• The KillerFrogs

OUs catch fumble reviewable?

K

kaiser soze

Active Member
@Zebra Frog or any other refs-
Can you share your knowledge if that play was reviewable and if CSD had any opportunity to affect the outcome?

My reaction was the booth should have stepped in. In the absence of that glaring omission, CSD could have (a) thrown the challenge flag or (b) taken a timeout (he had 3) in hopes the booth does the right thing. Either of those would have been the best way for him to express to the officials how they botched the call and needed to fix it.

I've read elsewhere the whistle blew and it was not a reviewable play. At a minimum review would confirm catch, fumble and clear recovery by TCU. TCU may not have been able to advance the ba due to the whistle, but it didn't seem an obvious non-reviewable play or one in which the refs were unable to award rightful possession to the frogs.

thanks in advance for helping me understand the rules one way or the other
 
Last edited:
fanatical frog

fanatical frog

Full Member
kaiser soze said:
@Zebra Frog or any other refs-
Can you share your knowledge if that play was reviewable and if CSD had any opportunity to affect the outcome?

My reaction was the booth should have stepped in. In the absence of that glaring omission, CSD could have (a) thrown the challenge flag or (b) taken a timeout (he had 3) in hopes the booth does the right thing. Either of those would have been the best way for him to express to the officials how they botched the call and needed to fix it.

I've read elsewhere the whistle blew and it was not a reviewable play. At a minimum review would confirm catch, fumble and clear recovery by TCU. TCU may not have been able to advance the ba due to the whistle, but it didn't seem an obvious non-reviewable play or one in which the refs were unable to award rightful possession to the frogs.

thanks in advance for helping me understand the rules one way or the other
Click to expand...
Looked like a catch and fumble to me. He took several steps with the ball prior to the collision.
 
An-Cap Frog

An-Cap Frog

Member
kaiser soze said:
@Zebra Frog or any other refs-
Can you share your knowledge if that play was reviewable and if CSD had any opportunity to affect the outcome?

My reaction was the booth should have stepped in. In the absence of that glaring omission, CSD could have (a) thrown the challenge flag or (b) taken a timeout (he had 3) in hopes the booth does the right thing. Either of those would have been the best way for him to express to the officials how they botched the call and needed to fix it.

I've read elsewhere the whistle blew and it was not a reviewable play. At a minimum review would confirm catch, fumble and clear recovery by TCU. TCU may not have been able to advance the ba due to the whistle, but it didn't seem an obvious non-reviewable play or one in which the refs were unable to award rightful possession to the frogs.

thanks in advance for helping me understand the rules one way or the other
Click to expand...

No review? We know why...

Make It Rain Money GIF
 
K

kaiser soze

Active Member
Hoosierfrog said:
There is no challenge flag in college. Challenging tram has to call a tome out and ask.

www.sbnation.com

How reviews and challenges work in college football

Most reviews come from the booth, but coaches can initiate them, too.
www.sbnation.com www.sbnation.com
Click to expand...
while it may not come in the form of a red flag ... I believe there is some mechanism whereby a team can ask for a review and the cost of being wrong is a Timeout where as the benefit of being right is retaining the timeout.. So maybe just a formal ask to review AFTER having called timeout.
 
Z

Zebra Frog

KMA
kaiser soze said:
@Zebra Frog or any other refs-
Can you share your knowledge if that play was reviewable and if CSD had any opportunity to affect the outcome?

My reaction was the booth should have stepped in. In the absence of that glaring omission, CSD could have (a) thrown the challenge flag or (b) taken a timeout (he had 3) in hopes the booth does the right thing. Either of those would have been the best way for him to express to the officials how they botched the call and needed to fix it.

I've read elsewhere the whistle blew and it was not a reviewable play. At a minimum review would confirm catch, fumble and clear recovery by TCU. TCU may not have been able to advance the ba due to the whistle, but it didn't seem an obvious non-reviewable play or one in which the refs were unable to award rightful possession to the frogs.

thanks in advance for helping me understand the rules one way or the other
Click to expand...
It was definitely reviewable and could have been challenged by Dykes. He has to call timeout to do it. If he wins the challenge he gets his timeout and challenge back. I have no idea why the Replay Official didn't review the play unless he did it quickly and determined that it wouldn't be overturned, but, to me, a full review was definitely in order. Personally, I thought the receiver possessed the ball, took steps, and when he turned to go upfield made a football move, thus it was a fumble not an incomplete pass.

