Expert: Vic Winnek - 10/28/2007

Question
Isn't one of the purposes of the press box review of a call on the field to correct the official's miss call?  At the end of the review of the fumbled (or muffed) punt reception, the recall booth said it was an inadvertant whistle so the play would stand.  I sence an inconsistancy here.  The official's call was wrong but they won't correct it.

Answer
Rick
Thank you for the question.  I am still following up with the crew on this situation.  I understand your query and I too still have some questions about this play.  My preliminary analysis of this play is it may have been announced incorrectly by the Referee and that is what has cause some confusion...

Based solely on my review of the play without any other information from the officials, the Back Judge was correct on the field initially.  There was a catch and the ball was dead.  What happened next I am not sure about and will advise once I get some more information.  My expert opinion is that there was no inadvertent signal (there was no inadvertent whistle as announced it was an inadvertent signal that was described).  Once I have an opportunity to get more information from my sources on this play I will post a follow up to this replay.  My preliminary opinion is the ball was dead upon the catch by the receiver as first ruled by the BJ.

A side note:  you are slightly correct about the perceive inconsistencies with replay.  We now have to officiate in such a way so as to allow reply.  Prior to replay officials had to get the calls right!  Now with replay we might rule slightly differently so that replay can be invoked [i.e. arm of passer going forward, in old days we would rule incomplete pass but now we tend to hold back and allow it to be considered a fumble so Replay can review it and over turn us on the field].  Because of replay we do officiate differently and although it might be perceive an error on the field, it is truly a intended as called on the field so as to give replay an opportunity to review it and make sure it is correct.

Victor C. Winnek
NCAA Football Official


My analysis remains the BJ was correct (but I dont know how he would have been able to have seen the receivers lower leg hit the ground...).  But evidently, he didnt stick with his call/signal and the ruling on the field was that the ball was caught, fumbled and recovered by A. I suspect teh BJ did not stick with his calls so replay could review the play.  Hence the ruling on the field allowed IR to get in on it.  Replay reversed the call.  However IR also saw the catch and receiver down BUT IR also saw the BJ give a signal which was in conflict with what IR was told by the referee that the ruling on the field was a catch fumble.  So IR told the Referee that there was a reversal based on the Inadvertant Signal.   They got it right but it sure looked ugly.  The confusion was on the part of the officials not communicating or articulating as well as they could have, but they did get the call correct.