Aggiebrewer said:

---

It can mean other things.



Notably, when a ball goes through end zone in a close call fashion tossing bean bag in end zone is proper mechanics for touchback. Placing it in field of play indicates spot of fumble or a spot on change of possession.

I've worked crews that use beanbag for other things that are not in mechanics manual & there is a lot of variance in beanbag uses among crews & conferences.

---

Looks like he just dropped it at the 1 to indicate fumble to me.

https://www.linkedin.com/in/steve-clein-53466a/

I assure you, if the situation was flipped and he held onto the ball and followed the same trajectory, it wouldn't have been a touchdown.

That's why I have said I hope to heck they are taught when its close choose out if bounds everytime. If you are wrong it can be overturned.

texancanuck11 said:

---

WOW

---

WOW

Wow. The amount of ignorance and stupidity on this thread is astounding.

1. The fact that any official went to FSU, if true, has NO bearing on anything. A ton of Aggies have worked A&M games over the years. Sheesh. Are you accusing him of cheating because that's what YOU would do? And if you wouldn't do it, why the hell do you think he would? Do you really think any college conference is going to put an official out of the field that they -- including anyone on the crew -- suspect would intentionally blow a call for whatever reason? They take enough **** when the officials do everything right; there's no incentive to cover up for and certainly not reward bad behavior. Some of you are just so pissed off that the call didn't go our way that you've turned into raving lunatics. You'll deride me and this post, most likely, for remaining calm and stating facts but you've got to take your tin foil hats off.

2. In college mechanics, the deep wing official (either Side Judge or Field Judge) is either on or gets to the goal line for plays where he might have to rule on the ball breaking the plane of the goal line. He will also get the spot of the ball if it becomes dead near the goal line. The short wing (Head Linesman or Line Judge) at that point becomes concerned with the player going out of bounds, so he trails the play and watches the sideline while the deep wing watches the goal line. This is why you will see the deep wing dropping back in line with the goal line as he will look to the short wing before signaling a touchdown to make sure the runner did not go out of bounds.

3. When the fumble occurred, the covering official -- either one in this case -- will mark the spot of the fumble as the end of the run (rule term). This bean bag spot is done for at least 2 reasons -- to spot where the ball will be brought back to if it remains in the possession of the fumbling team AND it provides a possible spot for penalty enforcement had a foul occurred during that run. In this case, the side judge appeared to have dropped his flag either instead of or in addition to the bean bag. He just grabbed the first thing in his belt and threw it down because he had so much going on and was also possibly getting out of the way of oncoming players.

4. During this play, the ball came really close to the pylon so it was necessary for both officials to confer. The first question asked was probably by the short wing -- did he cross the goal line with possession? The deep wing likely answered, no, and then they discussed where the ball was when it crossed the sideline. Either they agreed or one was more adament than the other and they went with that person. To say it is ALWAYS one or the other's call is incorrect. If you don't know what they're watching for, you can't know how they came to the conclusion they came to.

5. You can pretty much discount any signal either made immediately after. Like the dropping of the flag, they're more interested in ending up with the correct -- as they see it -- call. They're not going to stay with something solely because there was a particular signal given just like they didn't call a foul because of the dropped flag.

With all that said, there doesn't appear to be a definitive angle that shows one way or the other. It appears in one video that the runner's left hand pushes the ball forward (relative to sideline) at the last second. THAT made all the difference in the world since if it doesn't happen, the ball almost certainly goes clearly to the OOB side of the pylon. Of all the videos I've seen, only one appears to show the ball going slightly to the outside of the pylon (meaning OOB, not TB) but all the rest of the videos appear to show the ball crossing the sideline over the pylon, meaning TB.

I do wish these games would be worked by a third party conference rather than one or the other.

I thought it was a bad call, regardless of where the refs attended school. I'm really proud of our team that they didn't quit and that they put themselves in position to make up for the poor call. I'm sad that we lost since we fought so hard to win, but at this point all we can do is move forward with the season.

91AggieLawyer said:

---

Wow. The amount of ignorance and stupidity on this thread is astounding.

1. The fact that any official went to FSU, if true, has NO bearing on anything. A ton of Aggies have worked A&M games over the years. Sheesh. Are you accusing him of cheating because that's what YOU would do? And if you wouldn't do it, why the hell do you think he would? Do you really think any college conference is going to put an official out of the field that they -- including anyone on the crew -- suspect would intentionally blow a call for whatever reason? They take enough **** when the officials do everything right; there's no incentive to cover up for and certainly not reward bad behavior. Some of you are just so pissed off that the call didn't go our way that you've turned into raving lunatics. You'll deride me and this post, most likely, for remaining calm and stating facts but you've got to take your tin foil hats off.

2. In college mechanics, the deep wing official (either Side Judge or Field Judge) is either on or gets to the goal line for plays where he might have to rule on the ball breaking the plane of the goal line. He will also get the spot of the ball if it becomes dead near the goal line. The short wing (Head Linesman or Line Judge) at that point becomes concerned with the player going out of bounds, so he trails the play and watches the sideline while the deep wing watches the goal line. This is why you will see the deep wing dropping back in line with the goal line as he will look to the short wing before signaling a touchdown to make sure the runner did not go out of bounds.

3. When the fumble occurred, the covering official -- either one in this case -- will mark the spot of the fumble as the end of the run (rule term). This bean bag spot is done for at least 2 reasons -- to spot where the ball will be brought back to if it remains in the possession of the fumbling team AND it provides a possible spot for penalty enforcement had a foul occurred during that run. In this case, the side judge appeared to have dropped his flag either instead of or in addition to the bean bag. He just grabbed the first thing in his belt and threw it down because he had so much going on and was also possibly getting out of the way of oncoming players.

4. During this play, the ball came really close to the pylon so it was necessary for both officials to confer. The first question asked was probably by the short wing -- did he cross the goal line with possession? The deep wing likely answered, no, and then they discussed where the ball was when it crossed the sideline. Either they agreed or one was more adament than the other and they went with that person. To say it is ALWAYS one or the other's call is incorrect. If you don't know what they're watching for, you can't know how they came to the conclusion they came to.

5. You can pretty much discount any signal either made immediately after. Like the dropping of the flag, they're more interested in ending up with the correct -- as they see it -- call. They're not going to stay with something solely because there was a particular signal given just like they didn't call a foul because of the dropped flag.

With all that said, there doesn't appear to be a definitive angle that shows one way or the other. It appears in one video that the runner's left hand pushes the ball forward (relative to sideline) at the last second. THAT made all the difference in the world since if it doesn't happen, the ball almost certainly goes clearly to the OOB side of the pylon. Of all the videos I've seen, only one appears to show the ball going slightly to the outside of the pylon (meaning OOB, not TB) but all the rest of the videos appear to show the ball crossing the sideline over the pylon, meaning TB.

I do wish these games would be worked by a third party conference rather than one or the other.

---

You might be a lawyer, but I'm an engineer and I understand momentum and geometry.

FriscoKid said:

---

91AggieLawyer said:

---

Wow. The amount of ignorance and stupidity on this thread is astounding.

1. The fact that any official went to FSU, if true, has NO bearing on anything. A ton of Aggies have worked A&M games over the years. Sheesh. Are you accusing him of cheating because that's what YOU would do? And if you wouldn't do it, why the hell do you think he would? Do you really think any college conference is going to put an official out of the field that they -- including anyone on the crew -- suspect would intentionally blow a call for whatever reason? They take enough **** when the officials do everything right; there's no incentive to cover up for and certainly not reward bad behavior. Some of you are just so pissed off that the call didn't go our way that you've turned into raving lunatics. You'll deride me and this post, most likely, for remaining calm and stating facts but you've got to take your tin foil hats off.

2. In college mechanics, the deep wing official (either Side Judge or Field Judge) is either on or gets to the goal line for plays where he might have to rule on the ball breaking the plane of the goal line. He will also get the spot of the ball if it becomes dead near the goal line. The short wing (Head Linesman or Line Judge) at that point becomes concerned with the player going out of bounds, so he trails the play and watches the sideline while the deep wing watches the goal line. This is why you will see the deep wing dropping back in line with the goal line as he will look to the short wing before signaling a touchdown to make sure the runner did not go out of bounds.

3. When the fumble occurred, the covering official -- either one in this case -- will mark the spot of the fumble as the end of the run (rule term). This bean bag spot is done for at least 2 reasons -- to spot where the ball will be brought back to if it remains in the possession of the fumbling team AND it provides a possible spot for penalty enforcement had a foul occurred during that run. In this case, the side judge appeared to have dropped his flag either instead of or in addition to the bean bag. He just grabbed the first thing in his belt and threw it down because he had so much going on and was also possibly getting out of the way of oncoming players.

4. During this play, the ball came really close to the pylon so it was necessary for both officials to confer. The first question asked was probably by the short wing -- did he cross the goal line with possession? The deep wing likely answered, no, and then they discussed where the ball was when it crossed the sideline. Either they agreed or one was more adament than the other and they went with that person. To say it is ALWAYS one or the other's call is incorrect. If you don't know what they're watching for, you can't know how they came to the conclusion they came to.

5. You can pretty much discount any signal either made immediately after. Like the dropping of the flag, they're more interested in ending up with the correct -- as they see it -- call. They're not going to stay with something solely because there was a particular signal given just like they didn't call a foul because of the dropped flag.

With all that said, there doesn't appear to be a definitive angle that shows one way or the other. It appears in one video that the runner's left hand pushes the ball forward (relative to sideline) at the last second. THAT made all the difference in the world since if it doesn't happen, the ball almost certainly goes clearly to the OOB side of the pylon. Of all the videos I've seen, only one appears to show the ball going slightly to the outside of the pylon (meaning OOB, not TB) but all the rest of the videos appear to show the ball crossing the sideline over the pylon, meaning TB.

I do wish these games would be worked by a third party conference rather than one or the other.

---

You might be a lawyer, but I'm an engineer and I understand momentum and geometry.

---

I was actually thinking about that during the game. Obviously there isn't a perfect camera angle for that call. But are refs allowed to extrapolate information based on momentum, physics, etc.? Or do they not hire nerds to be refs?

FriscoKid said:

---

91AggieLawyer said:

---

Wow. The amount of ignorance and stupidity on this thread is astounding.

1. The fact that any official went to FSU, if true, has NO bearing on anything. A ton of Aggies have worked A&M games over the years. Sheesh. Are you accusing him of cheating because that's what YOU would do? And if you wouldn't do it, why the hell do you think he would? Do you really think any college conference is going to put an official out of the field that they -- including anyone on the crew -- suspect would intentionally blow a call for whatever reason? They take enough **** when the officials do everything right; there's no incentive to cover up for and certainly not reward bad behavior. Some of you are just so pissed off that the call didn't go our way that you've turned into raving lunatics. You'll deride me and this post, most likely, for remaining calm and stating facts but you've got to take your tin foil hats off.

2. In college mechanics, the deep wing official (either Side Judge or Field Judge) is either on or gets to the goal line for plays where he might have to rule on the ball breaking the plane of the goal line. He will also get the spot of the ball if it becomes dead near the goal line. The short wing (Head Linesman or Line Judge) at that point becomes concerned with the player going out of bounds, so he trails the play and watches the sideline while the deep wing watches the goal line. This is why you will see the deep wing dropping back in line with the goal line as he will look to the short wing before signaling a touchdown to make sure the runner did not go out of bounds.

3. When the fumble occurred, the covering official -- either one in this case -- will mark the spot of the fumble as the end of the run (rule term). This bean bag spot is done for at least 2 reasons -- to spot where the ball will be brought back to if it remains in the possession of the fumbling team AND it provides a possible spot for penalty enforcement had a foul occurred during that run. In this case, the side judge appeared to have dropped his flag either instead of or in addition to the bean bag. He just grabbed the first thing in his belt and threw it down because he had so much going on and was also possibly getting out of the way of oncoming players.

4. During this play, the ball came really close to the pylon so it was necessary for both officials to confer. The first question asked was probably by the short wing -- did he cross the goal line with possession? The deep wing likely answered, no, and then they discussed where the ball was when it crossed the sideline. Either they agreed or one was more adament than the other and they went with that person. To say it is ALWAYS one or the other's call is incorrect. If you don't know what they're watching for, you can't know how they came to the conclusion they came to.

