Extra point | Syracusefan.com

Extra point

JustPherU

All Conference
Joined
Dec 7, 2020
Messages
2,973
Like
4,645
Did anyone see a replay of the blocked extra point? It looked to me as if we recovered it and then lost it on a fumble. If we did indeed recover it then the play should of been ruled dead as soon as we had possession.
 
Did anyone see a replay of the blocked extra point? It looked to me as if we recovered it and then lost it on a fumble. If we did indeed recover it then the play should of been ruled dead as soon as we had possession.

bear tried to pick it up and run with it.
 
I’m pretty sure the rule states as soon as offensive team has possession of a blocked extra point the play should be ruled dead. I’m surprised there was not a review of the play
If that’s the rule then the special teams coach should have coached them to always fall on the ball in the event of a block - oh wait, there is no special teams coach
 
This play infuriated me. The 2-point return was not valid, yet it ended up being the margin of SU deficit for much of the 4th quarter. No one seemed to question it either. The announcers completely missed the fact that McKinley Williams ever touched the football. Even in the game thread, maybe only a couple SU fans mentioned it. I thought the entire board would flip out over it.

Admittedly, I did not know exactly what happened live speed. But it was obvious on just the 1st replay. Kick was blocked. Williams recovered and tried to advance the ball. Williams was knocked to the ground. At that point the play was over...PERIOD. While he was flat on the ground, the ball squirted out a second later and VT ran it back. I thought every scoring play had to be reviewed. There is no way that play should have stood. Every detail I mentioned was conclusive.

I am not sure about every aspect of the blocked PAT rule. My understanding is that if it goes beyond the line of scrimmage and is recovered anywhere by the kicking team, the ball is immediately dead. If the defending team recovers it anywhere in bounds (but not the end zone), it can advance it back in an attempt for 2 points.

What I am not sure about is whether the kicking team can recover the ball behind the line of scrimmage and advance it to earn the extra point, should the player reach the end zone. I always thought that scenario does count for a point. For that reason, I think it was a good football play for Williams to try to advance the ball. Whether the ball was in front or behind the line is tough to say. Bottom line, none of this matters because that play was never a fumble. The refs blew it horrendously and very few (except the astute and eagle-eyed contributors of this thread) noticed.
 
... The 2-point return was not valid, yet it ended up being the margin of SU deficit for much of the 4th quarter. No one seemed to question it either. ... The refs blew it horrendously and very few (except the astute and eagle-eyed contributors of this thread) noticed.
Our special teams / PAT coach should have spotted it - - oh wait ...
 
yes you can recover and advance a blocked kick.

the fact it was not really reviewed is an issue.

which also makes me wonder why coaches never use TOs for review of plays that can mean something. I mean that had tons of time to ask the players what happened..

the camera work is so bad they often have no angles on many of these plays.. but no way they didnt have the cameras rolling from behind and the sidelines and we never really saw either of those angles..
 
Imagine if the 90% probability event had occurred, and we had lost 34-36? Because of this bogusness.
 
Feels like the entire ACC official-dom should be fired and started over in the name of Equality, in keeping with the current National movement, but it won't happen. (Obviously, duh)

They act this way for a reason, on purpose
 
This is from the NCAA rulebook.



The head coach of either team may request that the game be stopped and a play be reviewed by challenging the on-field ruling.

1. A head coach initiates this challenge by taking a team timeout before the ball is next legally put in play (Exception: Rule 12-3-6-d) and informing the referee that they are challenging the ruling of the previous play. If a head coach’s challenge is successful, they retain the challenge, which may be used only once more during the game. Thus, a coach may have a total of two challenges if and only if the initial challenge is successful.

2. After a review has been completed, if the on-field ruling is reversed, that team’s timeout will not be charged.

3. After a review has been completed, and the on-field ruling is not reversed, the charged team timeout counts as one of the three permitted that team for that half or the one permitted in that extra period.
 
