The timeout and replay

Donate To GopherHole
GophersInIowa

GophersInIowa

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 21, 2008
Messages
44,127
Reaction score
26,654
Points
113
Seeing lots of Gophers fans on twitter complaining about Fleck calling TO after Mo's first down that eventually was overturned. Lots of "if Fleck doesn't call a TO, they don't have time to review it". That's a complete misunderstanding of how replay works. They replay officials were almost certainly looking at it right away. If MN would have lined up for a play they would have probably stopped the play. Our offense never even lined up so they never had to stop the play. I don't think the timeout made a difference. They just still needed more time to look at it further even after the timeout.
 

What I was surprised by is that they didn't give us the timeout back. It should have been awarded back since the clock was stopped for an official review.

And while you are right on the review, if we had run a play right away we likely could have got it off before they called the review. Hard to know...
 

Agree (with original post), that's exactly how it would have played out. Even in real time, I wasn't sure he made the line to gain.

NFL rules, Nebraska without any TOs and outside the 2 minute mark there would not have been a review.
 

Sparlimb said:
What I was surprised by is that they didn't give us the timeout back. It should have been awarded back since the clock was stopped for an official review.

And while you are right on the review, if we had run a play right away we likely could have got it off before they called the review. Hard to know...
Click to expand...
Trying to run a play quickly almost always results in the replay officials stopping the play. But we don't know for sure. I'm just surprised how many people think the replay officials don't even notice it if we don't call a TO. That's ridiculous.
 

GophersInIowa said:
Trying to run a play quickly almost always results in the replay officials stopping the play. But we don't know for sure. I'm just surprised how many people think the replay officials don't even notice it if we don't call a TO. That's ridiculous.
Click to expand...
Agreed.

I'll also say it was an awful reversal. Awful. You couldn't tell when he was down and you couldn't tell exactly where the ball was. And they didn't say he was an inch short, they said he was half a yard short. It was terrible officiating in my opinion. Either way, we won...
 


Good call. Probably being a bit too harsh on Fleck.
 


Texan Gopher said:
No way that was not a 1st down. Even on the replay you see that his back or butt don't hit the ground until after the ball is past the 1st down line.
Click to expand...
There certainly didn't appear to be enough evidence to change that call. It was probably close but I don't get how they can overturn that.
 




Texan Gopher said:
No way that was not a 1st down. Even on the replay you see that his back or butt don't hit the ground until after the ball is past the 1st down line.
Click to expand...
There is zero chance there was enough to overturn a play and even if you did, it wasn't a half yard, it was a half foot.

It was a putrid string of events.
 








Bob_Loblaw said:
There is zero chance there was enough to overturn a play and even if you did, it wasn't a half yard, it was a half foot.

It was a putrid string of events.
Click to expand...
Not zero percent chance, because they did in fact reverse it.
 

Roland Brooks said:
He was down short. His ass and back hit ground easy reversal
Click to expand...
Unless you or the officials had a better angle, it was not. Horrible overturn based on what was shown on TV. There was a wider shot that made the overturn even more horrible.
 


Roland Brooks said:
He was down short. His ass and back hit ground easy reversal
Click to expand...
How was it an easy reversal? There is no way the ball was a half yard short when his butt hit ground. It was right at the marker.
 


Roland Brooks said:
He was down short. His ass and back hit ground easy reversal
Click to expand...
It was hard to see when his butt hit the ground. Unless they had a better angle than we had, it sure didn't look like anything definitive.
 





I stated that earlier. I wished it would of been a first down
 



PMWinSTP said:
He landed on the player, you clearly didn't watch very closely.
Click to expand...
Minimum the ball should have been at the 48. I just rewatched the replays multiple times. The refs moved the ball back at least full half yard from where the ball should have been placed. A real head scratcher.
 


You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom