The problem I had with the end of the game was that he got a "first down" with 24 seconds left...the clock stopped for them to move the chains. Once the chains were moved, the clock started running again. After ~8 seconds ran, they decided to review the spot. After a very short review, they decided it was actually third down. The game clock should still be reset to the point when the questionable play concluded.

From the NCAA rulebook:

136. Line to gain
Third and 2 on the A-45. Ball carrier A22 is ruled down at the A-46 with 9:50 on the game clock. Replays show that the ball was at the A-47 when he was down.

Ruling: Reviewable play, regarding whether
A22 made the line to gain. Reverse to first down, A 1-10 on A-47. The
game clock should be adjusted to 9:50 and started on the Referee’s signal (Rules 12-3-3-e and 12-3-5-b)

So the refs still got it wrong, though it probably wouldn't make a difference. Maybe Akron's moron coach wouldn't have rushed out two dumb playcalls if they had a few more ticks.

WebFire;1502454 wrote:No, they were never reviewing for a TD, they were in fact reviewing the spot. And they seemed short to me and the announcers both.

I had no idea refs in college had the power to review a call to see if a first down is made. Hard to keep up with the rules changing constantly.

dlazz;1502484 wrote:The problem I had with the end of the game was that he got a "first down" with 24 seconds left...the clock stopped for them to move the chains. Once the chains were moved, the clock started running again. After ~8 seconds ran, they decided to review the spot. After a very short review, they decided it was actually third down. The game clock should still be reset to the point when the questionable play concluded.

From the NCAA rulebook:


So the refs still got it wrong, though it probably wouldn't make a difference. Maybe Akron's moron coach wouldn't have rushed out two dumb playcalls if they had a few more ticks.

I dont have a problem with that, wrong or right, because it had no affect outcome on the game. Akron only had two plays they could run anyways since it was 3rd down. 3rd down play call was atrocious. 4th down play call was an easy TD if the QB had a half more second to throw the ball. Left guard was knocked on his ass the instant the ball was snapped.

dlazz;1502484 wrote:The problem I had with the end of the game was that he got a "first down" with 24 seconds left...the clock stopped for them to move the chains. Once the chains were moved, the clock started running again. After ~8 seconds ran, they decided to review the spot. After a very short review, they decided it was actually third down. The game clock should still be reset to the point when the questionable play concluded.
.

I thought the same thing until I saw this. Read it all the way through and it may help make better sense of it.

https://twitter.com/mikepereira/status/378966912383729665

dlazz;1502484 wrote:From the NCAA rulebook:

136. Line to gain
Third and 2 on the A-45. Ball carrier A22 is ruled down at the A-46 with 9:50 on the game clock. Replays show that the ball was at the A-47 when he was down.

Ruling: Reviewable play, regarding whether
A22 made the line to gain. Reverse to first down, A 1-10 on A-47. The



game clock should be adjusted to 9:50 and started on the Referee’s signal (Rules 12-3-3-e and 12-3-5-b)

That is written like a AR, but it is not in the rule book under section 12, 5, or 3.
Where did you quote that from?

Akron got hosed but not because of the clock / time, they got hosed because of the terrible PI call Michigan received on the previous drive, and the no PI and no roughing the passer calls on THEIR drive when it mattered. That's why Akron got hosed.

dlazz;1502484 wrote:The problem I had with the end of the game was that he got a "first down" with 24 seconds left...the clock stopped for them to move the chains. Once the chains were moved, the clock started running again. After ~8 seconds ran, they decided to review the spot. After a very short review, they decided it was actually third down. The game clock should still be reset to the point when the questionable play concluded.

From the NCAA rulebook:


So the refs still got it wrong, though it probably wouldn't make a difference. Maybe Akron's moron coach wouldn't have rushed out two dumb playcalls if they had a few more ticks.

Don't believe that is correct. Same situation actually happened to Michigan last year.

Sonofanump;1502535 wrote:That is written like a AR, but it is not in the rule book under section 12, 5, or 3.
Where did you quote that from?

https://cfo.arbitersports.com/Groups/104777/Library/files/FBC13.pdf

Page 44/45.