Starting on page 115 of the link I posted above, it goes over what plays are reviewable if anyone is interested.
 
coaches have 3 challenges if they want.

The coaches have no challenges in college

They can call a TO and ask the refs to review it but it’s up to the refs/main officiating office to review it.


With all of that being said, we absolutely need to have a ST coach.

We literally almost lost that game due to our special teams….whether it’s punting, extra pts, FGs, KOs we are really really struggling on ST and it needs to be addressed ASAP
 
We don’t win reviews. I wonder what the percentage of calls are going our way?
Good question. To find out, I was not going to scan through all 8 games on video but referenced the play-by-play section of Stats on SU Athletics website. Some of the notations on there were curious. Conceivably, some info could have been left out. But I hope the source is accurate. People can let me know if they remember differently or find otherwise.

According to the site, there were no official replay reviews in the Rutgers, Albany, Liberty, and Clemson games -- all at Syracuse. That seems surprising but this was the only "authoritative" source I could find. The one Dome game that had reviews was Wake Forest (2). All three road games had reviews: Ohio (1); Florida State (6); V-Tech (4). Three of the four ACC games had reviews (none during Clemson).

Ohio (1)
-- A 7-yard SU reception was ruled incomplete/out-of-bounds; OVERTURNED - result, catch complete
1 Replay in favor of SU

Florida State (6)
-- Shrader fumble/SU recovery; OVERTURNED - result, incomplete pass
-- Tucker 10-yard run ruled 1st down (question on spot); CONFIRMED - result, SU first down
-- From FSU 1-yard line, Shrader short on rush; CONFIRMED - result, SU turns over on downs
-- Tucker 13-yard TD run (out of bounds question); OVERTURNED - result, no TD / SU ball at 1-yard line
-- Queeley 26-yard TD reception (out of bounds question); CONFIRMED - result, SU TD
-- Chestnut INT (question on catch); CONFIRMED - result, SU INT
4 replays in favor of SU; 2 in favor of FSU

Wake Forest (2)
-- Wake WR reception ruled incomplete/out-of-bounds; CONFIRMED - result, incomplete pass
-- Wake TD pass in O.T. ruled complete; CONFIRMED - result, WF TD
1 replays in favor of SU; 1 in favor of WF

V-Tech (4)
-- Tucker apparent fumble/SU recovery for 2 extra yards but RB ruled down; OVERTURNED - result, SU gains slight yardage
-- VT WR Robinson reception ruled incomplete/out-of-bounds; OVERTURNED - result, 30-yard reception to SU 8-yard line
-- VT RB Blackshear reception & run (question about trap catch); CONFIRMED - result, 30-yard reception to SU 40-yard line
-- Queeley 6-yard reception to convert on 3rd & 2 (question about catch); OVERTURNED - result, 4th down for SU
1 replay in favor of SU; 3 replays in favor of VT

In raw numbers, SU is favored in replays 7-6 but that does not tell the true story. Nothing in Ohio or WF was questionable. However, the ACC road games are rather suspect.

At FSU, Syracuse got screwed twice at the goal line on replay. Then 3 other times the refs used replay in what could have taken away favorable SU results. Fortunately, they were all quite conclusive. No favorable FSU plays were questioned.

At VT, the one replay in favor of SU was a minor benefit. The three in favor of VT were key plays for them. Upholding the Blackshear reception because there was no conclusive evidence otherwise was OK. But overturning the Robinson incomplete with equally questionable video evidence was not a good call.

Bottom line, the best answer is that SU has not gotten favorable replay reviews in some pretty big spots, which tends to stick out in our minds as SU fans. Watch out for these upcoming road games -- particularly NC State.
 
What I was most bothered by was Szmyt just standing there watching the whole melee and then making a charming soft attempt at trying to do anything about it.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
167,141
Messages
4,682,912
Members
5,901
Latest member
CarlsbergMD

Online statistics

Members online
78
Guests online
1,031
Total visitors
1,109


Top Bottom