University of North Carolina Athletics
Extra Points Mailbag
September 21, 2007 | Football
Sept. 21, 2007
by Lee Pace, Extra Points
There has been much dissection and discussion in the aftermath of the narrow loss to Virginia about replay protocol: What plays are reviewable by the replay official in the booth? Who makes those decisions? Do coaches get "challenges?" Where can the head coach accept input in deciding whether to challenge a call or not?
Tar Heel fan Bryan Evans of Huntsville, Ala., asked a question on many minds after the Heels lost 22-20 to the Cavaliers, the winning points coming on a Virginia field goal that was first ruled no good, then reversed after review in the booth.
"There was a lot of controversy over the reversed field goal Saturday against Virginia," Evans writes. "There also appeared to me to be a couple of plays that were not reviewed which might have gone the Tar Heels' way if they had been reviewed. Why did the officials allow a review of the field goal but not some other plays? What are the rules on how some calls are reviewed and others aren't?"
Every play in an ACC game is reviewable. The league office stations a replay official and a bevy of monitors and technology in a booth in the press box at each home game. The replay official watches each snap of the ball immediately after the play is blown dead and, if he sees anything questionable, informs the referee that the play is under review.
The head coaches are allowed one "challenge" each game--the college equivalent of an NFL official throwing his red flag onto the playing field to request a review. Virginia's Al Groh used that challenge in the third quarter when Chris Gould's 48-yard attempt was ruled no good. The play was reviewed and the kick deemed good after the replay showed it cleared the crossbar and was just inside the left upright. The replay also showed that back judge Virgil Valdez, positioned under the left upright, ducked as the ball was clearing the goal post. He was not looking at the ball and thus could not have known for sure whether the kick was good or not.
Much of the post-game conversation about the play addressed the issue of what influences caused Groh to challenge the call. On the field, the word was that one of the Virginia ball boys believed the kick was good and told Groh he needed to make the challenge. Gould himself believed it was good as well. On the ACC regional TV network, however, sideline reporter Scott Pryzwansky said on the air that Virginia athletic department staffers saw a replay from their vantage point in the press box and sent word to Groh to challenge the call.
Tar Heel coach Butch Davis said at his weekly press conference Monday that he did not question whether the kick was good, but he wanted an interpretation from the ACC as to whom a coach could receive input from when deciding whether to challenge a ruling. Doug Rhodes, the ACC Supervisor of Football Officials, answered the question, saying that impetus could come from anywhere.
"There is no prohibition to a third party, whether it's the video coordinator, the athletics director, the SID, or just the fan who's cooking hot dogs from phoning that in," Rhoads said. "The language of that rule doesn't address any third party."
What is not allowed, however, is for assistant coaches in the press box (or on the field, for that matter) to be watching any manner of replay, whether from television or the school's own video crew. Under NCAA rules, TV replay or monitor equipment is "prohibited at the sidelines, press box or other locations within the playing enclosure for coaching purposes during the game."
Several readers were also curious about the personal foul call on the Tar Heels earlier on the very drive that ended with the controversial field goal. Virginia had third-and-7 at its 42 yard line, and Hilee Taylor sacked Jameel Sewell and forced a fumble. Virginia recovered for a four-yard loss and would have punted with fourth-and-11. But Tar Heel freshman defensive back Charles Brown was whistled for unsportsmanlike conduct. That gave Virginia a first down and kept the drive alive.
"As Charles was walking off the field, he threw the ball back on the field," Davis said. "Unfortunately, it hit an official. The official thought it was a penalty. That was a horrible lesson to have to learn. We talk about it all the time: drop the ball or hand it to the official. It was a critical period. They were going to have to punt. But there is no way that kid intentionally threw the ball an official."
That exchange was as detrimental to the Tar Heels as a similar play a week earlier at East Carolina. The Tar Heels had just scored to cut ECU's lead to 24-23 midway through the third quarter, and they followed with an exquisitely timed onside kick attempt. They recovered the ball, but the play was negated because they were called for being offside. ECU kept the ball and drove down to score and widen its lead to 31-23.
