Dabo going scorched earth on officiating

[18IsTheMan]

I know we have to be glad they lost, but I like it. Agree with him 100%. It's never made any sense to me that refs are deemed above reproach.

546K views · 5.9K reactions | "They get to go home and drink a beer and get on with their life and just leave the carnage left behind that affects a lot of people -- people losing jobs." Dabo Swinney and Clemson were fined $10,000 for officiating cr

"They get to go home and drink a beer and get on with their life and just leave the carnage left behind that affects a lot of people -- people losing jobs." Dabo Swinney and Clemson were fined...

www.facebook.com

 

[PrestonyteParrot]

Removing officials from conference control would be a step in the right direction.

 

[kidrobinski]

I really would like to see the shield lifted from the officials. Granted, complete accuracy would require enough replays to extend a game to six hours, but Swinney’s point about player-coach accountability is valid. The way games are officiated is like lions hiding in the grass pouncing on the unsuspecting wildebeests. Bring them out after games, show the replays, and have them explain themselves.

 

[sclawman77]

Boo hoo. They are having a crappy season anway.

If Shane had openly complained like that about the garbage LSU calls that cost us big last year I would agree more.

 

[Jonesz2]

Boo hoo. They are having a crappy season anway.

If Shane had openly complained like that about the garbage LSU calls that cost us big last year I would agree more.

How many times have we got a bad call or a terrible no call over the years? That’s football. Remember the push off in the tater game that was missed years ago No tater was crying then. I love when they lose and they had a chance to win. I hope they lose every game on the last play and get to enjoy the other teams fans as they walk to their car. That’s my hope every week.

 

[Forkcock]

I know we have to be glad they lost, but I like it. Agree with him 100%. It's never made any sense to me that refs are deemed above reproach.

546K views · 5.9K reactions | "They get to go home and drink a beer and get on with their life and just leave the carnage left behind that affects a lot of people -- people losing jobs." Dabo Swinney and Clemson were fined $10,000 for officiating cr

"They get to go home and drink a beer and get on with their life and just leave the carnage left behind that affects a lot of people -- people losing jobs." Dabo Swinney and Clemson were fined...

www.facebook.com

You're taking that loss pretty hard.

 

[18IsTheMan]

You're taking that loss pretty hard.

Contrary to how you feel, being a Gamecock fan doesn't mean you have to turn your brain off.

Dabo is right on multiple counts:
1. Officiating needs to be centralized.
2. Considering the revenue CFB brings in, it's silly to have part-time refs
3. There needs to be a method of review of available for some penalties in some situations.

 

[SouthernBelly]

None of this will be fixed until there are public executions.

 

[will110]

Contrary to how you feel, being a Gamecock fan doesn't mean you have to turn your brain off.

Dabo is right on multiple counts:
1. Officiating needs to be centralized.
2. Considering the revenue CFB brings in, it's silly to have part-time refs
3. There needs to be a method of review of available for some penalties in some situations.

The NFL tried that penalty review and quickly got rid of it.

 

[18IsTheMan]

The NFL tried that penalty review and quickly got rid of it.

I can't understand the rationale for having replay/review but not reviewing penalties.

Advocates of replay/review say it is necessary in order to "get it right" but penalties in crucial situations can be enormously impactful in determining the outcome of the games.

If we just "want to get it right" why does nobody care about getting penalties right? They will spend 3 minutes reviewing a play that is inconsequential.

Why are people willing to accept the human element when it comes to penalties but not other calls in the game? It just makes no sense at all. There's no logic to it.

 

[Piscis]

Dabo had no problem with the officials not calling a blatant offensive pass interference penalty on Clemson against Bama in the 2016 national championship game.

The play he is upset about now was called correctly. That was defensive pass interference.

 

[will110]

I can't understand the rationale for having replay/review but not reviewing penalties.

Advocates of replay/review say it is necessary in order to "get it right" but penalties in crucial situations can be enormously impactful in determining the outcome of the games.