WebFire;1502573 wrote:Don't believe that is correct. Same situation actually happened to Michigan last year.

The rule book isn't very clear on this particular scenario, but I found this part to be interesting:

If a ruling is reversed, the replay official shall supply the referee with all
pertinent data as needed (next down, distance, yard line, position of the ball,
clock status/adjustment) in order to resume play under the correct game
conditions.

They can't just reverse the spot of a ball and lose 9 seconds because those 9 seconds technically hadn't happened yet. If the play stood, they'd leave everything as-is and wind the clock on the refs ready. Since they REVERSED the decision, they should've re-spotted the ball, fixed the downs, reset the game clock, and wound the clock on the refs signal.

Regardless this is all likely a moot point anyway.

Sonofanump;1502389 wrote:link?

Badofficials.org.com.edu

Tiernan;1502414 wrote:I definitely speak for ALL of America when I say everyone outside the borders of Pissagain think the Zips got screwed and actually won that game.

Wrong. You old, drunk fuck.

ernest_t_bass;1502644 wrote:Badofficials.org.com.edu

My feelz are now hurt, going to get drunj on Keystone Light.

Tiernan;1502414 wrote:I definitely speak for ALL of America when I say everyone outside the borders of Pissagain think the Zips got screwed and actually won that game.

Strangely enough...I have not heard a single word about this game from anyone. You seem to be the only one still talking about it. Did you recently change your name to America or are you just a butt hurt moron?

dlazz;1502484 wrote:The problem I had with the end of the game was that he got a "first down" with 24 seconds left...the clock stopped for them to move the chains. Once the chains were moved, the clock started running again. After ~8 seconds ran, they decided to review the spot. After a very short review, they decided it was actually third down. The game clock should still be reset to the point when the questionable play concluded.

From the NCAA rulebook:


So the refs still got it wrong, though it probably wouldn't make a difference. Maybe Akron's moron coach wouldn't have rushed out two dumb playcalls if they had a few more ticks.

This is the opposite situation...in the example, the player was ruled short but the review showed that it was a first down...that is why the time would be reset. The Akron situation was reversed. Since they did not get the first down the clock should never have stopped. They actually benefited by the initial stop of the clock before the review. Had it been called correctly on the field, there would not have been a stoppage of clock at all.

1. ksig489;1502762 wrote:This is the opposite situation...in the example, the player was ruled short but the review showed that it was a first down...that is why the time would be reset. The Akron situation was reversed. Since they did not get the first down the clock should never have stopped. They actually benefited by the initial stop of the clock before the review. Had it been called correctly on the field, there would not have been a stoppage of clock at all.

   Per Mike Pereira, you are correct, sir...
   

   Drew Hohman‏@DrewHohman14 Sep
   [*]@MikePereira but they took away the first down? Shouldn't it start back at the time when the runner was down?
   
   [*]Details Expand Collapse

1. Reply

• RetweetRetweeted
• Delete
• FavoriteFavorited
• More
  • Embed Tweet

1. Mike Pereira‏@MikePereira14 Sep
   @DrewHohman >>No because then the clock would have never been stopped.

[/QUOTE]

ksig489;1502762 wrote:This is the opposite situation...in the example, the player was ruled short but the review showed that it was a first down...that is why the time would be reset. The Akron situation was reversed. Since they did not get the first down the clock should never have stopped. They actually benefited by the initial stop of the clock before the review. Had it been called correctly on the field, there would not have been a stoppage of clock at all.

The scenario is the opposite, but the ruling is the same. They're changing/adjusting an incorrect call on the field. The parameters (game/play clock) of the game should have been reset and they weren't.

Quit trying to explain it down to the last detail. Just continue to push the "Akron got screwed" agenda and people will generally accept it as fact and scUM loses in the end. This team will implode soon and the fire Hoke rumors will get some traction. Lovin it.

dlazz;1502776 wrote:The scenario is the opposite, but the ruling is the same. They're changing/adjusting an incorrect call on the field. The parameters (game/play clock) of the game should have been reset and they weren't.

Yeah they were jobbed