Could the conspiracy theorists be right?

[I40flyer]

I'm not sure if I care. If the SEC wants to manipulate what teams get in/get out, then let it happen.

IF it was SEC vs ACC or SEC vs B1G, etc...then I can understand the frustration.

I can't believe any American would make that statement. It's a shame how far down our society has gotten in the few years.

 

[ShoalCreekVol]

If UT believes that the officials were talking to someone via their headsets that they shouldn't have been, then UT can quite easily investigate without need the SEC's assistance or blessing.

How? Those are closed circuit radio, and UT doesn't have access to the communications. Also, the SEC officials are not under UT's authority, so the SEC would have to handle it.

You may be thinking about the home team providing the DVSport replay system, but that is just the DVR and cameras. No one but officials is allowed on the ref's radio system.

Now, regarding the personal foul call in question, since a personal foul is not a reviewable penalty, the bottom line is:

1) If the official SAW something happen and wanted to flag it, then so be it;

2) However, if he SAW it then he wouldn't have to be talking illegally to a third party somewhere else to find out what happened.

The only reason to be talking to someone else, as they CLEARLY were (Pereira is 100% right as the video shows), was if someone like that Bama coach standing there is telling you something happened but you didn't SEE it happen....

 

[bamawriter]

First, Rogers Redding specifically wrote about this in his rules enforcement memo last year:


Since, as you say, Bama didn't huddle but DID have a player enter the field during a non-huddle situation, then TN should've been given a chance by the ref to substitute, and those seconds would've given them time to adjust as needed.

Bama didn't substitute. The TE that ran onto the field was not replacing anyone. Bama came on to the field with only 10 players.

 

[bamawriter]

How? Those are closed circuit radio, and UT doesn't have access to the communications. Also, the SEC officials are not under UT's authority, so the SEC would have to handle it.

You may be thinking about the home team providing the DVSport replay system, but that is just the DVR and cameras. No one but officials is allowed on the ref's radio system.

Now, regarding the personal foul call in question, since a personal foul is not a reviewable penalty, the bottom line is:

1) If the official SAW something happen and wanted to flag it, then so be it;

2) However, if he SAW it then he wouldn't have to be talking illegally to a third party somewhere else to find out what happened.

The only reason to be talking to someone else, as they CLEARLY were (Pereira is 100% right as the video shows), was if someone like that Bama coach standing there is telling you something happened but you didn't SEE it happen....

The closed circuit receivers for the officials' headsets are in the stadium. It's not like they're operating off of a cell tower. Anyone talking to an official via his headset is also in the stadium. This cannot possibly that big of a mystery.

 

[ShoalCreekVol]

I have seen this called in at least a dozen games.. go watch it.. clock hits zero, snap has not been made.. clock is easily at -1 when he snaps ball.. it is delay of game and loss of down. There is no way around it in any interpretation of the rules.

How hard would it be to have a loud horn or buzzer on the play clock like they have on the game clock?

There is no reason for this not to already be in place. Then the ref just watches the ball and if it isn't snapped when the horn goes off, it's a penalty.

 

[smokey90]

All I know is CBJ was decidedly NOT happy about the officiating last night. Given the Alabama late substitutions that happened several times last night beginning with the first play from scrimage, it does make one wonder.

Why wasn't the first play discussed on TV? That was so painfully obvious and this is the first I've seen some else mention it.

 

[Smallvol#1]

How hard would it be to have a loud horn or buzzer on the play clock like they have on the game clock?

There is no reason for this not to already be in place. Then the ref just watches the ball and if it isn't snapped when the horn goes off, it's a penalty.

Intelligent, interesting, informative, substantiated, .....please keep posting.

 

[mpfvol]

The delay of game should be changed after this year to the NFL style if the play clock hits 0 blow the whistle. Their have been to many times they are late and it helped 1 team twice UF imagine that. As for bamawriter GTFO really you are not allowed to set your offense and then send a guy on the feild after the D has set.

 

[ShoalCreekVol]

The closed circuit receivers for the official's headsets are in the stadium. It's not like they're operating off of a cell tower. Anyone talking to an official via his headset is also in the stadium. This cannot possibly that big of a mystery.