If we just "want to get it right" why does nobody care about getting penalties right? They will spend 3 minutes reviewing a play that is inconsequential.

Why are people willing to accept the human element when it comes to penalties but not other calls in the game? It just makes no sense at all. There's no logic to it.

It didn't work when the NFL tried to review PI penalties. It made things worse.

 

[18IsTheMan]

It didn't work when the NFL tried to review PI penalties. It made things worse.

I'm not suggesting challenges. Just review. Besides, college is not obliged to follow NFL precedent.

Can you offer a rationale that explains wanting to get calls right except for penalties?

The precedent is already there in college b/c they always review targeting. That makes it even more absurd that other penalties aren't reviewable.
"We need instant replay because it's vital that we 'get it right'! But we're not going to review penalties. Well, except for targeting. Otherwise, it's important that we 'get it right'!"

 

[Piscis]

I can't understand the rationale for having replay/review but not reviewing penalties.

Advocates of replay/review say it is necessary in order to "get it right" but penalties in crucial situations can be enormously impactful in determining the outcome of the games.

If we just "want to get it right" why does nobody care about getting penalties right? They will spend 3 minutes reviewing a play that is inconsequential.

Why are people willing to accept the human element when it comes to penalties but not other calls in the game? It just makes no sense at all. There's no logic to it.

The NFL and college have spent decades tilting the scales in favor of the offense because they think people want to see more scoring. They are not going to undo all of that by dissecting every penalty. Holding has to be blatant and directly in front of an official to be called, a DB running with a receiver can not put a hand on the receiver and still be called for pass interference if the DB doesn't turn and look for the ball. Receivers can push off to make a catch as long as they don't fully extend their arms and push the DB to the ground with no fear of offensive pass interference being called.

Fans and tv audiences love the 42-40 games and hate the old school 13-10 type games.

 

[18IsTheMan]

The NFL and college have spent decades tilting the scales in favor of the offense because they think people want to see more scoring. They are not going to undo all of that by dissecting every penalty. Holding has to be blatant and directly in front of an official to be called, a DB running with a receiver can not put a hand on the receiver and still be called for pass interference if the DB doesn't turn and look for the ball. Receivers can push off to make a catch as long as they don't fully extend their arms and push the DB to the ground with no fear of offensive pass interference being called.

Fans and tv audiences love the 42-40 games and hate the old school 13-10 type games.

so at least you concede that instant replay/review is not about getting the call right.

 

[will110]

I'm not suggesting challenges. Just review. Besides, college is not obliged to follow NFL precedent.

Can you offer a rationale that explains wanting to get calls right except for penalties?

The precedent is already there in college b/c they always review targeting. That makes it even more absurd that other penalties aren't reviewable.
"We need instant replay because it's vital that we 'get it right'! But we're not going to review penalties. Well, except for targeting. Otherwise, it's important that we 'get it right'!"

And they review targeting and it's a coin flip. Plays that look like obvious targeting to me are waived off and vice versa. I don't think reviewing these plays gets them right.

Officials reviewed that goal line play for Auburn vs Georgia for 10 minutes or some ridiculous length of time and still couldn't figure out what happened. Officials reviewed a Vandy 2 point conversion on Saturday against Texas that was pretty clearly short of the goal line in my opinion, but replay said it was a good try.

NFL officiating isn't great, but its far better than college. If NFL officiating, when there's only at most 11 or 12 games at one time, couldn't figure out how to review penalties without making things worse, how in the world do you think college officiating will get it right?

 

[Lurker123]

Regardless of review, imo, the officiating needs to be centralized and taken out of the hands of the conferences.

There is enough money to run officiating crews from a governing body, rather than split up the way it is.

 

[18IsTheMan]

And they review targeting and it's a coin flip. Plays that look like obvious targeting to me are waived off and vice versa. I don't think reviewing these plays gets them right.

