[fullmetal]

Lots of good memes, and Mike Pereira makes the good point that in the NFL, that in cases where there is a discrepancy between the stadium clock and the refs clock, officials should defer to the clock that the public can see to avoid creating the appearance of impropriety.

Not only that, but it's the clock that the coaches and players see and the basis upon which actions are based.  Other sports have the same issue between "referee clock" and "game clock," and it's a constant source of tension.  A hidden referee clock is subject to no oversight or public scrutiny and thus able to be manipulated.

[fullmetal]

Lots of good memes, and Mike Pereira makes the good point that in the NFL, that in cases where there is a discrepancy between the stadium clock and the refs clock, officials should defer to the clock that the public can see to avoid creating the appearance of impropriety.

Not only that, but it's the clock that the coaches and players see and the basis upon which actions are based.  Other sports have the same issue between "referee clock" and "game clock," and it's a constant source of tension.  A hidden referee clock is subject to no oversight or public scrutiny and thus able to be manipulated.

[cardcrimson]

Not only that, but it's the clock that the coaches and players see and the basis upon which actions are based.  Other sports have the same issue between "referee clock" and "game clock," and it's a constant source of tension.  A hidden referee clock is subject to no oversight or public scrutiny and thus able to be manipulated.

Manipulated by whom? Not like there's nationwide betting on college football . . . .

[cardcrimson]

Not only that, but it's the clock that the coaches and players see and the basis upon which actions are based.  Other sports have the same issue between "referee clock" and "game clock," and it's a constant source of tension.  A hidden referee clock is subject to no oversight or public scrutiny and thus able to be manipulated.

Manipulated by whom? Not like there's nationwide betting on college football . . . .

[82lsju]

The outcome of Michigan's controversial Week 1 win over Western Michigan  "would have been different" if officiating protocols had been properly followed, the NCAA's football oversight committee said in a Wednesday statement.
However, the committee asserted that it "does not have the authority to overturn the contest."

https://www.cbssports.com/college-footba...lt-replay/

[82lsju]

The outcome of Michigan's controversial Week 1 win over Western Michigan  "would have been different" if officiating protocols had been properly followed, the NCAA's football oversight committee said in a Wednesday statement.
However, the committee asserted that it "does not have the authority to overturn the contest."

https://www.cbssports.com/college-footba...lt-replay/

[needle]

The outcome of Michigan's controversial Week 1 win over Western Michigan  "would have been different" if officiating protocols had been properly followed, the NCAA's football oversight committee said in a Wednesday statement.
However, the committee asserted that it "does not have the authority to overturn the contest."

https://www.cbssports.com/college-footba...lt-replay/

Any "protocols" that ignore the accurate measurement of time are extremely suspect, imo. Fewer than 9 seconds passed from when the ball was snapped to when the ball touched the W. Michigan player (trust your stopwatch).

Somehow my opinion is in the minority. One of many things in life I'll never understand.

*Shrug*

[needle]

The outcome of Michigan's controversial Week 1 win over Western Michigan  "would have been different" if officiating protocols had been properly followed, the NCAA's football oversight committee said in a Wednesday statement.
However, the committee asserted that it "does not have the authority to overturn the contest."

https://www.cbssports.com/college-footba...lt-replay/

Any "protocols" that ignore the accurate measurement of time are extremely suspect, imo. Fewer than 9 seconds passed from when the ball was snapped to when the ball touched the W. Michigan player (trust your stopwatch).

Somehow my opinion is in the minority. One of many things in life I'll never understand.

*Shrug*

[Papa John]

I agree with you needle. The replay team got the call right, but man was the process screwed up.

[Papa John]

I agree with you needle. The replay team got the call right, but man was the process screwed up.