It seems you don't know what "closed circuit" means. I'm sorry about that.

Think of it like when a Bama fan is at his trailer and he's using the can & string to talk to his stepdaughter "Sis" at the other end of the trailer. They can hear each other, but people in the rest of the trailer park can't necessarily hear them. Only people with a can on their string can be in the conversation.

By rule only the ON-FIELD refs can wear the officials' radios. The "receivers" you speak of are only allowed on the belts of the on-field refs. They are also what we call "transmitters" too. Both functions are handled by the little box that *ONLY* the *ON-FIELD* refs wear on their belts. Some officials are given "listen only" radios and some have the ability to talk too.

The head Referee is the only one allowed to also have radio communication with the instant replay booth. None of the others can do that. Personal fouls are not reviewable, so there is no reason for him to be talking to the replay booth.

So no, no one with UT or Bama could know what is being said or who is being talked to. And if the refs give someone else one of the radios and they are NOT on the field, then it is illegal. (Illegal means against the rules. Whether you get caught or not.) He should ONLY be able to talk to the on-field officials and the replay booth. So all he has to do is say who he was talking to.

The only way anyone can "investigate" who the R was talking/listening to is to have them give a statement, which schools don't have the authority to do. The SEC could clear this up instantly by issuing a statement explaining what was going on, but instead they've chosen to simply say it didn't happen. When anyone watching can see that he was clearly talking and listening to SOMEONE.

 

[bamawriter]

As for bamawriter GTFO really you are not allowed to set your offense and then send a guy on the feild after the D has set.

As long as he gets inside the numbers and gets set, you sure as heck are allowed to do it.

 

[bamawriter]

The only way anyone can "investigate" who the R was talking/listening to is to have them give a statement, which schools don't have the authority to do. The SEC could clear this up instantly by issuing a statement explaining what was going on, but instead they've chosen to simply say it didn't happen. When anyone watching can see that he was clearly talking and listening to SOMEONE.

I removed the portion of your post that was nothing more than a long, rambling recap of what I'd just said.

As for the paragraph I left: As you acknowledged, if the ref was talking to someone on his headset, that person was inside the stadium, whether in the replay booth of on the sideline or somewhere. There are only so many people who could have been in a position to access that system, and the school will have had to issue a pass to every last one. So, like I said: this can't possibly be hard to figure out.

 

[Bope]

How could you ever prove an accusation like that, though? It isn't like they are gonna man up and confess. And speaking of manning up/ man upping, how come we don't have any female referees?

Someone with some technical knowledge needs to tap into the officials headset system and record the conversations taking place during the game.

Go full NSA. I am certain that this could be accomplished.

 

[Bope]

I removed the portion of your post that was nothing more than a long, rambling recap of what I'd just said.

As for the paragraph I left: As you acknowledged, if the ref was talking to someone on his headset, that person was inside the stadium, whether in the replay booth of on the sideline or somewhere. There are only so many people who could have been in a position to access that system, and the school will have had to issue a pass to every last one. So, like I said: this can't possibly be hard to figure out.

That is pure speculation. You have no idea who is on that headset system. To say "it's not that hard to figure out" is simply inviting people to make assumptions based on speculation. There is no evidence to suggest what you are saying is true.

 

[bamawriter]

That is pure speculation. You have no idea who is on that headset system. To say "it's not that hard to figure out" is simply inviting people to make assumptions based on speculation. There is no evidence to suggest what you are saying is true.

It is a closed circuit system with extremely limited access. The school may not have a sign-up sheet for access, but they absolutely have a list of folks whose passes allow them anywhere near those receivers, and that list cannot possibly be all that long.

 

[ShoalCreekVol]

As long as he gets inside the numbers and gets set, you sure as heck are allowed to do it.

As shown by what I said before (that was quoted from the refs operations guide and Rogers Redding's memo about enforcement), you are correct that the player can come on the field but incorrect that the refs aren't supposed to then step over the ball and give the defense 3 seconds.

Butch isn't saying it's an illegal substitution. He's saying the ref should then have given the defense their allotted time.

