was QB past line reviewable

[Cowtown]

Was the Ark St QB past the line a reviewable play?

Anyone know?

[buff64]

Was the Ark St QB past the line a reviewable play?

Anyone know?

←

I reviewed it several times. Does that count ?

[GoMeanGreen1999]

No it is not reviewable.

[Cowtown]

sure

I reviewed it several times. Does that count ?

←

[Arkstfan]

Actually if you look at the list of reviewable plays...

Reviewable

1. Plays governed by Sideline, Goal Line, End Zone, and End Line:

- Scoring plays, including a runner breaking the plane of the

goal line

- Pass complete/incomplete/intercepted at side line, goal line

and end line

- Runner/receiver in or out of bounds

- Recovery of loose ball in bounds

2. Passing Plays:

- Pass ruled complete/incomplete/intercepted in the fi eld of

play and end zones

- Touching of a forward pass by an ineligible receiver

- Touching of a forward pass by a defensive player

- Quarterback (passer) forward pass of fumble (if ruled incomplete,

play is fi nalized)

- Illegal forward pass or illegal handling beyond the line of

scrimmage

- Illegal forward pass or illegal handling after change of possession

- Forward or backward pass thrown from behind the line of

scrimmage

3. Other Detectable Infractions:

- Runner ruled not down

- Forward progress errors with respect to fi rst down

- Touching of a kick

- Number of players on the fi eld

- Clock adjustments

- Fourth down/try fumble plays

[Cowtown]

If that is the case, why on earth didnt we challenge?

The Ark St QB was almos 2 yards past the los.

I think (the tequila was starting to numb me at that point) that was on 3rd down. A few plays later they scored.

Next question:

What is the penalty for Illegial pass beyone the Line?

[El Paso Eagle]

Next question:

What is the penalty for Illegial pass beyone the Line?

←

Loss of down and "x" yards

[gangrene]

Yes, that is definitely a reviewable play. I've seen that same scenario reviewed and overturned several times. Now, having said that, I'm not sure the SBC replay camera angles would have proven much. Did anyone else hear the TV commentary about the SBC replay rules? They refuse to use the TV broadcast footage, opting to go solely with the in-stadium, mounted cameras....they showed one such camera at ASU and it looks like a security camera at 7-Eleven. It was mounted near the goal line under the eave of the upper deck! It certainly doesn't appear that a better image could be captured by that camera compared to what would be available from the TV cameras. Does anyone have any insight as to why the SBC chose this replay reviewal method?

[Arkstfan]

Yes, that is definitely a reviewable play.  I've seen that same scenario reviewed and overturned several times.  Now, having said that, I'm not sure the SBC replay camera angles would have proven much.  Did anyone else hear the TV commentary about the SBC replay rules?  They refuse to use the TV broadcast footage, opting to go solely with the in-stadium, mounted cameras....they showed one such camera at ASU and it looks like a security camera at 7-Eleven.  It was mounted near the goal line under the eave of the upper deck!      It certainly doesn't appear that a better image could be captured by that camera compared to what would be available from the TV cameras.  Does anyone have any insight as to why the SBC chose this replay reviewal method?

←

The athletic directors believe that every game ought to be played under similar conditions. The league uses a five camera system. 1 in or on the press box, 2 in each end zone, 2 fixed to shoot down each goal line opposite the press box camera.

So far this year I've seen three plays in televised games where the issue of the ball breaking the plane of the goal came into play and it appeared that the call on the field was wrong but because the television feed did not include a shot precisely down the line the calls could not be overturned. So that part of the system I certainly like. That is a key call and often a very close call. The goal line call at ASU that was reviewed there was not an adequate TV shot of the play.

The high sideline shot should have been more than adequate for review because I believe that camera was next to to the camera ESPN used to show that replay.

[ntsumgspe]

Like I said after the missed call on the ESPN2 game last week that hurt FAU, we have a second rate (at best) replay system in the Sun Belt.

[TIgreen01]

When in the game did that play happen? On the drive to make it 23-10 or 29-10? Who knows if it would've mattered with the way we were tackling that night...