[pefloresjr]

The outcome of Michigan's controversial Week 1 win over Western Michigan  "would have been different" if officiating protocols had been properly followed, the NCAA's football oversight committee said in a Wednesday statement.
However, the committee asserted that it "does not have the authority to overturn the contest."

https://www.cbssports.com/college-footba...lt-replay/

Any "protocols" that ignore the accurate measurement of time are extremely suspect, imo. Fewer than 9 seconds passed from when the ball was snapped to when the ball touched the W. Michigan player (trust your stopwatch).

Somehow my opinion is in the minority. One of many things in life I'll never understand.

*Shrug*

Are you saying stopwatch measurements of different video feeds are accurate?  If the process should have allowed the verdict to stand instead of being overturned, a fair justice system demands that the verdict stand, otherwise the entire system fails because it is built on a slippery slope.  I hate it but even though the knee was down and the lateral was forward, at the time, the process was that the ruling on the field stands.  So officially unjust outcomes in college football stand.  The outraged victims get the change the score to the proper/true outcome when they (we) get the trophy.  

Cheers,
Pete F.

[pefloresjr]

The outcome of Michigan's controversial Week 1 win over Western Michigan  "would have been different" if officiating protocols had been properly followed, the NCAA's football oversight committee said in a Wednesday statement.
However, the committee asserted that it "does not have the authority to overturn the contest."

https://www.cbssports.com/college-footba...lt-replay/

Any "protocols" that ignore the accurate measurement of time are extremely suspect, imo. Fewer than 9 seconds passed from when the ball was snapped to when the ball touched the W. Michigan player (trust your stopwatch).

Somehow my opinion is in the minority. One of many things in life I'll never understand.

*Shrug*

Are you saying stopwatch measurements of different video feeds are accurate?  If the process should have allowed the verdict to stand instead of being overturned, a fair justice system demands that the verdict stand, otherwise the entire system fails because it is built on a slippery slope.  I hate it but even though the knee was down and the lateral was forward, at the time, the process was that the ruling on the field stands.  So officially unjust outcomes in college football stand.  The outraged victims get the change the score to the proper/true outcome when they (we) get the trophy.  

Cheers,
Pete F.

[BostonCard]

1789687743[/url]']

1789686992[/url]']

The outcome of Michigan's controversial Week 1 win over Western Michigan  "would have been different" if officiating protocols had been properly followed, the NCAA's football oversight committee said in a Wednesday statement.
However, the committee asserted that it "does not have the authority to overturn the contest."

https://www.cbssports.com/college-footba...lt-replay/

Any "protocols" that ignore the accurate measurement of time are extremely suspect, imo. Fewer than 9 seconds passed from when the ball was snapped to when the ball touched the W. Michigan player (trust your stopwatch).

Somehow my opinion is in the minority. One of many things in life I'll never understand.

*Shrug*

This is a fascinating question, because I believe that under the rules, the officials are allowed to review when the play was considered *dead*, ie, when the ball touched the Western Michigan player, but not when the play started; the play starts when the scoreboard operator restarts the clock, when he believes the ball is being snapped, but that is a bit of a judgement call.  Unlike the World Cup soccer ball, there is no chip in a college football that tells you the exact moment when the ball is being snapped by the center, so if the scoreboard operator erred by starting the clock a fraction of a second early, such that the nine seconds left on the clock expire before nine seconds elapse on a stopwatch, well, you can’t actually trust your stopwatch.

BC

[BostonCard]

1789687743[/url]']

1789686992[/url]']

The outcome of Michigan's controversial Week 1 win over Western Michigan  "would have been different" if officiating protocols had been properly followed, the NCAA's football oversight committee said in a Wednesday statement.
However, the committee asserted that it "does not have the authority to overturn the contest."

https://www.cbssports.com/college-footba...lt-replay/

Any "protocols" that ignore the accurate measurement of time are extremely suspect, imo. Fewer than 9 seconds passed from when the ball was snapped to when the ball touched the W. Michigan player (trust your stopwatch).

Somehow my opinion is in the minority. One of many things in life I'll never understand.