5. You can pretty much discount any signal either made immediately after. Like the dropping of the flag, they're more interested in ending up with the correct -- as they see it -- call. They're not going to stay with something solely because there was a particular signal given just like they didn't call a foul because of the dropped flag.

With all that said, there doesn't appear to be a definitive angle that shows one way or the other. It appears in one video that the runner's left hand pushes the ball forward (relative to sideline) at the last second. THAT made all the difference in the world since if it doesn't happen, the ball almost certainly goes clearly to the OOB side of the pylon. Of all the videos I've seen, only one appears to show the ball going slightly to the outside of the pylon (meaning OOB, not TB) but all the rest of the videos appear to show the ball crossing the sideline over the pylon, meaning TB.

I do wish these games would be worked by a third party conference rather than one or the other.

---

You might be a lawyer, but I'm an engineer and I understand momentum and geometry.

---

He just charged somebody $250.00 an hour to compose that rant on TexAgs...

And he is wrong.

That part of my problem with replay when they use "conclusive evidence" and such similar terms.

Take for example a 4th and 1. Lets say it looks like the runner made it by a half yard. But the spot is a half yard short. Now replay sees the runner clearly take the ball mid chest between both hands and lower his body into the line. From the overhead shot it appears his waist at least crossed the needed yardage but you can see no ball. From the other angles to many bodies to see ball so the ruling is call stands. Common sense and physics is a first down. We make it way too complicated.

Every replay system grants way too much confidence to the human making the call on the field. The replay booth should have the ability to make a call based on the preponderance of the evidence without even taking into consideration the call on the field, but nobody in any sport that I'm aware of has had the courage to put in a system like that.

Another great example of this was the Jose Altuve play at the plate in MLB the other night. You show the replays to 100 people in slow-mo a few times and I guarantee you like 95-98 of them will say they think he was probably safe, but because we don't have like a pressure sensitive plate or contact sensors on gloves... so it was theoretically possible that maybe he brushed him barely with the glove and they couldn't tell... or possibly Jose's hand didn't hit the plate when it looked like his hand hit the plate, maybe it was really down an instant later. So what ends up happening is that the idiots always looking at this get wishy washy with what amount to legalese (indisputable evidence) and the guy who ends up making the call is the guy who only got to see it once at full speed in the heat of the moment (ie the most likely guy to get it wrong).

^^^^^ that call was bullcrap too.......

This would probably be a wildly unpopular idea, but why not put RFID tags in the front, back, and sides of the football? It wouldn't effect the weight or feel of the football, and then you could actually get accurate data on the location of a football.

Again, I know it wouldn't be popular, but science/technology!

texancanuck11 said:

---

This would probably be a wildly unpopular idea, but why not put RFID tags in the front, back, and sides of the football? It wouldn't effect the weight or feel of the football, and then you could actually get accurate data on the location of a football.

Again, I know it wouldn't be popular, but science/technology!

---

It wouldn't "affect".

And no, RFID tags don't work that way at all.

FriscoKid said:

---

texancanuck11 said:

---

This would probably be a wildly unpopular idea, but why not put RFID tags in the front, back, and sides of the football? It wouldn't effect the weight or feel of the football, and then you could actually get accurate data on the location of a football.

Again, I know it wouldn't be popular, but science/technology!

---

It wouldn't "affect".

And no, RFID tags don't work that way at all.

---

Apologies, those two always get me confused. So maybe not RFID, but is there some technology that can show precise ball location?

And also, if that existed, would it be accepted into sports?

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

Why not just put a camera in the pylon looking up at the sky? Wouldn't that take care of all off this in the future?

---

Putting two chips in each end of the football would take care of everything.

"ITS THIRD DOWN, 3' 4 5/8" to go"

What yall said. Sorry I didnt read all the way down

It would also fix the abysmal strike zones in baseball.

I know, I know, wrong thread

"its ball"

Agnzona said:

---

That part of my problem with replay when they use "conclusive evidence" and such similar terms.

Take for example a 4th and 1. Lets say it looks like the runner made it by a half yard. But the spot is a half yard short. Now replay sees the runner clearly take the ball mid chest between both hands and lower his body into the line. From the overhead shot it appears his waist at least crossed the needed yardage but you can see no ball. From the other angles to many bodies to see ball so the ruling is call stands. Common sense and physics is a first down. We make it way too complicated.

