Michigan 13, Western Michigan 12

[ChiefGritty]

The problem is what's shared on the stadium and what's shared on TV screens didn't match up. I think that's now been established. So what should replay deem "correct"? It's a valid debate and not sure if there's a clear answer, or even whether replay should make that call. But replay booth used stadium, which I think is appropriate and followed the guidelines they had per NCAA at the time.

No, the audio of replay shows they were double-checking that they were using the "program feed", which would purportedly be the broadcast feed. Did they just get that wrong? To what extent did they even have any reason to expect there would be any discrepancy? (To the extent they had any reason to believe the feeds may not exactly line up they ABSOLUTELY should have stuck with the call on the field)

The greater wisdom is that the sport needs to get out of the business of clock synchronization being competitively relevant.

The NFL rule of "once it goes under a second, it's in God's hands" in fact provides MORE certainty and precision than descending into madness over feeds and cameras ever will.

 

[Mr. Tibbs]

No, the audio of replay shows they were double-checking that they were using the "program feed", which would purportedly be the broadcast feed. Did they just get that wrong? To what extent did they even have any reason to expect there would be any discrepancy? (To the extent they had any reason to believe the feeds may not exactly line up they ABSOLUTELY should have stuck with the call on the field)

The greater wisdom is that the sport needs to get out of the business of clock synchronization being competitively relevant.

The NFL rule of "once it goes under a second, it's in God's hands" in fact provides MORE certainty and precision than descending into madness over feeds and cameras ever will.

agree

track is a sport where milliseconds matter

football is a game where white lines & yards & inches matter .

it’s all very embarrassing for the B1G & by extension , Michigan as the home team playing a MAC in-state little-brother school

I don’t think the year is going to go well for them & will be very surprised if they finish better than 9-3.

 

[sbillini]

No, the audio of replay shows they were double-checking that they were using the "program feed", which would purportedly be the broadcast feed. Did they just get that wrong? To what extent did they even have any reason to expect there would be any discrepancy? (To the extent they had any reason to believe the feeds may not exactly line up they ABSOLUTELY should have stuck with the call on the field)

The greater wisdom is that the sport needs to get out of the business of clock synchronization being competitively relevant.

The NFL rule of "once it goes under a second, it's in God's hands" in fact provides MORE certainty and precision than descending into madness over feeds and cameras ever will.

looks like "program feed"<>"broadcast clock".

Regardless, despite the nuances of what feed's technically called what. When you look at the broadcast itself, it seemed pretty obvious to a lot of people (and me) that the clock was 0 before the WMU player touched the ball. Maybe it was too close to call and some mental mind tricks make it look like it was zero when it wasn't. I don't know. But when you look at the replay booth, it clearly shows 1 second and that's how they made their call. That's where the discrepancy lies. It did not lie in the replay booth doing anything incorrect or some random Big Ten favoring blue chip team conspiracy. That's my only point. The replay booth followed the correct protocol, and, it just happened to be the correct call as well.

 

[bleedorange and blue]

agree

track is a sport where milliseconds matter

football is a game where white lines & yards & inches matter .

it’s all very embarrassing for the B1G & by extension , Michigan as the home team playing a MAC in-state little-brother school

I don’t think the year is going to go well for them & will be very surprised if they finish better than 9-3.

Would prefer 3-9

 

[ChiefGritty]

But when you look at the replay booth, it clearly shows 1 second and that's how they made their call.

It isn't clear at all in the angle that the Big Ten provided overnight purporting to be what the booth used to make their decision.

It's clear-ish in other stuff that has been provided since, at least vis a vis the real-life stadium clock.

But the booth did get it wrong, under actually existing NCAA rules, for me.

Obviously, clearly and most importantly dead wrong in the moment from a "what is football?" perspective, on the balance of evidence probably right as to the metaphysical truth of what the stadium clock said when ball touched arm (not hand, btw, the actual touch point is clearly a frame or two later than some Zapruders are insisting), wrong as to proper administration of NCAA review rules.

Western Michigan got screwed, and the whole affair was an ugly farce for college football that can and should be avoided in the future, but probably won't.

 

[Illiniguy13]

The most important thing to take away from all of this is that early indications are that Michigan sucks at football this year

And boy, are they hatable! This sad miscarriage of gameplay right out of the gate has immediately vaulted them to College Football Enemy #1. To be fair though, that’s a title they’ve worn before in both sports

 

[sbillini]

It isn't clear at all in the angle that the Big Ten provided overnight purporting to be what the booth used to make their decision.

