[Husker] Reviewed Call

[Dick Karre]

On 9/17/2012 7:51 AM, Nick Chevance wrote:
> The TV people during the game reviewed the video and were seemingly 
> divided over the outcome of the play. I've gone back and watched my 
> DVR, and the camera angle from the side seems to show the ball and 
> foot at approximately the same place, and the ball bouncing away from 
> the foot. However, the camera angle from behind the play clearly shows 
> the ball bouncing on the turf (the ball appears to be nose down which 
> would cause the ball to bounce in an different direction) a foot or 
> more (hard to judge distance) from the players foot. Also its pretty 
> easy to see the shadow of the ball and the shadow of the player from 
> the overhead sun, and they just don't meet when the ball bounces. And 
> I'd also agree with the comment by Stephen above that the small cloud 
> of rubber bits that come up when the ball strikes the ground is not 
> where the player's foot is. Not a cataclysmic play, but it bothered me 
> so I stayed up late last night to look at the footage. Blown call, not 
> by the referee but by the replay booth official. And a blown coverage 
> by Nebraska because he shouldn't have been that close to the ball. 
> Overall, though, it was a good game and the call had little effect on 
> the outcome. Because of the horrible delay, I was forced to listen to 
> the TV duo rather than the radio folks while watching the game (the TV 
> was almost two plays behind the radio - like fingernails on a 
> chalkboard). My, they weren't very good. The color guy had almost no 
> color to add - and this is not about his ethnicity, its about his near 
> total silence about the changes on the defensive side of the ball for 
> Nebraska that seemed so effective against ASU, or really anything much 
> at all about what was happening on the field. And if you were just 
> listening to the broadcast, I think you might have mistaken it for CNN 
> with late breaking non-news about Bo Pelini in the second half. They 
> seemed to miss most of what was happening on the field. Now, another 
> tune up with Idaho State, then bring on Wisconsin. Let's hope 
> Wisconsin doesn't improve much in the next two weeks (they've got UTEP 
> at home - can they score more than 20?). Nick 

To my mind, the best evidence that the ball did not hit Ameer was the 
absence of any reaction on his part. I don't think it's possible NOT to 
react if the player feels the ball strike him. I don't know whether the 
replay official can consider that or not. Without it, I couldn't say the 
evidence was conclusive.

As for the announcers, my "favorite" part (aside from the endless Pelini 
drama) was their inability to understand what Bo was complaining about 
after NU called time on the second play of the game. I thought it was 
fairly obvious that he wanted the refs to give the Blackshirts time to 
match ASU's substitutions, something the rules require. And even when 
the refs did that, the announcers continued to claim that NU was 
scrambling to get subs on the field in time. They weren't as annoying as 
Gus Johnson (WHO HAS TO SHOUT THE CALL OF EVERY PLAY BECAUSE, MY GOD, IT 
COULD BE THE END OF THE WORLD!!!!), but not very good.

-- 
Dick Karre
dkarre at comcast.net