---

This was exactly the case in a replay that screwed LSU against ND in their bowl game a couple years ago. One view showed half the equation to reverse the call and another view showed the other half but they couldn't add one and one to get two. The play had to do with a runner trying to score a TD and I can't remember if he fumbled or if it was 4th down and it was an issue of did he get in. But one view showed his knee and some other aspects of his body positioning and the other view showed the ball and the same aspects of body positioning. Yet they were unable to tie the knee and the ball together.
Basically, in replay if A=B and B=C, A=/=C.

texancanuck11 said:

---

WOW, it doesn't confirm anything.

If it was ruled the way you wanted, Clemson could make the same argument. He graduated from FSU and therefore hates Clemson and that's why it went in our favor.

I am enjoying all the WOWs though!

---

Pretty hard to argue that was a touchback regardless

Agnzona said:

---

That's why I have said I hope to heck they are taught when its close choose out if bounds everytime. If you are wrong it can be overturned.

---

Exactly. Because if you go automatically with worst-case call, then the chances of overturning that worst-case call is much less likely than vice versa.

It was a bad call.

We still scored on the next possession. We still had to go for two.

We crapped the bed on the two point try.

Move on.

How can tennis determine the exact location of where a ball hits, but football can't tell if a ball goes inside our outside of a pylon?

Lasers

TyperWoods said:

---

It was a bad call.

We still scored on the next possession. We still had to go for two.

We crapped the bed on the two point try.

Move on.

---

I get frustrated every time I see this logic. Let me spell out to you why it mattered.
1) if we score from the one yard line we are down by two and go for the two-point conversion. Let's assume we miss the conversion.
2) we kick off and they start with similar field position as the touchback. We stopped them with enough time left to score a td last time while a fg is all that is needed for the win. There was plenty of time left as they took a knee twice after the onside kick following our td. To act like we weren't moving the ball when we took it back for a score or to act like there wasn't time for a fg when they still had to take a knee is just nonsense.

So does this mean Hillary is president now?

I can't believe that with today's technology, we can't eliminate the need for subjective human calls at the boundaries (sidelines or goal lines; or home plates).

We have fly-by-wire cameras, drones, lasers, sound curtains, light curtains, thermal imaging, etc. Are you telling me we seriously can't have a perfect view from directly overhead, and along horizontal positions, down the lines ? We can read license plates from our satellites, but can't see in a straight planar view down the lines?

Even if it would cost big bucks, surely the money/profits associated with college football could foot the bill. And, it would help every team. If you include the NF(ing)L in the mix, and MLB (eliminate the home plate umpire making calls for balls and strikes), the cost would be negligible.

Just sayin' !

There needs to be some kind of motion detector or such that detects motion above the pylon.

LukeDuke said:

---

cevans_40 said:

---

Just a couple of things to clear up. Waving both hands overhead is the signal to stop the clock. The bean is to be dropped to mark where possession of the ball was lost not to mark where it went out of bounds. And it was the sidejudge who should have made the call. But they still botched the call in my opinion. Carry on.

---

Wrong - in the NCAA waving hands above head is signal for a touchback

---

No. It isn't.

https://www.ncaa.org/sites/default/files/Football%20Official%20Signals%20Sheet.pdf

they are foam.

they could literally make them 6 feet tall.

would negate 99% of issues. how often if ever have you seen one of these and the ball is more than 2-3 feet above the ground? i never have. cuz they are always diving.

Bill Superman said:

---

He should be fired.

He has proven an inability to competently perform his job and changed a call that that changes the outcome of a game when it is the sideline refs job to make that call.

There is entirely too much investment in this to be able to make such game changing decisions and to be so blantabtly wrong.

---

That's silly.

Zombie Jon Snow said:

---

they are foam.

they could literally make them 6 feet tall.

would negate 99% of issues. how often if ever have you seen one of these and the ball is more than 2-3 feet above the ground? i never have. cuz they are always diving.

---

I like this idea. If it hits the pylon then it is a touchback. Could mount more cameras also.