It's clear-ish in other stuff that has been provided since, at least vis a vis the real-life stadium clock.

But the booth did get it wrong, under actually existing NCAA rules, for me.

Obviously, clearly and most importantly dead wrong in the moment from a "what is football?" perspective, on the balance of evidence probably right as to the metaphysical truth of what the stadium clock said when ball touched arm (not hand, btw, the actual touch point is clearly a frame or two later than some Zapruders are insisting), wrong as to proper administration of NCAA review rules.

Western Michigan got screwed, and the whole affair was an ugly farce for college football that can and should be avoided in the future, but probably won't.

which NCAA rule did the booth not follow?

 

[ChiefGritty]

which NCAA rule did the booth not follow?

Assuming the angle released by the Big Ten during the night after was the one they were talking about on the audio, there was not indisputable video evidence to reverse the call on the field.

 

[sbillini]

Assuming the angle released by the Big Ten during the night after was the one they were talking about on the audio, there was not indisputable video evidence to reverse the call on the field.

so is the argument now that the right call was made, but for the wrong reasons? am i following this evolution of this debate correctly?

 

[ChiefGritty]

so is the argument now that the right call was made, but for the wrong reasons? am i following this evolution of this debate correctly?

A replay review decision is only "right" if the information they actually utilize represent indisputable video evidence, that is the text of the rulebook and the sole question for judging whether the actual replay officials sitting in the chair did their job properly.

We've both found the quest for game footage that can prove what the clock actually said in real time interesting, but that was never the operative question.

(I also think your AI summary above about program vs broadcast is confused, but that's less interesting and I think less subject to a clear answer, at least without investigation we aren't privy to)

 

[Thaillini22]

why would you add back time every time the broadcast clock isn't fully synced with the scoreboard clock? it doesn't affect the game itself.

Edit: also, i have no idea how often this actually happens.

Why would you add back time only once? If it happened 10 times a game, wouldn't that be relevant? Five more seconds per half?

It's totally random and it only occurred in order to potentially rescue UM from an embarrassing loss. I can guarantee that if the Illini were in WMU's shoes in this case there would be precisely ZERO posters on here defending the decision, and everyone would be asking, "Why would they only do it this one time in the game? Who's ever heard of such a thing? We don't count tenths of seconds in CFB!" etc.

 

[sbillini]

Why would you add back time only once? If it happened 10 times a game, wouldn't that be relevant? Five more seconds per half?

It's totally random and it only occurred in order to potentially rescue UM from an embarrassing loss. I can guarantee that if the Illini were in WMU's shoes in this case there would be precisely ZERO posters on here defending the decision, and everyone would be asking, "Why would they only do it this one time in the game? Who's ever heard of such a thing? We don't count tenths of seconds in CFB!" etc.

I honestly am confused what you’re referring to. They didn’t add back time because of the sync issue. They added time back because the player touched the ball before the scoreboard clock was at 0. But the broadcast clock was slightly off from the scoreboard clock causing confusion. Why would that happen 10 times a game?

You might be referring to the quick tick that occurs when they start the clock? Yes that theoretically happens multiple times per game, and it’s apparently a known issue from what I’ve read on this board. But that’s a separate issue than what happened here. They didn’t add the second back because of that.

 

[sbillini]

A replay review decision is only "right" if the information they actually utilize represent indisputable video evidence, that is the text of the rulebook and the sole question for judging whether the actual replay officials sitting in the chair did their job properly.

We've both found the quest for game footage that can prove what the clock actually said in real time interesting, but that was never the operative question.

(I also think your AI summary above about program vs broadcast is confused, but that's less interesting and I think less subject to a clear answer, at least without investigation we aren't privy to)

You can go back to my posts - that was my only question. Because all I cared about was whether the right call was made or not.

You’ve had broader perspectives on the theoretical rules and the spirit of football etc etc. that’s all well and good and worth discussion at some level. But I only cared about whether the right call was made because the prevailing wisdom was there was either willful ignorance or outright deviance going on. I wasn’t convinced of either and looked for the game footage with the clock to prove or disprove my theory.

So going back to my original question - are you saying it was the right call but for the wrong reasons? Seems like a questions that wouldn’t need three paragraphs to not answer