His quote: “Actually, they ran a late substitution in,” explained Jones. “This is a matching personnel game, and we felt play should have been held up a little bit. But, it didn't work in that. So what happened was the nickel, based on where they aligned, was on the other side of the field.”

 

[bamawriter]

As shown by what I said before (that was quoted from the refs operations guide and Rogers Redding's memo about enforcement), you are correct that the player can come on the field but incorrect that the refs aren't supposed to then step over the ball and give the defense 3 seconds.

Butch isn't saying it's an illegal substitution. He's saying the ref should then have given the defense their allotted time.

His quote: “Actually, they ran a late substitution in,” explained Jones. “This is a matching personnel game, and we felt play should have been held up a little bit. But, it didn't work in that. So what happened was the nickel, based on where they aligned, was on the other side of the field.”

It was not a substitution. Who was the player being subbed in for?

This tactic only works on the first play of a drive or following a timeout, because in those instances, you don't already have 11 guys on the field.

 

[ShoalCreekVol]

I removed the portion of your post that was nothing more than a long, rambling recap of what I'd just said.

As for the paragraph I left: As you acknowledged, if the ref was talking to someone on his headset, that person was inside the stadium, whether in the replay booth of on the sideline or somewhere. There are only so many people who could have been in a position to access that system, and the school will have had to issue a pass to every last one. So, like I said: this can't possibly be hard to figure out.

Good lord you're ignorant on this subject. THE SCHOOL DOESN'T ISSUE "PASSES" OR HAVE ANY ACCESS TO THE SYSTEM. It's not a school system. They are totally closed out of it.

I am personally familiar with the system used by the SEC b/c of my work. The same system was being tested (along with 2 others, last I heard) by the B1G but I don't know if they purchased it or not.

* The system was purchased by the conference and is maintained by them (with a technician's help). The school doesn't provide it and they didn't pay for it directly (meaning to the vendor, anyway, they may have had to pay the SEC for them).
* These things are outrageously expensive, like high 4 to low 5 figures each.
* There is no base station or central unit. These devices talk to each other only.
* They use unlicensed frequencies but the communications are heavily encrypted.
* Some units are configured for listen-only, some are talk and listen. There are specific rules about who can talk and who can't, so the devices have to be configured accordingly.
* By rule they can only be used by on-field officials. Only the head Ref can talk to or hear the replay booth.

So, since the SEC supplies the units, only they really know how many are there or are in use. Everyone knows, b/c of the rules, how many there are SUPPOSED to be, but no one can really check the officials to be sure they are complying. You just have to take their word for it.

If the Ref is only allowed to be talking to other officials who are on the field at that moment (since the booth was off-limits b/c the play wasn't reviewable), and yet he clearly appears to be talking to someone else, then an explanation from the SEC is due. And the school has no way to possibly investigate it themselves.

 

[ShoalCreekVol]

Someone with some technical knowledge needs to tap into the officials headset system and record the conversations taking place during the game.

Go full NSA. I am certain that this could be accomplished.

Just for the record, it was originally discussed that all of it would be recorded and saved by the conference. Slive shot it down, HARD. He was having none of that.

 

[ShoalCreekVol]

It was not a substitution. Who was the player being subbed in for?

This tactic only works on the first play of a drive or following a timeout, because in those instances, you don't already have 11 guys on the field.

From earlier: "If Team A is in a no-huddle formation and substitutes, or if they have already broken the huddle and a substitute then enters the field, either of these situations will trigger the administration of Rule 3-5-2-e. Team B is afforded a match up opportunity if they do so immediately (3 seconds). "

This covers no-huddle and huddling. In the rules, the term "substitute" is used for any player entering the field of play, whether he is a replacement or an aditional player.

Bama didn't huddle, but then had a player enter the field of play. The 3-second pause should've been administered.

 

[bamawriter]

Good lord you're ignorant on this subject. THE SCHOOL DOESN'T ISSUE "PASSES" OR HAVE ANY ACCESS TO THE SYSTEM. It's not a school system. They are totally closed out of it.

