2nd #1 TD that was not a TD

[froginmn]

McA could not have seen it anyway and why would the ref believe he could?
No system is perfect. Time to move on.

Agree, however one final point. It seems odd that ESPN, or the officials (referees for @bc puckett ) wouldn't have cameras that point directly down the lines.

 

[BrewingFrog]

Is that on us or on ESPN?

Don't know. Don't care. After the Baylor fiasco of some years ago, they should have put them out there just so such a thing wouldn't happen again.

 

[Mean Purple]

Rewatched last night. ESPN did not have the same view that we had in the stadium. What I saw at the game was a touchdown. I can only assume reviewer only had ESPN feed. I will say McAllister did not seem upset with the call. He could have sold it a little more.

it was a td for sure.

 

[KillerFrog InD KitchenSink]

I can only guess the replay official did not see a good angle before allowing the call to stand. Even after we called a TO. It was stunning that everybody else in the stadium could watch the video board and see it was a clear TD. And the replay official still didn't buzz down. He should be gone.

This is correct. There is a replay official who determines if a call is close enough to be formally reviewed. Based on the views he had, he determined nothing to review. Clearly did not have an angle like the one above, but I still think that was a questionable decision. McAllister's shadow on the sidelines does make it tougher for the available angles above and from the center of the field. If the replay official deems a play not necessary to review, nothing the officials on the field or coaches can do, unlike the NFL with the challenge flag. I think the correct choice would have been for the replay official to send it to review, which likely would have resulted in a "call stands", unless they did have a view like the one above.

 

[bmoney214]

So I've heard numerous times during NFL broadcasts that they can piece together the replays from different angles in order to make the correct call. Seems like that would have worked well in this situation if they actually did review the play.

 

[froginmn]

So I've heard numerous times during NFL broadcasts that they can piece together the replays from different angles in order to make the correct call. Seems like that would have worked well in this situation if they actually did review the play.

I hate that we're going in this direction but with "virtual measurements" being already a thing it doesn't seem far off to have things like sensors in shoes, on knee pads, wrapped around the ball, along the goal line and sidelines, etc.

 

[FroggleRock]

The question is whether or not the replay officials had access to in-stadium videos, which I had thought to believe was the case. So if the replay official just looked at the two ESPN views and called it good, then he clearly botched it. I have a hard time believing he only had those two views to look at.

 

[This Ain't Chopped Liver]

What was the story with this?

View attachment 18007

I suppose most assume his foot is on the ground in that photo, but it appears to me that his toe and foot may be elevated off the grass, and if so then that picture is not pertinent. Nothing definitive with that resolution. Fortunately, it doesn’t matter.

 

[ShreveFrog]

@This Ain't Chopped Liver - Again, those of us at the game clearly saw both feet in on the video board.

 

[bmoney214]

Sonny's explanation on what he was told.

 

[Zebra Frog]

As a former replay official, I could probably weigh in on this.

 

[bmoney214]

As a former replay official, I could probably weigh in on this.

 

[Frog DJ]

Please do, Zebra!

Go Frogs!

 

[y2kFrog]

My biggest issue is that replay stopped the game down to review the SMU incomplete pass early that clearly bounced in then just let the Mcallister play go which was clearly a much closer.

 

[CardFrog]

slightly off topic but did it seem to anyone else that every time we put the running back in motion we seemed to false start? [ What the heck? ] was going on?

 

[Frog-in-law1995]

slightly off topic but did it seem to anyone else that every time we put the running back in motion we seemed to false start? [ What the heck? ] was going on?

We only false started once with the RB in motion, though did false start another time after he’d been in motion but was already set. Not sure that means anything though. Just gotta have better discipline up front. 4 is too many false start penalties. At least we scored touchdowns on the drive for 3 of them.

 

[Mean Purple]

Zebra like the pretty girl in class ... tempts ya then leaves ya cold.

Not that it ever happened to me.

 

[BrewingFrog]

We only false started once with the RB in motion, though did false start another time after he’d been in motion but was already set. Not sure that means anything though. Just gotta have better discipline up front. 4 is too many false start penalties. At least we scored touchdowns on the drive for 3 of them.

Only 4? Gawd! It seemed like a dozen!

 

[Zebra Frog]

Please do, Zebra!

Go Frogs!

There is a lot to say, so I will try to make this as short as possible.
Games on ESPN+ don't have the same production values as those of other ESPN/ABC games, meaning there are no pylon cameras and no cameras stationed to shoot down the sidelines. They don't necessarily have access to the cameras the scoreboard uses, only what ESPN cameras show. If they are lucky, they may have a cart camera on the goal line. If the RO doesn't have a clear shot down the line, he/she has no choice but to go with the call on the field. Should the R/O have gone through the motions and reviewed it? I would have, even though I had no shot. Call it a PR review if you want, but they are trying to shorten the game and eliminate PR reviews altogether. You can compare it to a first-down spot. If the camera isn't exactly on the line-to-gain, it's hard to determine the spot. The goal line is the same.
What he/she probably did was tell the R he didn't have a shot, the R probably told Dykes that even if he challenged, he wouldn't win and would lose his challenge. Dykes did the right thing and saved his challenge for a play that might come up later. The R did Dykes a favor.
It's entirely possible the RO was told by the ACC's video center not to review, as well.

 

[TopFrog]

There is a lot to say, so I will try to make this as short as possible.
Games on ESPN+ don't have the same production values as those of other ESPN/ABC games, meaning there are no pylon cameras and no cameras stationed to shoot down the sidelines. They don't necessarily have access to the cameras the scoreboard uses, only what ESPN cameras show. If they are lucky, they may have a cart camera on the goal line. If the RO doesn't have a clear shot down the line, he/she has no choice but to go with the call on the field. Should the R/O have gone through the motions and reviewed it? I would have, even though I had no shot. Call it a PR review if you want, but they are trying to shorten the game and eliminate PR reviews altogether. You can compare it to a first-down spot. If the camera isn't exactly on the line-to-gain, it's hard to determine the spot. The goal line is the same.
What he/she probably did was tell the R he didn't have a shot, the R probably told Dykes that even if he challenged, he wouldn't win and would lose his challenge. Dykes did the right thing and saved his challenge for a play that might come up later. The R did Dykes a favor.
It's entirely possible the RO was told by the ACC's video center not to review, as well.

Thanks Zebra. Dykes said he was told he could challenge but would lose. But for a touchdown, I would have used it.

Turns out we come away with no points.