Please ignore anything you see or hear about the play being dead because the whistle blew. In an instance like this, the whistle can be blown but it could have no effect on the play. There are a few instances wher a whistle can kill the play, but very few. What kills the play is what occurs in the play itself, for example the knee being on the ground. THAT is what makes the play dead. It's silly to say, but officials could work an entire game without ever blowing a whistle to end a play.
 
K

kaiser soze

Active Member
Zebra Frog said:
It was definitely reviewable and could have been challenged by Dykes. He has to call timeout to do it. If he wins the challenge he gets his timeout and challenge back. I have no idea why the Replay Official didn't review the play unless he did it quickly and determined that it wouldn't be overturned, but, to me, a full review was definitely in order. Personally, I thought the receiver possessed the ball, took steps, and when he turned to go upfield made a football move, thus it was a fumble not an incomplete pass.

Please ignore anything you see or hear about the play being dead because the whistle blew. In an instance like this, the whistle can be blown but it could have no effect on the play. There are a few instances wher a whistle can kill the play, but very few. What kills the play is what occurs in the play itself, for example the knee being on the ground. THAT is what makes the play dead. It's silly to say, but officials could work an entire game without ever blowing a whistle to end a play.
Click to expand...
Thank you good sir!
 
TopFrog

TopFrog

Lifelong Frog
ShreveFrog said:
@Zebra Frog - So if I'm a coach, I tell my guys that on a questionable play to ignore all the officials' whistles. Just keep running with the ball no matter how loud and how long they blow their whistles.
Click to expand...
A whistle impacts the play. It makes players stop. Not sure why Dykes didn’t ask for a review. The receiver caught and tucked the ball. Whether he tucks his balls is not reviewable or viewable.
 
Z

Zebra Frog

KMA
ShreveFrog said:
@Zebra Frog - So if I'm a coach, I tell my guys that on a questionable play to ignore all the officials' whistles. Just keep running with the ball no matter how loud and how long they blow their whistles.
Click to expand...
Please allow me to point out some things in my statement.

Please ignore anything you see or hear about the play being dead because the whistle blew. In an instance like this, the whistle can be blown but it could have no effect on the play. (If the ROF is a fumble, the whistle wouldn't be blown and the play continues. If the RO reverses to INC, time is put back on the clock, even with no whistle. It it's ruled incomplete on the field, IF the there is an immediate recovery by the defense, and if the RO reverses the call, then it's the defense's ball, EVEN THOUGH A WHISTLE WAS BLOWN! If there is no immediate recovery and the ball is ignored, it is treated the same as being incomplete). There are a few instances where a whistle can kill the play, but very few. An indadvertent whistle will kill a play, but the way it is administered has changed in the past few years. What kills the play is what occurs in the play itself, for example the knee being on the ground. THAT is what makes the play dead. It's silly to say, but ( trying to keep everything in context here!) officials could work an entire game without ever blowing a whistle to end a play. Keep your eyes on the Umpire sometime in a game. You will never see some blow a whistle. And, the raising of the hand by the official is the same exact thing as blowing a whistle!

Now if you, as a coach, instructed your players to ignore the whistles, that's entirely up to you. I can't say it's a good idea, but you, as the coach, might just want to do that and see what happens.

And for your brother, Top Frog, this statement (A whistle impacts the play. It makes players stop.), I would say that if your statement is 100% true, why is there ever a foul for a late hit, or UNS? Whistles don't always make them stop. OK, I know I'm trying to pick pepper out of fly poop, but isn't that what you are trying to do? There is so much in officiating football that is written as being black and white, but is interpreted in gray. Holding, for example.

Hope you both had a great Thanksgiving. I have much respect for your dad and your family.
 

Latest posts

Top