“… and a lot of fans haven’t thought it all the way through.”

C’mon, Commish, you’re not even trying with this lame excuse:

“It’s a tough call because you really could have a penalty that’s separate and apart (from targeting),” SEC Commissioner Mike Slive said. “What you’d be asking a replay official to do is make a game-official decision. We’ve put an iron wall between the replay official and the officials on the field. There’s no time when he could be considered another official, and we want to maintain that. Whether or not this particular issue requires crossing into that bright line is something the rules committee will have to consider.”

Or with this one, Steve Shaw:

“Maybe we look at making the targeting foul a special case where we allow replay to come into that judgment and say if only targeting is involved and it’s not deemed targeting, we could take away the 15-yard penalty,” Shaw said. “But that crosses into a very slippery slope of officiating from the booth. A lot of purists have never wanted us to go over that line.”

The purist train done left the station a while ago, Steve.  Just ask the genius handling scheduling.  But I digress.

Let’s face it – the new rule has already made the replay official a little bit pregnant by allowing him to overturn part of the targeting penalty.  If the worry is that some targeting fouls could involve other penalties, even if replay determines there was no targeting of a defenseless player, there’s a real simple solution.  Call both penalties.  It’s not like officials don’t sometimes call more than one foul on the same play.  If the targeting call gets tossed, you’ve still got the other violation that can be enforced.

Why do I get the feeling that “purists” is just another word for being concerned about bruising the sensitive feelings of the officiating crew?

 

About these ads

10 Comments

Filed under SEC Football

10 responses to ““… and a lot of fans haven’t thought it all the way through.”

  1. Go Dawgs!

    What function of a “game official” could be more important than the decision of whether a player is ejected from the game? If we’ve given the replay official that power, then he’s already a “game official”.

    I mean, heck, he’s already had the power to overturn changes of possession if they’re blown calls. That’s a pretty important function, too. Shaw doesn’t want replay officials to have the power to overturn other calls his guys are blowing on the field like pass interference, that’s all this is.

  2. David K

    It’s sad that kids playing hard nosed football and doing what they’ve been taught since they were little (knock the shit out of the guy with the ball) will get kicked out of the game by the officials yet that loser at Texas gets a 15 yard penalty for clearly intending to injure the guy on Iowa State. If that’s not targeting I don’t know what is and they can’t even get that right.

    • Mayor of Dawgtown

      That was not the only iffy call in the Texas-Iowa State game, either. The call near the end where the ISU defensive player stipped the ball out of the RB’s hands and was running for the TD only to have the refs whistle the play dead was one of the worst calls I have ever seen in a college football game. First, the Refs stopped the play when the DB was running with the ball–they are supposed to let the play continue to the end, then make a decision. On top of that the Replay Official, after looking at a replay that clearly shows the ball was out with no whistle having been blown that guy doesn’t reverse the call, basically handing the game to Texas. I really think that the Replay official was covering for the ones on the field because of the fact that the play was stopped without the DB being allowed to score. Anybody (even refs) can make an honest mistake. That is why the TV review was initiated in the first place. But when millions of people can clearly see that the ball was stripped and the TV Ref doesn’t—that gives the appearance of imprpriety and undermines the integrity of the process. The ref who prematurely stopped the play should be disciplined. The TV Ref should be fired. End of story. Until the conferences start taking action to weed out the offiicials who are (10 incompetent and (2) have an agenda the quality of officiating will not improve from the depths where it is today.

  3. AlphaDawg

    One question about this ““But that crosses into a very slippery slope of officiating from the booth. A lot of purists have never wanted us to go over that line.” What purist is he talking about, officiating purist? or football purist? Because I’m fairly certain i’ve never watched a game hoping the officials stay true and pure, I just want them to make the correct call and not take the game out of the hands of the players.

    • Macallanlover

      +100 How can anyone not want the calls to be made correctly? And Slive thinks we do not have the replay booth involved in game decisions now? What universe has he been living in? The guy is weird, should have been replaced years ago…2010 cones to mind.

      The term “targeting” bothers me, but if we are going to use it, let’s define the action off that specific word. If the replay official does not see a player make a specific move with intent to violate the rule of hunting the head area of an opposing player, or use the crown of the helmet as a weapon, or hit a player who is deemed to be “defenseless” then overturn the penalty and/or ejection. If that video doesn’t demonstrate those “targeting” actions, call the field and say “play ball”. The replay should show that clearly and without indisputable evidence before an infraction is upheld. I saw one last night in the Texas-ISU game, player should be banned, and I saw once last year against AM by the Bama cheap shot artist before halftime. I have seen others, but those are clear cases, most of the others do not show someone “targeting” with intent to injure.

      I hate it, but can accept we will have injuries resulting from accidental contact while making a football play but have zero tolerance for mean-spirited cheap shotting.

    • Mayor of Dawgtown

      Amen. The game is supposed to be about the players, not the refs. Too many game officials and some in athletics administration don’t understand that.

  4. I think we’ve already seen some defensive team reaction to this rule. The rule is vague and it appears that sometimes the defensive player is walking on eggshells so not to get the penalty and/or thrown out of the game. If so, that could very well have added to the fact that there is much more scoring this year. I agree with most that have commented previously … call the penalty if it’s targeting but if the review official decides that a rule wasn’t broken, then don’t apply the 15 yard penalty. That’s the part that I don’t get.

    • Mayor of Dawgtown

      You hit the nail on the head about defensive uncertainty being behind the increase in scoring AD.

  5. Lol. Purist. On one hand we talk about removing decade old rivalries while on the other we can’t make sure the correct calls are being made from the reply booth because of “purity”…

    What interesting times we live in.