Highlites

[BSpike76]

It was Fisher that was open after the whatever in the middle of the field. The guy coming up to cover Fisher was beat because of taking an up field angle while Fisher was crossing. Fisher did get to follow along in Borghi’s draft.

The guy he hit was hidden from Arc by the man Arc tried to avoid. The guy seemed to deliver a pretty good shiver to Arc.

 

[Flatlandcoug]

A judgement call. There was one other option: stop running. While I think the contact was not sufficient to give an advantage to the offense, I can see the argument that Arc's movement impeded the crossing defensive player's ability to provide coverage. Again, the covering official almost certainly didn't even look to see if the ball was going in that direction. He say interference and the ball cross the LOS.


That's the $64,000 question. Was the contact "incidental"? That's the judgement call. I don't think it was incidental. It looked intentional to me. But I also don't think it provided any advantage to the offense. I have called plenty of OPI's in my day (a lot less than DPI's for sure) for blocking downfield on a pass. And in those cases it has always been because the defense bites on the blocks thinking it is a run. (All the other OPIs are for the obvious push of the DB out of the way.)

If I had a criticism of Arconado on the way he ran that route, it's that he immediately turned after contact like he knew that the play was going that direction and his role was to disrupt the linebacker. He took out the defender covering Fisher completely instead of just forcing him to go wide. Frankly, it would have arguably had been a better decision for Gordon to throw to Fisher since it was an easy, wide open pass at that point (clearly aided by the contact by Arcanado) instead of making the more difficult that he did. So, I get your point that it was not an egregiously poor call and I agree with your analysis, but again, my fear that officials could suddenly decide that most of our rub routes are OPI is something that could impact our offense in a big way. Arcanado should have done it differently, clearly.

 

[BleedCrimsonandGray]

Two factors: 1) at the point of attack and 2) an advantage is gained. Grabbing a jersey isn't enough for holding. Pulling on a jersey 15 yards away from the runner isn't enough for holding. So no, there isn't literally holding on every play. Unless one is a rule nazi.


Two points: 1) there is no 5 yard rule in college, and 2) is an advantage gained. Heck, even in HS we don't call handfighting or bumping. There has to be some advantage gained by the contact.


I'm telling you as an official, the reason it isn't called 99/100 times is because we aren't rule nazis. We call it when we think an advantage is gained. I can see the argument for it in this case. The other crossing receiver popped open.


The perception that officials want to be involved is wrong. Indeed, the perfect game for us is when nobody notices us. But that's impossible, especially with judgement calls, such as PI. One side or the other is going to be pissed if you call or don't call something. I think there are 2 reasons people are pissed about this play: 1) it brought back a TD, and 2) they disagreed with the judgement of the official. I think most of the people are in camp #1. Those that are in the know about how officiating actually works are in camp #2. I'm clearly in camp #2. I don't think the interference provided any advantage to the offense. But it is a judgement call.

You sound like you have a very fair process for your officiating, and if the P12 officials officiated how you are saying they should, I don't think there would be any argument.

The issue is that the refs are incredibly inconsistent. Play to play and game to game.

 

[Suudy]

Yeah, I guess when I said 10-12 seconds I’m talking the play and the time it takes the ref to unpile the players, spot the ball, and reset/coordinate with rest of the officials to make sure the game is ready to continue. In that time the ref would have to evaluate whether an uncalled hold did or did not have the potential to alter the play, then throw the flag retroactively if he deemed it did (my example above). Correct me if I’m wrong, but my understanding is an NCAA official doesn’t have the ability to throw retroactive flags for fouls well after it occurred and the play has been whistled dead? If they do, I’ve never seen it happen.

Well, they won't do it for holding. But we just saw it against Northern Colorado where the Stone was called for targeting well after the play (I still can't figure out why they waved off the false start). You often see it with intentional grounding. And sometimes they do it for ineligible receiver downfield. But certainly not for holding. So the point about holding is that it has to occur withing a bubble near the point of attack and the hold has to give an advantage. Otherwise it is generally ignored. In fact, I'm trying to remember the game from a couple of years ago where somebody helicoptered a WSU D-lineman (Herc?) away from the play, and instead of holding called, it was unnecessary roughness or a personal foul. I would think anything egregious away from the point of attack is likely to be a personal foul instead of holding.

 

[Suudy]

My take when I saw the play was Houston decided to take away the crossing routes from the Cougs. That’s why the wheel route opened up. It was pretty crowded in the middle and it seemed as someone else said Arc was going to run into someone no matter what he did.

Perhaps. The attached video quality is poor, and I haven't pulled it up on my DVR yet to watch. But it seemed to me Arc dodged right in front of that safety/LB stepping up. And after doing that, the other crossing receiver popped open. As I said, it is a judgement call, but I can see the thought process. But as I also noted, I don't think any advantage was gained. I do think there was interference, but I don't think it had enough of an impact to warrant an OPI call.