*Shrug*

This is a fascinating question, because I believe that under the rules, the officials are allowed to review when the play was considered *dead*, ie, when the ball touched the Western Michigan player, but not when the play started; the play starts when the scoreboard operator restarts the clock, when he believes the ball is being snapped, but that is a bit of a judgement call.  Unlike the World Cup soccer ball, there is no chip in a college football that tells you the exact moment when the ball is being snapped by the center, so if the scoreboard operator erred by starting the clock a fraction of a second early, such that the nine seconds left on the clock expire before nine seconds elapse on a stopwatch, well, you can’t actually trust your stopwatch.

BC

[cctop]

This is a fascinating question, because I believe that under the rules, the officials are allowed to review when the play was considered *dead*, ie, when the ball touched the Western Michigan player, but not when the play started

Wasn't there a home game about 10 years ago that we won after the opposing player ran out of bounds but the Stanford clock operator didn't stop the clock for an extra second or two?  The rationale at the time was that the clock didn't stop until the referee signals it to stop.

[cctop]

This is a fascinating question, because I believe that under the rules, the officials are allowed to review when the play was considered *dead*, ie, when the ball touched the Western Michigan player, but not when the play started

Wasn't there a home game about 10 years ago that we won after the opposing player ran out of bounds but the Stanford clock operator didn't stop the clock for an extra second or two?  The rationale at the time was that the clock didn't stop until the referee signals it to stop.

[Spiny_Norman]

This is a fascinating question, because I believe that under the rules, the officials are allowed to review when the play was considered *dead*, ie, when the ball touched the Western Michigan player, but not when the play started

Wasn't there a home game about 10 years ago that we won after the opposing player ran out of bounds but the Stanford clock operator didn't stop the clock for an extra second or two?  The rationale at the time was that the clock didn't stop until the referee signals it to stop.

I recall a Stanford-USC game at the Coliseum in 2011. Tied at 34 with USC driving for a shot at a game winning FG. Short pass to Robert Woods who tried to evade Stanford defenders and get out of bounds as the clock ran down towards 0:00. He got out of bounds at the Stanford 33 just as time expired. USC coach Lane Kiffin desperately argued that there should be 1 second on the clock. The officials disagreed. Stanford went on to win in 3 OTs. 

USC did beat Stanford at the Coliseum two years later on a FG with 19 seconds to play. But Lane Kiffin was gone by then.

[Spiny_Norman]

This is a fascinating question, because I believe that under the rules, the officials are allowed to review when the play was considered *dead*, ie, when the ball touched the Western Michigan player, but not when the play started

Wasn't there a home game about 10 years ago that we won after the opposing player ran out of bounds but the Stanford clock operator didn't stop the clock for an extra second or two?  The rationale at the time was that the clock didn't stop until the referee signals it to stop.

I recall a Stanford-USC game at the Coliseum in 2011. Tied at 34 with USC driving for a shot at a game winning FG. Short pass to Robert Woods who tried to evade Stanford defenders and get out of bounds as the clock ran down towards 0:00. He got out of bounds at the Stanford 33 just as time expired. USC coach Lane Kiffin desperately argued that there should be 1 second on the clock. The officials disagreed. Stanford went on to win in 3 OTs. 

USC did beat Stanford at the Coliseum two years later on a FG with 19 seconds to play. But Lane Kiffin was gone by then.

[cctop]

This is a fascinating question, because I believe that under the rules, the officials are allowed to review when the play was considered *dead*, ie, when the ball touched the Western Michigan player, but not when the play started

Wasn't there a home game about 10 years ago that we won after the opposing player ran out of bounds but the Stanford clock operator didn't stop the clock for an extra second or two?  The rationale at the time was that the clock didn't stop until the referee signals it to stop.

I recall a Stanford-USC game at the Coliseum in 2011. Tied at 34 with USC driving for a shot at a game winning FG. Short pass to Robert Woods who tried to evade Stanford defenders and get out of bounds as the clock ran down towards 0:00. He got out of bounds at the Stanford 33 just as time expired. USC coach Lane Kiffin desperately argued that there should be 1 second on the clock. The officials disagreed. Stanford went on to win in 3 OTs. 

