've seen it a million times...

The first change to replay is to have the lead official be the one reviewing the play - as in the NFL.

Thank you for the responses. Would you change "indisputable evidence" to a "preponderance of evidence"? I would, but that would have to be in conjunction with only allowing coaches' challenges and scrapping the idea of reviewing every play. I also agree that having the referee on the field view the replays and make the decision is better as well.



From: http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Preponderance+of+Evidence" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



"A preponderance of evidence has been described as just enough evidence to make it more likely than not that the fact the claimant seeks to prove is true."

No, indisputable should stay. Of course indisputable is just as open to interpretation as preponderance of evidence as shown by two blown calls in the SDSU and Utah games. I'm confident that the head on field official would have reversed both calls had he seen the replays.



Replaying every play is a waste of time. Coaches should challenge.

kitic77 wrote:
No, indisputable should stay. Of course indisputable is just as open to interpretation as preponderance of evidence as shown by two blown calls in the SDSU and Utah games. I'm confident that the head on field official would have reversed both calls had he seen the replays.



Replaying every play is a waste of time. Coaches should challenge.

AGreed, coaches challenge and there should be a way for the official to see the play from all available angles.

Not in favor of merely a preponderance of the evidence--I say "clear and convincing evidence," whatever that means.

No booth reviews. Coaches may challenge plays if they have time outs. No time outs and you are out of luck. If your challenge is upheld you keep the timeout, if you lose the challenge you lose the timeout. If you are right each time you have an unlimited amount of coaches challenges. Like the NFL final two minutes of the half and game can have a replay called for from the booth. The head official on the field reviews the play, not some tech geek in the booth who may or may not even know the rules of the game.

The booth official is an NCAA sanctioned official who usually has years and years of experience officiating on the field in one way or another. He may not be wearing stripes, but he is a game official just like the others.



The booth official at the Utah game had something like 20 years college football experience, so I'm thinking he is aware of the rules.

CAFB_04-12 wrote:
My thoughts are unpopular here because I think that the officials on the field should call the game without video review, like baseball officials do. But I also understand that this is an unreasonable position considering how many TV sets are tuned in and watching replay after replay of wrong calls sometimes.

Ummm... Baseball DOES have replay, they just have some crazy arbitrary line as to what is reviewable, making NOONE happy. If you're gonna have replay have replay, if not, then don't that's my take.

I could be mistaken, but I believe that baseball only uses replay to determine questionable home runs (fan interference, foul, etc.) I guess if you want to call that instant replay, then okay, baseball has instant replay.

CAFB_04-12 wrote:
I could be mistaken, but I believe that baseball only uses replay to determine questionable home runs (fan interference, foul, etc.) I guess if you want to call that instant replay, then okay, baseball has instant replay.

Right, why does baseball have THAT as a subject of replay and not anything else? I think of all of the replay systems out there baseball's is the stupidest....

I like that every play is reviewed. The review crew should stop play to review a play on its own accord only after the footage as shown the call on the field to be clearly erroneous and only when it involves a key play (1st down, score, turnover, out of bounds, down/not down, etc.).



Then, give the coaches 3 reviews per half and allow them to challenge any and all aspects of one play-including penalties. Any coach-instigated replay within the last 3 minutes of each half would cost the team a timeout.



I say getting the calls right is more important than almost any other consideration.

I'm beginning to dislike the "undisputable video evidence" thing. Why not just throw out the ruling on the field and use the more accurate form (video evidence) to determine what the right call is? Or does that just open a can of worms. Should it really matter what was called on the field if the right call is as plain as day on video? They only way the ruling on the field should matter is if there was no visible evidence to make a call one way or another, thus the official should announce that the ruling on the field stands as no applicable video exists of the call.

byutx wrote:
I like that every play is reviewed. The review crew should stop play to review a play on its own accord only after the footage as shown the call on the field to be clearly erroneous and only when it involves a key play (1st down, score, turnover, out of bounds, down/not down, etc.).



Then, give the coaches 3 reviews per half and allow them to challenge any and all aspects of one play-including penalties. Any coach-instigated replay within the last 3 minutes of each half would cost the team a timeout.



I say getting the calls right is more important than almost any other consideration.

I wouldn't be surprised if we move more towards this. There is no good reason to not be able to challenge penalties other than the time it would take to review it all.



In all honesty, I sometimes wonder if it wouldn't be better to start moving towards officiating from the booth. In soccer, offsides would be much easier to call/determine with some distance and height over the play. In football, being in the booth would allow you to have distance and additional replay angles available to you. I think if you're going to review a play, you should be able to review all aspects of a play.

I think an easy change to make is to allow a fumble to play on, even if the official rules on the field that a player is down (just don't blow the whistle explain once the play comes to an end). This way, if the play is reviewed, there has to be indisputable evidence that the ball came out before he was down, but it doesn't take the ball away from the other team if it actually was a fumble.

I was actually surprised to see the fumble initially awarded to Utah. Go watch the replay. The side official who initially pointed it as Utah ball was clearly blocked on the play and only ruled that way because all the Ute players and coaches were pointing. I don't think he really saw the play and got caught up in the moment.

Schmoe wrote:
I think an easy change to make is to allow a fumble to play on, even if the official rules on the field that a player is down (just don't blow the whistle explain once the play comes to an end). This way, if the play is reviewed, there has to be indisputable evidence that the ball came out before he was down, but it doesn't take the ball away from the other team if it actually was a fumble.

I've seen this happen in the NFL quite a few times. They let it play out, and then the officials gather together to determine what the call on the field should be. Sometimes it's ruled down, and sometimes a fumble. At that point, the coach is then able to challenge. (Wasn't it a play involving Jay Cutler when he was with Denver against San Diego that led to this change, or am I remembering something else?)



I don't recall ever seeing this happen in college though. From my observation, if they let it play out, they rule it a fumble on the field. But I haven't seen every game or paid exact attention to every play. I could easily be wrong.



I agree with Schmoe.

MJCOUGAR wrote:
I'm beginning to dislike the "undisputable video evidence" thing. Why not just throw out the ruling on the field and use the more accurate form (video evidence) to determine what the right call is? Or does that just open a can of worms. Should it really matter what was called on the field if the right call is as plain as day on video? They only way the ruling on the field should matter is if there was no visible evidence to make a call one way or another, thus the official should announce that the ruling on the field stands as no applicable video exists of the call.

This is basically the preponderance of evidence idea. The idea is to determine which ruling appears most likely to be correct regardless of the call on the field.

byutx wrote:
I like that every play is reviewed. The review crew should stop play to review a play on its own accord only after the footage as shown the call on the field to be clearly erroneous and only when it involves a key play (1st down, score, turnover, out of bounds, down/not down, etc.).



Then, give the coaches 3 reviews per half and allow them to challenge any and all aspects of one play-including penalties. Any coach-instigated replay within the last 3 minutes of each half would cost the team a timeout.



I say getting the calls right is more important than almost any other consideration.

I agree with the idea that getting the calls right is the most important consideration. But what do you do when there are missed penalties committed by both teams on the same play? Does the other coach have to challenge too in order to get them to offset? Or once a challenge is made, does the referee look at every aspect of the play, even one that the coaches didn't notice.



What about this fictional example: Heaps throws a pass to Hoffman that is ruled incomplete. Bronco challenges the ruling, and the replay shows that it was a clean catch. In the process, the referee notices that Hoffman clearly pushed off on the Ute defender to get open. Does he call offensive PI? Does Whittingham then have the right to challenge the same play if he doesn't? I'm just curious about how you envision this working? Oh, and does the replay have to be "indisputable"?