This is an automated archive made by the Lemmit Bot.
The original was posted on /r/cfb by /u/Isthmus11 on 2023-09-23 04:26:42.
Bringing this up because of the play in the Wisco @ Purdue game, but this is something I have had a problem with for a few seasons now in both college and the NFL.
The game had a pretty (potentially) pivotal moment in the 4th quarter when the Purdue QB was hit as he threw the ball. Live time, the refs let it play out and the ball bounced off the ground into a receivers hands, who clearly thought it was an incomplete pass. The Wisco defender then strips the ball out of his hands and recovers the fumble, leading to a Wisco TD that basically ended the game.
My problem is, when they went and viewed the replay it certainly seemed that the Purdue QB’s hand was going forward when he was hit and the ball came out, which should make it incomplete and Purdue ball. However there wasnt a camera angle that really clearly showed where grip on the ball was lost. So they say call on the field stands, Wisco ball. And they get praised by broadcast rules guy because there wasn’t enough to overturn, but 2 minutes earlier they were praising them for letting the play carry on just in case it really was a fumble.
Basically I am saying I think that needing extra clear evidence to overturn a call on the field in cases of letting the play progress “just in case” is total BS. Refs are encouraged to let the play go on so they aren’t the bad guy for blowing a big play dead, but then need super clear evidence to overrule the decision even if it seems most probable that the turnover should not have happened.
Any thoughts on this? Am I the crazy one here?