Ineligible Receiver Downfield Overturned

[vacyclone]

I'm still trying to understand the overturned penalty during the KU game, and I didn't see it discussed anywhere else. I'm not a huge "blame the refs" guy, and I don't think this one call decided the game, but the general incompetence we've seen over the last few weeks is pretty incredible, and this sequence was one of the worst.

The player who caught the pass was covered up on the line, so by definition he was an ineligible receiver. By my understanding of the rules, he (1) can't go downfield on a pass play, AND he (2) can't catch a forward pass, even behind the line of scrimmage (an exception exists for a deflected pass). The call on the field was for (1) - "ineligible receiver downfield". The play was reviewed by the booth and the penalty was overturned because he wasn't downfield. However, the correct penalty in this situation was (2) - "illegal touching". So, I'm extremely confused how instant replay allows them to take away the incorrect penalty, but not apply the correct one. It seemed to me like they weren't even clear on the rules themselves, and the announcers certainly didn't help matters.

Am I missing anything here, or is my understanding correct? We know that the wrong call was made on the field, but was the replay fiasco additional incompetence, or do the rules actually say you can take away an incorrect penalty but not change it to the correct one in the process? If it's the latter, I think that's a big problem and not the intent of instant replay. Thoughts?

 

[Drew0311]

I think the rule is you can overturn that call, however, you can’t make a new call. So you can pick up a flag. You can’t throw a new flag. It’s pretty stupid. It’s basically like we reviewed it and the penalty didn’t happen, however, we saw a holding so we are going to flag that instead.

 

[3TrueFans]

I think the rule is you can overturn that call, however, you can’t make a new call. So you can pick up a flag. You can’t throw a new flag. It’s pretty stupid. It’s basically like we reviewed it and the penalty didn’t happen, however, we saw a holding so we are going to flag that instead.

I assume this, it was illegal touching because he was covered up at the snap so he can't catch a forward pass. But since they called ineligible downfield, which he wasn't, they reversed that but can't call a new penalty based on the review.

 

[Didley]

I assume this, it was illegal touching because he was covered up at the snap so he can't catch a forward pass. But since they called ineligible downfield, which he wasn't, they reversed that but can't call a new penalty based on the review.

…Which is dumb, because he described the penalty as “83 was covered up, and caught a forward pass”. So clearly it was an Illegal Touching penalty

Calling a penalty the wrong name shouldn’t make it uncorrectable.

 

[2speedy1]

The problem is, the rule they reviewed was not reviewable.

Illegal touching is reviewable but that was not the penalty called and would have been the proper penalty.

They cannot review every flag/rule. It this case ineligible receiver down field is what they were reviewing, and that is not a reviewable penalty.

So the penalty should not have been reviewed. It should have stayed as called. Even though the correct penalty was illegal touching, which would have been reviewable and would have been upheld. Regardless the penalties are the same.

But by overturning the penalty they got the entire thing wrong. Not only did they review an unreviewable penalty, they then left a penalty uncalled.

Clear as mud.

But as always, the Big 12 Refs absolutely suck and the Big 12 will do nothing about it.

 

[Cycsk]

I assume this, it was illegal touching because he was covered up at the snap so he can't catch a forward pass. But since they called ineligible downfield, which he wasn't, they reversed that but can't call a new penalty based on the review.

Is it different for targeting? No flags were thrown on the play by Freyler against Baylor, yet they came back from the official review to "call" targeting on him.

 

[VeloClone]

Is it different for targeting? No flags were thrown on the play by Freyler against Baylor, yet they came back from the official review to "call" targeting on him.

By rule targeting can be initiated by the review process when no flag was thrown. It is a unicorn in that regard.

 

[amishclone]

The problem is, the rule they reviewed was not reviewable.

Illegal touching is reviewable but that was not the penalty called and would have been the proper penalty.

They cannot review every flag/rule. It this case ineligible receiver down field is what they were reviewing, and that is not a reviewable penalty.

So the penalty should not have been reviewed. It should have stayed as called. Even though the correct penalty was illegal touching, which would have been reviewable and would have been upheld. Regardless the penalties are the same.

But by overturning the penalty they got the entire thing wrong. Not only did they review an unreviewable penalty, they then left a penalty uncalled.

Clear as mud.

But as always, the Big 12 Refs absolutely suck and the Big 12 will do nothing about it.

How can they review a call that's not reviewable? Answer me that. Especially after Campbell spent an entire timeout pointing out it wasn't reviewable.

 

[quasistellar]

The refs in the big 12 suck. The end.

 

[amishclone]

I'm not a huge "blame the refs" guy, and I don't think this one call decided the game,

I know there's a stigma that goes with blaming the refs; it sounds like a loser, but I'll just point out that call gave ku a first down inside the 10 instead of 1st & 15 from the 24 like it should have been. Huge difference

 

[clone52]

I believe it was overturned because the pass was caught behind the line of scrimmage.

 

[Bret44]

I believe it was overturned because the pass was caught behind the line of scrimmage.

A covered up receiver has to catch a backward pass for it to be legal. Their location in regards to the LOS doesn't matter.

The refs screwed the pooch big time on that one.

 

[VeloClone]

A covered up receiver has to catch a backward pass for it to be legal. Their location in regards to the LOS doesn't matter.

The refs screwed the pooch big time on that one.

Agreed. The ref (white hat) totally messed up when they called ineligible receiver downfield. When the guy who catches the ball is the one who was ineligible it should always be called illegal touching unless the ball was tipped. With illegal touching it is immaterial if the player was past the line of scrimmage. As a matter of fact most illegal touching calls are touches by players who aren't beyond the LOS since it is usually when a lineman in the box ends up being the first player to touch an errant pass.

 

[BCClone]

The ref who called it called it right. Illegal touching, the umpire who announced it described it correctly but called it by the wrong name of ineligible receiver downfield. The only review there should have been if the pass was forward or backwards. The refs and office are complete garbage.

 

[CycloneWanderer]

Soooo... the refs made a silly mistake and instead of fixing their own mistake they made another one? Sounds like an adequate summary of bigXII officiating.

I would speculate on whether the Big 12 officiating office is being too heavy-handed in their bookishness with officials who are less than competent while not giving them real support in-game. This situation, among others this season, makes me think the Big 12 is paying too much attention to textual idiosyncrasies without actually paying attention to the justness of outcomes. If your officials are stellar at calling the game, that might be a decent approach. If your officials are not great at making calls on the field, it seems like a more apt approach to official reviews be to let officials know that it's ok to make mistakes so long as the outcome is in line with the spirit of the rules, even if not supported by every line of text (i.e., don't let your mistakes compound in effect). I'm not saying throw out the rulebook entirely, but it seems like they should be granted some wiggle room to correct for previous errors and they just don't have any. It also doesn't seem like they are getting any meaningful support from the official in the booth; it actually kind of feels like the booth official is doing everything they can to make things harder for the on-field crews this season.

TL;DR, officials, especially review officials, need to focus more on the spirit of the rules than the actual text after they've made a mistake.

 

[Didley]

I wish we knew what the officials were telling Campbell. In the press conference he said “it came from the office” and I’m not sure what that means.

Also, it seemed like Kansas thought the play was legal. It seemed intentional that they covered up 83 and our defense didnt seem to cover him. Then 83 backed way up, as though the play design was to throw a quick screen but laterally which would be legal. But somehow KU botched the play and 83 just happened to be the recipient of the pass anyways during the scramble

 

[CycloneWanderer]

It's easy to blame individual officials for these things, but I find it largely pointless to do so. I'm pretty curious how the systems the Big 12 has in place for overseeing officiating seem to be leading to these doubly-wrong outcomes.

 

[CycloneWanderer]

Does anyone have a video of the play that extends through the explanation/review?

 

[khardbored]

I agree they botched it based on ultimate outcome. However, there probably is some silly rule that you can only review X but to get the call right we need to review Y.

Fans often gripe about officials taking too long to sort things out on the field, but that's exactly what should have happened here. Don't even NEED replay involved, I'm sure one of the officials saw that the pass very clearly didn't cross the neutral zone.

What should have happened:

Line Judge: "I got a flag for ineligible downfield."
Head ref: (on his mic to all other refs): "OK, did any of you guys see if the pass crossed the neutral zone?"
Umpire: "Yeah -- no way. It was caught a couple yards in the backfield"
Head ref: "OK, so doesn't even matter if someone was downfield. Is that what you meant?"
Line Judge: "Oh, no ... sorry boss. I just said it wrong. What I MEANT is that he was covered up and caught a forward pass."
Head ref: "Ah, OK. So that's illegal touching then. Can we all agree on that?"
Everyone: "yep."

Even if head ref had already announced "ineligible downfield," over the PA, it's still totally fine for the refs to get together and talk things over, and announce a correction. Happens all the time at all levels of FB. - "Correction -- the ruling on the field is illegal touching, as the player who caught the forward pass was not an eligible receiver due to being covered on the line of scrimmage at the snap."

But then, once they go to reply, those silly rules about what you can and can't review get involved & "fairness" goes out the window.

 

[clone52]

A covered up receiver has to catch a backward pass for it to be legal. Their location in regards to the LOS doesn't matter.

The refs screwed the pooch big time on that one.

I was just listening on the radio, so I have not actually seen the play. If the guy who caught it was the ineligible receiver, then I'm sure you're right.