If the SEC brass has any cajones, Moseley's suspension will be overturned

[Creek Walker]

Flat out awful, bullshizzle call.

[Black Diamond Vol]

Flat out awful, bullshizzle call.

I can understand how the guy threw the flag.  Watching it live, even I thought it was targeting.  But how do you watch that replay and confirm the call?  I mean, WTH were they looking at?  I'd really like to hear an explanation from the league on this one.

[JeffCountyVolFan]

You never know what replay officials are going to do. Video evidence be damned, it seems. I have seen at least four replay calls today that I thought were obvious and went 'against the obvious'.

I totally agree that in real time calls can seem correct, but how can you get it wrong when you watch HD slow-motion (or frame by frame) video. If replay is this poor, I'm for trashing it.

[BanditVol]

Horrible call.  Should have been a fumble recovery.

[Tnphil]

I firmly believe they do all they can in replay to not show up the refs...I believe that.

[BanditVol]

I'm wondering if it wasn't a case of, since the fumble wasn't called originally, they were stuck.  If they over rule the targeting call, what do they do with the ball?  I believe the call was incomplete pass and targeting.  If they agree it was not targeting, is it then a fumble?  I'm wondering if it was just easier to save face and call it targeting.

It was chicken shizzle either way.

[TheRealOrange]

I just saw the play this morning, and I fail to see how it fits into either category of the rule:

Rule 9-1-3: Targeting and initiating contact with the crown of the helmet. No player shall target and initiate contact against an opponent with the crown (top) of his helmet. When in question, it is a foul.

Rule 9-1-4: Targeting and initiating contact to head or neck area of a defenseless player. No player shall target and initiate contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless opponent with the helmet, forearm, fist, elbow or shoulder. When in question, it is a foul.

Contact was not initiated or made with the crown of the helmet, so the first part does not apply.  The second part involves a subjective aspect; was the receiver a "defenseless player"?  Since he was still in the process of catching the ball and had taken three steps after first touching the ball, I'd say no.  Further, contact was not initiated "to the head or neck area...."  It was clearly shoulder to shoulder/chest.  I doubt anything will be done, and it's a shame to lose a player for a half due to a good, clean hit.  As a coach, I'd tell him to make that same hit every time.

On a separate topic, I saw several questionable replay decisions again yesterday, as I do every week, and I've seen even more in NFL games.  Since I couldn't care less about most of the teams, it's easy to be objective.  Even the "experts" don't understand many of the replay decisions that are being made.  The standard for the reviews needs to change.  The on-field call should have no bearing whatsoever on the replay review, other than whether it will stand as called or not.  The only standard should be "get it right."  But, that'll never happen.

[TheRealOrange]

I'm wondering if it wasn't a case of, since the fumble wasn't called originally, they were stuck.  If they over rule the targeting call, what do they do with the ball?  I believe the call was incomplete pass and targeting.  If they agree it was not targeting, is it then a fumble?  I'm wondering if it was just easier to save face and call it targeting.

It was chicken shizzle either way.

On further review, the receiver took three steps after first touching the ball, but he never appeared to secure the ball.  He was still trying to make the catch.  Easy.  Incomplete pass, no penalty, no targeting.

[HerbTarlekVol]

Just an awful call.  Replay has made things more complicated, yet they still can't get the calls right in a large number of instances.  The current standard isn't working. Way too many inconsistencies. 

[JeffCountyVolFan]

If a replay official cannot watch a video in HD frame by frame and get it right, why have it? Officials missing calls in real time is understandable - split second judgement calls and human error go hand in hand. But if I was the guy who got to sit in the booth and review HD and still botched it, I'd be embarrassed.

The Moseley hit and the Duke debacle are two of the most blaring examples I can recall in some time - and the Miami TD was reviewed for nine minutes.

[BanditVol]

On further review, the receiver took three steps after first touching the ball, but he never appeared to secure the ball.  He was still trying to make the catch.  Easy.  Incomplete pass, no penalty, no targeting.

Hm.  Maybe so. I can go back and look, but on the initial replays they showed (without me further slowing it on the DVR), it looked pretty secure to me.

And while it may actually damage my credibility to say this, both Palmer and Mushberger thought it was unambiguously a catch. 

BTW, I am not at all justifying the call.  It was an awful call and worse replay.  I am only explaining why I think they did it, which was the nature of it backed them into a corner, and rather than do the right thing and overturn it, they CYA'd.

I know you know that acronym.  You work for the government.   

[VOLMAN]

up??? That's my biggest frustration with replay....sticking with the original call even when clearly WRONG....what's the point of wasting time and money if they're not going to ensure the call is made correctly???           

[BanditVol]

up??? That's my biggest frustration with replay....sticking with the original call even when clearly WRONG....what's the point of wasting time and money if they're not going to ensure the call is made correctly???           

I'm not sure, but I think the part they can overturn is just the suspension.  They can allow him to keep playing, but they can't overturn the penalty itself.  I am really unsure though.

Again, if I am a ref, and I call the penalty, the play is whistled dead.  In which case, he clearly caught the ball and fumbled.  This is a dilemma.  If they overturn it, then they have to say it was incomplete which is just as laughable.

I think they were just saving face the best way they could. It's chickenshizzle, but it's the only thing that makes sense to me.

If they can overturn the entire penalty then the only thing they can say is "no penalty, but the play was whistled dead prior to fumble recovery".

If they can overturn the suspension but not the penalty, then there is no problem with the fumble because the penalty negates the fumble.  But I think they realized that would be even more controversial, because it would have cost us a turnover for a call they ADMIT is wrong.  On the other hand,  they could get away with letting the suspension stand because in that case they can always say they "erred on the side of caution", and who would argue with them?

CYA by the refs, IMO.

[VOLMAN]

fact that they called it a penalty that I hadn't thought about the repercussions from over turning it regarding the fumble.         

[JeffCountyVolFan]

I'm not sure, but I think the part they can overturn is just the suspension.  They can allow him to keep playing, but they can't overturn the penalty itself.  I am really unsure though.

Again, if I am a ref, and I call the penalty, the play is whistled dead.  In which case, he clearly caught the ball and fumbled.  This is a dilemma.  If they overturn it, then they have to say it was incomplete which is just as laughable.

I think they were just saving face the best way they could. It's chickenshizzle, but it's the only thing that makes sense to me.

If they can overturn the entire penalty then the only thing they can say is "no penalty, but the play was whistled dead prior to fumble recovery".

If they can overturn the suspension but not the penalty, then there is no problem with the fumble because the penalty negates the fumble.  But I think they realized that would be even more controversial, because it would have cost us a turnover for a call they ADMIT is wrong.  On the other hand,  they could get away with letting the suspension stand because in that case they can always say they "erred on the side of caution", and who would argue with them?

CYA by the refs, IMO.

I thought that the rule changed after year one of the targeting rule.  In year 1, the penalty stood.  I thought that was changed after the first year to allow replay to void both the ejection and the penalty yardage.

I could be wrong about this, though.

[Tnphil]

I thought that the rule changed after year one of the targeting rule.  In year 1, the penalty stood.  I thought that was changed after the first year to allow replay to void both the ejection and the penalty yardage.

I could be wrong about this, though.

Correct!.....At first on review if it was determined there was no targeting the player was allowed to continue to play but the 15 yards still stood.....Which was STUPID!! If it was determined there was NO TARGETING then how could there be a penalty!!! That was one of the dumbest things I'd ever seen.

They wised up and now if it's not targeting then it's no 15 yards marked off.

[BanditVol]

Ok thanks. So they let it stick vause the whistle occured prior to fimble recovery imo.

Chickenshizzle.