I have never suggested that the school regulates access to the system. The school does, however, regulate access to the stadium. So they know who was, or was not, in the stadium during the game. Unless you are suggesting that the ref's headset somehow has a connection to the SEC offices in Birmingham, or that the person they were talking to purchased a ticket and was in the stands as opposed to on the sidelines or in a booth.

If either of those possibilities is what you're getting at, then I simply don't agree with you.

 

[bamawriter]

From earlier: "If Team A is in a no-huddle formation and substitutes, or if they have already broken the huddle and a substitute then enters the field, either of these situations will trigger the administration of Rule 3-5-2-e. Team B is afforded a match up opportunity if they do so immediately (3 seconds). "

This covers no-huddle and huddling. In the rules, the term "substitute" is used for any player entering the field of play, whether he is a replacement or an aditional player.

Bama didn't huddle, but then had a player enter the field of play. The 3-second pause should've been administered.

The substitution rule, as it pertains to a vacancy, only applies to the period between downs. Look up the definition of "substitution" in the rule book. It is the first sentence of the section. Which is why, like I said, this tactic can only be used on the very first play of a drive or coming out of a timeout. From there, the rule is only that he gets onto the field between the numbers, and then gets set before the snap.

 

[BGKYVol]

I have never suggested that the school regulates access to the system. The school does, however, regulate access to the stadium. So they know who was, or was not, in the stadium during the game. Unless you are suggesting that the ref's headset somehow has a connection to the SEC offices in Birmingham, or that the person they were talking to purchased a ticket and was in the stands as opposed to on the sidelines or in a booth.

If either of those possibilities is what you're getting at, then I simply don't agree with you.

He is saying that the official spoke to someone he was not suppposed to be speaking to, period. It does matter who it was because no matter who he was speaking to it was wrong. And because it was wrong the SEC should investigate, not UT. The SEC is responsible for the conduct of its officials, not UT. And if any of them acted inappropriately, they should face the music.

No one on this board really expects you to agree.
Why would you?
Any missteps by the officials benefitted your team.

I do not know if there is any conspiracy or not, but I do know a couple of things.
1 The money at stake has gotten so huge that the SEC has a vested interest in ensuring as many of its teams in the playoffs or major bowls as possible.
2 The vast majority of the blatantly bad calls over the last few years have been to the benefit of the higher ranked or more marketable teams in the SEC.
If MSU goes undefeated in the SEC it will be a monumental achievement as they will not get the benefit of the doubt from any SEC officials.

 

[bamawriter]

He is saying that the official spoke to someone he was not suppposed to be speaking to, period. It does matter who it was because no matter who he was speaking to it was wrong. And because it was wrong the SEC should investigate, not UT. The SEC is responsible for the conduct of its officials, not UT. And if any of them acted inappropriately, they should face the music.

Well, the SEC has already commented and they completely dismissed Pereira's assertions. So they aren't going to be doing anything.

My point in all of this is if UT thinks something was going on that shouldn't have been, then they have a fairly simple way to call the SEC on their BS.

 

[BGKYVol]

Well, the SEC has already commented and they completely dismissed Pereira's assertions. So they aren't going to be doing anything.

My point in all of this is if UT thinks something was going on that shouldn't have been, then they have a fairly simple way to call the SEC on their BS.

All UT can do is ask the SEC to investigate, but since the SEC is already denying anything happened that avenue is closed as well. UT has no way of investigating what an individual official did.
It is like asking a corrupt person to admit that their accomplice is corrupt.
If Redding can deny anything happened when anyone could plainly see that something was happening then you have no recourse.
Typical SEC BS

 

[bamawriter]

All UT can do is ask the SEC to investigate, but since the SEC is already denying anything happened that avenue is closed as well. UT has no way of investigating what an individual official did.
It is like asking a corrupt person to admit that their accomplice is corrupt.
If Redding can deny anything happened when anyone could plainly see that something was happening then you have no recourse.
Typical SEC BS

I disagree that UT can't do anything, but I understand where you're coming from, so I'll leave that alone.

The interesting thing to me, in this particular instance, is that I cannot figure out what they would have been discussing at that moment. The personal foul they called was fairly obvious. If they were getting a second opinion on whether an ejection was warranted, then that appears to have worked out in UT's favor.