Anyone see the spot that Bama got on Richardson's run in the 2nd Q?

[missouridawg]

They spotted the ball at 1/2 yard line and then reviewed the play to make sure he didn't get a TD. Verne and the other announcer both said that they actually expected to see the ball moved further away from the goalline after watching reviews... and from the replay on TV, it was very, very, very clear that Richardson's knee went down when he extended the ball over the 2 yard line.

So the refs review the play and say it's confirmed. They leave the ball on the 1/2 yard line and the Alabama runs 3 plays and settles for a field goal...

I guess my complaint is that later in the next drive, the announcers got a follow up on if the refs can re-spot the ball if they see something different on the replay. Apparently, the refs in this game did NOT re-spot the ball because they deemed the spot to not be "egregious" (exact word Verne used).

So, someone forgive me for this... but placing the ball at 1/2 yard line vs the 2 yard line is extremely egregious in my opinion. That's a 75% better spot. How hard is it to get a call like that right when you have instand slo-mo replay to show exactly what the 17 to do. SEC refs kill me.

 

[karlchilders.sixpack]

everything goes their way

 

[mstatefan88]

"The officials could have moved the ball back, but since it wasn't considered anegregious error on the spot, they chose not to." So it has to be egregious? What the hell does that mean? 1.5 yards? 2 yards? And who gets to chosewhat isegregious or not? I think this quote sums up why the SEC officials suck. How hard would it have been for them to move the ball a yard back to where the ball was when the knee went down? That's ridiculous.

 

[DawgatAuburn]

....would be to know the word.

 

[mstatefan88]

Don't know what happened there. I've used that word plenty of times, spelled correctly of course, in plenty of papers I've written. Guess I should pay more attention sometimes. Either way, that's still a terrible excuse by Steve Shaw for why they didn't move the ball. If you can fix it easily, then do it.That spot was easily fixable, and they neglected to correct it. That's bush league in my opinion.

 

[EntoBulldog]

 
Limitations on Reviewable Plays
ARTICLE 6. No other plays or officiating decisions are reviewable. However, the replay official may correct egregious errors, including those involving the game clock, whether or not a play is reviewable. This excludes fouls that are not specifically reviewable (Reviewable fouls: Rules 12-3-2-c and d and 12-3-5-a and 12-3-4-b).
This being said, egregious means something shocking. I guess the official reviewing the play did not consider the spot to be shockingly different from where the ball should have been spotted. http://fs.ncaa.org/Docs/r...2009RulesCmteChanges.doc hyperlink available

 

[missouridawg]

the refs to make decisions on the fly.

You'll never be able to convince me that that spot wasn't egregious and easily correctable...

 

[EntoBulldog]

I agree, all aspects of a play review should be considered if a paly is to be reviewed. I guess they only look at what was in question, in this case it was the the non touchdown call an not the spot. Does this mean when you call for an officiating review that no more than one questionable action can be reviewed at a time?