Would it have made a difference if Arc was looking back at AG instead of looking to find a way through all the traffic?

I think so. If you aren't looking back, then it comes across that you are there only to create problems for the defense, especially if there is contact. If he was looking back, there's at least the notion that he's looking to actually catch a pass an not intentionally interfere.

Officials have a very hard job. We are very often asked to read intent. We aren't mind readers. Some stuff is obvious (e.g. picking up a guy and slamming him), but others aren't. This is why I have some trouble with the targeting rule since it seems to imply an intent. From the NCAA rules:

Note 1: “Targeting” means that a player takes aim at an opponent for purposes of attacking with forcible contact that goes beyond making a legal tackle or a legal block or playing the ball.​

Officials aren't mind readers so how do we know whether a player is taking "aim at an opponent for purposes of attacking with forcible contact..."? For all we know, the purpose is to jar the ball loose as much as punish the player. But that's the nature of the system.

 

[Suudy]

I will say, I was listening to a podcast on another site and they mentioned the official threw the flag well after the pass had been thrown and Borghi had broken away. I've watched the play up thread here, and can't see which official throws the flag, or when, so this should be taken with a grain of salt. The official that was standing right near Arcanado did not throw it while he was in frame though. So, if it was him, it was thrown well after the pass had been thrown and caught.

I tried to see it too in the clip. Sometimes the delay can be just simply fumbling with the flag trying to get it out. Sometimes he as waiting to see if the ball passed the line. Perhaps both. I don't know. But I do know that the officials have to justify every single flag they throw (and don't throw) as part of their post game review. I kind of wish those records would be made available, say 10 years later, as part of some historical record for review.

I'd love to be a fly on the wall of that post game conference. Especially for the USC calls.

 

[Suudy]

You sound like you have a very fair process for your officiating, and if the P12 officials officiated how you are saying they should, I don't think there would be any argument.

I will say that at every level we try to officiate in that manner. But we do make mistakes. We often make mistakes. And in fact, we screw up all the time. I did a game years ago where the offense lined up to kick the go ahead FG with :02 remaining in the game. The kick was blocked, and while the ball was rolling around, one official blew the whistle. The ball was loose. By rule, this inadvertent whistle requires replaying the down (whistle during a legal kick). The defense's coach came unglued when we told him what was going to happen. Of course the offense lined up and kicked the game winning field goal. This kind of mistake cost the team the game.

We even screw up in ways people probably never notice. For example, we recently had a case where the running back was called for a facemask (tried to stiff arm, but grabbed and pulled the tackler to the grown) and then ran on for another 20 yards. The white hat (the main guy), enforced it from the end of the run, but it should have been 15 yards from the spot of the foul. Nobody noticed, but it was wrong. Imagine if that yardage was the difference between a first down and not a first down at the end of the game.

The issue is that the refs are incredibly inconsistent. Play to play and game to game.

Amen, amen, amen. 1,000 times amen. This is our biggest gripe as officials ourselves. And it's not just individual officials, it is individual white hats. I had a white hat that told me every time I tried to call illegal use of the hands on the defense, he'd stuff the flag back in my pocket. And the next guy told me he'd be pissed if I didn't call it. And now it is a point of emphasis that it must be called. There's even white hats that still think OPI is a loss of down (it hasn't been for a few years) or the DPI is an automatic first down. You'd be amazed at the lack of consistency.

I've commented on this before. But I think there are two main reasons: 1) the guys that are officials are basically part-timers. Nobody doing NCAA football is doing it as their full time job. Many of the DI guys have other jobs that are flexible enough to let them do it on the side. I think if you drastically increase the pay and make it a full-time, year round job where they train (both on the field and watching film), subject them to real, strict performance reviews you'd see the quality increase significantly. And 2) the training is pretty much limited to during the season. They do post games, observations, and other film reviews. I think they need to expand the training, formalize the expectations, and train people to those expectations. You'd think with schools dumping hundreds of millions and billions as a whole into college football, they could spend some money to improve things.

At the HS level and below this is not practical. No school or school association can afford to pay a guy $30k+ a year. We make about $50/game, and do maybe 6 or 7 varsity games, and a few playoff games. Factor in JV and lower, and you might make perhaps $2k a year, and that's a really good year.

 

[702coug]

Funny everyone arguing one call when Houston fans on their forums are totally convinced they would have won by 14 if the pac12 refs hadn't fixed it. Ha. Of course none of them mention the negated Borghi td.

 

[Suudy]

Speaking of OPI here’s one from the GB/Minn game. Much more egregious and obvious but demonstrates the point.