USC did beat Stanford at the Coliseum two years later on a FG with 19 seconds to play. But Lane Kiffin was gone by then.

Thanks, yes that's the one I was thinking about.

On TV it did look like he touched out of bounds with a second left, but the clock operator was waiting for the referee's signal.   I recall at the time feeling like it was a gift.

[cctop]

This is a fascinating question, because I believe that under the rules, the officials are allowed to review when the play was considered *dead*, ie, when the ball touched the Western Michigan player, but not when the play started

Wasn't there a home game about 10 years ago that we won after the opposing player ran out of bounds but the Stanford clock operator didn't stop the clock for an extra second or two?  The rationale at the time was that the clock didn't stop until the referee signals it to stop.

I recall a Stanford-USC game at the Coliseum in 2011. Tied at 34 with USC driving for a shot at a game winning FG. Short pass to Robert Woods who tried to evade Stanford defenders and get out of bounds as the clock ran down towards 0:00. He got out of bounds at the Stanford 33 just as time expired. USC coach Lane Kiffin desperately argued that there should be 1 second on the clock. The officials disagreed. Stanford went on to win in 3 OTs. 

USC did beat Stanford at the Coliseum two years later on a FG with 19 seconds to play. But Lane Kiffin was gone by then.

Thanks, yes that's the one I was thinking about.

On TV it did look like he touched out of bounds with a second left, but the clock operator was waiting for the referee's signal.   I recall at the time feeling like it was a gift.

[KartyFan]

They ruled that his knee came down in bounds with one second left and that the clock should have run down to zero. Kiffon argued that he called time out immediately and should have been given a final play with one second.

https://www.espn.com/blog/stanford-footb...-officials

[KartyFan]

They ruled that his knee came down in bounds with one second left and that the clock should have run down to zero. Kiffon argued that he called time out immediately and should have been given a final play with one second.

https://www.espn.com/blog/stanford-footb...-officials

[Sam Leopold]

A penny for Phogge’s thoughts.

BC

Is this a sign that you guys are starting to think about unbanning him?

[Sam Leopold]

A penny for Phogge’s thoughts.

BC

Is this a sign that you guys are starting to think about unbanning him?

[TonyLima]

[quote="BostonCard" pid='452756' dateline='1788671782']

I wouldn't be surprised if some people in the stadium recorded it with their phones so that the stadium clock and the touch were both in the same view.  It will be interesting if someone comes out with such a view.  But considering those in the stadium are almost entirely Michigan fans, I doubt they will look at it closely.

Inadmissible, your honor. I seem to recall a photo taken by a student in the stands from a certain game in the early eighties showing a ref signaling a certain play dead. Also seem to recall video showing at least two forward "laterals" and a knee or two down. At this point, the game stolen and over. . . .

Biggest hose job since November 20th, 1982

You’re telling me. I was in end zone seats directly behind the winning “touchdown.” It was my first date with my future (now late) wife. To this day, I maintain that Stanford won that game.

[TonyLima]

[quote="BostonCard" pid='452756' dateline='1788671782']

I wouldn't be surprised if some people in the stadium recorded it with their phones so that the stadium clock and the touch were both in the same view.  It will be interesting if someone comes out with such a view.  But considering those in the stadium are almost entirely Michigan fans, I doubt they will look at it closely.

Inadmissible, your honor. I seem to recall a photo taken by a student in the stands from a certain game in the early eighties showing a ref signaling a certain play dead. Also seem to recall video showing at least two forward "laterals" and a knee or two down. At this point, the game stolen and over. . . .

Biggest hose job since November 20th, 1982

You’re telling me. I was in end zone seats directly behind the winning “touchdown.” It was my first date with my future (now late) wife. To this day, I maintain that Stanford won that game.