Officials reviewed that goal line play for Auburn vs Georgia for 10 minutes or some ridiculous length of time and still couldn't figure out what happened. Officials reviewed a Vandy 2 point conversion on Saturday against Texas that was pretty clearly short of the goal line in my opinion, but replay said it was a good try.

NFL officiating isn't great, but its far better than college. If NFL officiating, when there's only at most 11 or 12 games at one time, couldn't figure out how to review penalties without making things worse, how in the world do you think college officiating will get it right?

It's an apples to oranges comparison. NFL has professional referees and a greater concentration of officiating talent b/c it's a smaller pool. You'd expect better overall quality control.

In college there are hundreds of officials, and officiating is a part time gig. My brother works with a man who is an ACC official. He'll work his job M-F and then zoom off to officiate an ACC game and then come back to work on Monday. That accentuates the need to expand replay.

Your post actually makes a strong argument for doing away with replay altogether, which I am a proponent of. I simply can't see how it's important to get inconsequential calls right but penalties in critical situations which directly impact the outcome of the game aren't reviewable. They'll spend 3 minutes reviewing some play in the 1st quarter to see if a 3 yard catch on 1st down was completed in-bounds or not. But a penalty that determines the outcome of the game is off limits. There's no logic to it.

 

[will110]

It's an apples to oranges comparison. NFL has professional referees and a greater concentration of officiating talent b/c it's a smaller pool. You'd expect better overall quality control.

In college there are hundreds of officials, and officiating is a part time gig. My brother works with a man who is an ACC official. He'll work his job M-F and then zoom off to officiate an ACC game and then come back to work on Monday. That accentuates the need to expand replay.

NFL officials are also part-time. They have their regular jobs, then officiate games during the season.

 

[PrestonyteParrot]

How about reviewing entire games to challenge officials to do their jobs better?
It's not only about getting the call right but how many times have you said to yourself ''why are they not reviewing that play, that call should have been reviewed''? I know it just adds time to the game but sometimes it feels like they are reviewing plays they shouldn't and not reviewing plays they should.

 

[18IsTheMan]

NFL officials are also part-time. They have their regular jobs, then officiate games during the season.

Point is, it's centralized in the NFL. There is a single governing body over all refs.

 

[18IsTheMan]

How about reviewing entire games to challenge officials to do their jobs better?
It's not only about getting the call right but how many times have you said to yourself ''why are they not reviewing that play, that call should have been reviewed''? I know it just adds time to the game but sometimes it feels like they are reviewing plays they shouldn't and not reviewing plays they should.

Yes. The application of review is inconsistent as well.

 

[JohnnySolo]

That might be the first time in my life I've seen penalties go against Clemson. The ball always seems to bounce their way. They've always had a horseshoe up their arse.

Secondly, PI, holding and other penalties are a judgement call and not reviewable. Its as simple as that. Someone's opinion of a PI or hold may not be the same as someone else's opinion. Ball placement, fumbles and incomplete passes are more factual and can be determined when slowed down 1000x.

 

[18IsTheMan]

That might be the first time in my life I've seen penalties go against Clemson. The ball always seems to bounce their way. They've always had a horseshoe up their arse.

Secondly, PI, holding and other penalties are a judgement call and not reviewable. Its as simple as that. Someone's opinion of a PI or hold may not be the same as someone else's opinion. Ball placement, fumbles and incomplete passes are more factual and can be determined when slowed down 1000x.

A great many reviewable calls are judgement calls. Whether a runner was down or not. Whether a QBs arm was moving forward before the ball came out of his hand. Whether a runner stepped out of bounds or not. These kinds of calls are frequently judgement calls.

 

[will110]

Point is, it's centralized in the NFL. There is a single governing body over all refs.

Right, that's my point. If the NFL, with a single governing body over all refs, couldn't figure out how to successfully review penalties, then how will college ever get it right?

