Rogers Redding’s priorities

Let’s say it again:  upholding a fifteen-yard penalty for targeting after the replay official rules that no targeting occurred is galactically stupid.

Unless you’re Rogers Redding.

Redding said the 15-yard penalty issue will likely be examined by the rules committee after the season. “That’s come up a little bit from the coaches in particular, but we’re not going to make a change like that midseason,” he said. “That’s been the only piece of it that’s been a concern.

“It’s a slippery slope because if you do that, then that sort of opens the door a little bit to reviewing other fouls. We don’t want to get a place where we’re reviewing interference and offsides and holding penalties.”

Yeah, heaven forbid we hold officials accountable for making poor calls.  It’s far more important to cover their asses than to get the game right.

About these ads

7 Comments

Filed under The NCAA

7 responses to “Rogers Redding’s priorities

  1. Anyone else tired of the phrase “slippery slope”?

    Either they want the game officiated properly or not. I’m not saying every penalty deserves to be replayed, but if the replay booth is going to overturn the ejection than shouldn’t the 15 yard penalty be also overturnable??

    We aren’t building rocket ships here…

    • I agree with you, especially about why can’t they overturn the 15 yard penalty, too. Using “their” logic … “Since the hit on the opposing player was hard enough that we have to stop the game and review the play … even though we determine that it wasn’t targeting … we need an out clause to save face. We’ll give them 15 yards just for making us go to the trouble of actually doing our jobs. That’ll show them!”

    • Ben

      We’re talking about a penalty that is *already* reviewable, not adding review to a penalty that isn’t reviewable. So we’ve got a red herring to go with our slippery slope fallacy.

  2. Patrick

    I was cheering for Iowa State, and I thought the officials did get that one right.
    Open to further discussion on officials, but it will have to stem from a much more egregiously wrong call than that one….which shouldn’t take too long.

  3. mentsu wo tamotsu – plain and simple. Whole thing should be overturnable. If Ref is unsure – call unnecessary roughness on top.