And adding more:
That way, you're more likely to have two independent opinions of the replays.
Now, we have a replay official, who has already seen the TV copy (and probably a couple replays) imposing his opinion heavily on the game official. It creates a weird one-sided convo.
Now that we can hear the communication, I find the replay system incredibly flawed. The replay official seems FAR too influential, imposing his opinion immediately. Why? The game official should come to the monitor, ID the call on the field, and be shown the replays. (1/2) ...
... If replay confirmed his the on-field call, then move on. But if the on-field official has concern, then a conversation should ensue.
What do we have here?
What do you see?
Is there enough evidence?
@BoilerBreakPod Yeah, I guess. But that's my logic at kicking the extra pt. If you hold OSU to a FG, you're down only 8. Stays one possession.
If IU doesn't get that two, then I'd guess its winning percentage index drops significantly. Did it improve much going from 5 to 4?
Tonight’s officiating in a nutshell: The umpire called the penalty on the offense after the fumble but pointed to Washington, then walked it off vs Purdue.
Sure. Whatever works.
I do love when The Exponent newsroom wishes me a great fall break as I’m leaving the office on Thursday evening.
I’ll … I’ll be back here tomorrow and all next week. I, uh, work here full-time.