 

[Piscis]

so at least you concede that instant replay/review is not about getting the call right.

It should be in the case of objective things like, did the player step out of bounds, did the ball come out before the player was down, where to spot the ball, etc.. Targeting is the worst rule ever created. Two players are running together head on in the middle of the field. Human nature tells both of them to lower their heads to protect themselves. Only the defender can be penalized for it.

 

[18IsTheMan]

Right, that's my point. If the NFL, with a single governing body over all refs, couldn't figure out how to successfully review penalties, then how will college ever get it right?

They didn't drop it b/c it didn't work. They dropped it b/c it worked. The year they tried it, 13/18 PI calls were overturned on challenge. That's 16% of PI calls they got wrong. Fairly significant. Basically, it opened a can of worms they didn't want open. Namely, a whole lot of calls/penalties could be overturned. Obviously, a great number of penalties are judgment calls, but so are a whole host of other calls throughout the game which are reviewable.

It's bizarre to me that folks are absolutely ok with them spending several minutes reviewing a play that review may determine was a 4 yard gain vs a 2 yard gain but are adamantly opposed to reviewing something like holding, a 10 yard penalty, which often kills entire drives.

 

[USCEE82]

That might be the first time in my life I've seen penalties go against Clemson. The ball always seems to bounce their way. They've always had a horseshoe up their arse.

^^^^ This. And ever since becoming a national championship contender, have been given the benefit of the doubt on calls that could go either way.

 

[18IsTheMan]

^^^^ This. And ever since becoming a national championship contender, have been given the benefit of the doubt on calls that could go either way.

It's hard to take this argument seriously. Our fans genuinely believe the SEC and its officials have it out for us specifically and that every single opponent we face in every single game in every single sport gets favorable calls compared to us. To many in our fan base, we've never lost a game that couldn't be pinned on the refs.

 

[will110]

They didn't drop it b/c it didn't work. They dropped it b/c it worked. The year they tried it, 13/18 PI calls were overturned on challenge. That's 16% of PI calls they got wrong. Fairly significant. Basically, it opened a can of worms they didn't want open. Namely, a whole lot of calls/penalties could be overturned. Obviously, a great number of penalties are judgment calls, but so are a whole host of other calls throughout the game which are reviewable.

It's bizarre to me that folks are absolutely ok with them spending several minutes reviewing a play that review may determine was a 4 yard gain vs a 2 yard gain but are adamantly opposed to reviewing something like holding, a 10 yard penalty, which often kills entire drives.

Where are you getting your numbers? 101 PI calls or non-calls were reviewed in 2019; 24 were overturned. The review rule was scrapped and considered a massive failure; no teams have tried bringing it back.

Goodbye, pass interference replay review: Lessons learned from the NFL's failed officiating experiment

The NFL's pass interference replay review rule, implemented ahead of the 2019 season, is dead. What comes next for the league's officiating department?

www.espn.com

What went wrong with NFL officiating in 2019 ... and what comes next?

NFL officiating is headed for a big offseason reevaluation. So why was the 2019 season so controversial, and what is the league planning for a fix?

www.espn.com

The problem the NFL had was figuring out the standard for reversal on a judgment call like pass interference. Virtually every single play will have contact of some sort, whether its hand-fighting, grabbing, or just body contact. What level arises to PI? How do you slow those plays down frame by frame and have a standard that's possible to consistently implement across multiple games?

When was the last time you saw a several minutes review over a 4 yard gain vs a 2 yard gain? I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but I can't remember watching a game where it did. I watch a lot of football.

 

[18IsTheMan]

Where are you getting your numbers? 101 PI calls or non-calls were reviewed in 2019; 24 were overturned. The review rule was scrapped and considered a massive failure; no teams have tried bringing it back.

Goodbye, pass interference replay review: Lessons learned from the NFL's failed officiating experiment

The NFL's pass interference replay review rule, implemented ahead of the 2019 season, is dead. What comes next for the league's officiating department?

www.espn.com

What went wrong with NFL officiating in 2019 ... and what comes next?

NFL officiating is headed for a big offseason reevaluation. So why was the 2019 season so controversial, and what is the league planning for a fix?

www.espn.com

The problem the NFL had was figuring out the standard for reversal on a judgment call like pass interference. Virtually every single play will have contact of some sort, whether its hand-fighting, grabbing, or just body contact. What level arises to PI? How do you slow those plays down frame by frame and have a standard that's possible to consistently implement across multiple games?

When was the last time you saw a several minutes review over a 4 yard gain vs a 2 yard gain? I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but I can't remember watching a game where it did. I watch a lot of football.

This article says 13/81: https://www.si.com/nfl/2020/09/13/pass-interference-replay-review-scrapped-nfl-explainer

Your number, 24/101, is even a much higher percentage overturned (almost 24%). If that number is correct, a full quarter of PI calls were wrong. That's huge. And it's no wonder the NFL backed off of it. I retract my previous statement on better quality control.

To your final question: that was a hypothetical example. But there reviews during every for plays where the outcome of the call is not critical. I've seen them review 1st half plays to determine if it would be 1st and 10 or 2nd and short, depending on where the ball was when the runner was down. That kind of stuff. If those kinds of calls are considered critical enough to replay, how in the world is an, at best, debatable PI call at the goal line on a potential game-tying TD drive near the end of regulation not be?

 

[will110]

This article says 13/81: https://www.si.com/nfl/2020/09/13/pass-interference-replay-review-scrapped-nfl-explainer

Your number, 24/101, is even a much higher percentage overturned (almost 24%). If that number is correct, a full quarter of PI calls were wrong. That's huge. And it's no wonder the NFL backed off of it. I retract my previous statement on better quality control.

To your final question: that was a hypothetical example. But there reviews during every for plays where the outcome of the call is not critical. I've seen them review 1st half plays to determine if it would be 1st and 10 or 2nd and short, depending on where the ball was when the runner was down. That kind of stuff. If those kinds of calls are considered critical enough to replay, how in the world is an, at best, debatable PI call at the goal line on a potential game-tying TD drive near the end of regulation not be?

Your first post said 13/18, that's what confused me lol. The 13/81 is the result of coach challenged PI calls. The others were booth initiated.

I'm all for getting calls right, but where does it end? Are PI penalties reviewable at the end of regulation, but not in the first quarter? Are holding penalties reviewable, but not roughing the passer? What about obvious missed false starts or delay of games?

Then if these penalties are reviewable, what's the standard for overturning them? I think that's the hardest part of the question to answer. For example, the holding penalty called on Carolina against Alabama that took the Sellers touchdown off the board. It didn't appear to be holding, but Babalade did have his arm around the Bama defender who really sold the "hold." If that's reviewed, is it reversed? That kind of contact happens on nearly every play. If that's holding, it could always be called.


Ever single play could ultimately impact the final result.

 

[Piscis]

This article says 13/81: https://www.si.com/nfl/2020/09/13/pass-interference-replay-review-scrapped-nfl-explainer

Your number, 24/101, is even a much higher percentage overturned (almost 24%). If that number is correct, a full quarter of PI calls were wrong. That's huge. And it's no wonder the NFL backed off of it. I retract my previous statement on better quality control.

To your final question: that was a hypothetical example. But there reviews during every for plays where the outcome of the call is not critical. I've seen them review 1st half plays to determine if it would be 1st and 10 or 2nd and short, depending on where the ball was when the runner was down. That kind of stuff. If those kinds of calls are considered critical enough to replay, how in the world is an, at best, debatable PI call at the goal line on a potential game-tying TD drive near the end of regulation not be?

Your point is exactly why I have said forever that coaches should get two challenges per half on fumbles, catches, ball spots and in/out of bounds. There should be no penalty if a challenge is unsuccessful. In an entire game, there would be no more than four play stoppages for review. There should be no "calls from the booth" for any type of review. If a coach isn't concerned enough about it to challenge, the booth shouldn't be either.

I don't see any way to have reviews on penalties because, by their nature, they are almost all subjective.

 

[18IsTheMan]

Your first post said 13/18, that's what confused me lol. The 13/81 is the result of coach challenged PI calls. The others were booth initiated.

I'm all for getting calls right, but where does it end? Are PI penalties reviewable at the end of regulation, but not in the first quarter? Are holding penalties reviewable, but not roughing the passer? What about obvious missed false starts or delay of games?

Then if these penalties are reviewable, what's the standard for overturning them? I think that's the hardest part of the question to answer. For example, the holding penalty called on Carolina against Alabama that took the Sellers touchdown off the board. It didn't appear to be holding, but Babalade did have his arm around the Bama defender who really sold the "hold." If that's reviewed, is it reversed? That kind of contact happens on nearly every play. If that's holding, it could always be called.


Ever single play could ultimately impact the final result.

And this post beautifully explains why I'm against replay entirely.

 

[will110]

And this post beautifully explains why I'm against replay entirely.

I personally like the NFL method a lot more than the college. Put it on the head coaches to challenge plays they deem important/obvious enough to risk the loss of a timeout.

Randomly allowing the booth to stop play for a review, especially after a play begins (ex. USC vs. Vandy), is insane.

 

[JohnnySolo]

A great many reviewable calls are judgement calls. Whether a runner was down or not. Whether a QBs arm was moving forward before the ball came out of his hand. Whether a runner stepped out of bounds or not. These kinds of calls are frequently judgement calls.

Those calls can be true or false. Yes his foot is inbounds, yes he started to fumble before he touched the ground. Those are definitive. Ones opinion of holding and PI can differ across the board. That in itself is a judgement call and cannot be reviewed unless you want to give someone the ultimate approval of judgement. Is God a football fan?

 

[Uscg1984]

It wouldn't bother me if there were no in-game replay reviews. Let the officials make the calls based on their impressions in real time, just like it was done for 1000 years. I think the calls would generally improve because the refs wouldn't know they had a replay review to fall back on.

After the fact, I'm fine with the conferences or governing bodies reviewing the calls in a game or season to determine which officials should be retained, which ones need additional training, and which ones need to go back to high school officiating.

 

[18IsTheMan]

I personally like the NFL method a lot more than the college. Put it on the head coaches to challenge plays they deem important/obvious enough to risk the loss of a timeout.

Randomly allowing the booth to stop play for a review, especially after a play begins (ex. USC vs. Vandy), is insane.

That is a sensible approach and would be a huge improvement over what currently exists in college.

What I really dislike about it in college is that to completely screws up the flow of the game. If there is a close play...catch on the sideline, catch while going out of bounds, diving catch in bounds, etc...you can guarantee it's going to result in a stoppage of play for review.

 

[18IsTheMan]

Those calls can be true or false. Yes his foot is inbounds, yes he started to fumble before he touched the ground. Those are definitive. Ones opinion of holding and PI can differ across the board. That in itself is a judgement call and cannot be reviewed unless you want to give someone the ultimate approval of judgement. Is God a football fan?

Soooooooo, just like targeting? That is a reviewable penalty. Indeed, the only reviewable penalty.

There are actually rule book definitions for every penalty, which is how they review targeting. They could do that for every other penalty.

 

[Jonesz2]

Contrary to how you feel, being a Gamecock fan doesn't mean you have to turn your brain off.

Dabo is right on multiple counts:
1. Officiating needs to be centralized.
2. Considering the revenue CFB brings in, it's silly to have part-time refs
3. There needs to be a method of review of available for some penalties in some situations.

There have been plenty of times Dabo was the beneficiary of the call the official made