"There's a sense on this team that we've beaten ourselves the last two weeks," quarterback T.J. Yates says.
I am wondering what can this defense do to get off the field more consistently on third down? Wesley Flagg and Durell Mapp are solid, but if Bruce Carter struggles, who do we go to? I think we will be competitive the rest of the year, barring some injuries in thin spots. That alone is improvement. I dare say in the recent years we'd have gotten beat 31-0 last Saturday. My feeling is there are a couple of upsets coming before the season's done. Regardless, this fan will be pulling with all my might for these young, fun, hard-working Tar Heels. These are better days and there are more ahead.
TJ, Statesville
Getting off the field on third down is certainly a priority for the defense, as is creating turnovers. Opponents are converting 44 percent of their third-down attempts against Carolina, ranking the Tar Heels 89th among 119 Bowl Subdivision teams. Carolina has gained three turnovers and lost seven--more than a difference of one per game. In two losses, Carolina hasn't recovered a fumble or intercepted a pass.
"When a defense is playing with a lot of confidence and is really in tune and focused and know their responsibilities, they can play recklessly--not un-disciplined--but recklessly," Davis says. "Then you have a chance to create some turnovers."
Davis said at midday on Monday that the staff had spent considerable time Sunday night and Monday morning in a thorough review of everything it was doing schematically. He suggested there was some thought the Tar Heels were trying to do too much, particularly on defense, and might cut back on variety of personnel groups, formations, stunts, dogs, blitzes and coverages this week.
"Are we asking too much, are we asking more mentally than they can handle with this amount of inexperience?" Davis wondered. "Maybe we're not giving our kids the best chance."
The simple answer to the question is the Tar Heels need to do two things: They need to grow up and they need to stockpile every position two and three players deep. Carolina is woefully young beyond the down linemen and has severe depth issues at linebacker--particularly given the season-ending injury to Chase Rice and Bruce Carter's limited availability in the Virginia game.
The staff's critique was not limited to Xs and Os and how the schemes connect with the age and depth of the roster. Davis was quick this week to wince at a lost time out when Carolina had 12 players on the field for a punt exchange.
"I hate mismanaging the clock, I hate it worse than anything," Davis said. "I hate having to use unnecessary timeouts. We had to replace a lot of guys on special teams Saturday. If a guy is out, you have to make sure all the coaches and all the players are coordinated on substitutions. I take full responsibility. You can't have 12 guys on the field. That's poor coaching on my part."
Evidently the UNC home-and-home games with Colorado have been cancelled. When and why did this happen? I was looking forward to going to Boulder in 2008. Apparently Colorado replaced us on their schedule with West Virginia. Our future schedules were on tarheelblue.com, but I can't find them now. Have we replaced the Colorado games for '08 and '09?
Gary S. Fleck, Fayetteville
Davis is interested in playing non-conference games in the areas where the Tar Heels recruit or might find opportunities to recruit--and Colorado is not one of those places. The future schedules on TarHeelBlue.com were removed because they are a "work in progress."
Speaking of scheduling, the Tar Heels get their annual game Saturday against a non-conference foe scheduled to be a solid opponent but figured at the time as a game the Tar Heels should win. We know over the last four years what has happened to those best-laid plans.
Louisville was ranked No. 22 in the AP Poll in 2004 when it came to Kenan Stadium and pummeled the Tar Heels, 34-0, and finished the year No. 6. The Cardinals were No. 23 a year later when they battered the Tar Heels 69-14 in Louisville; they finished the year 19th.
Then there was Utah in 2004. The Utes were No. 11 when Carolina traveled to Salt Lake City and were beaten 46-16. They finished 12-0 and ranked fourth.
And then to open the 2006 season, Rutgers was unranked. But the Scarlet Knights used their 21-16 win to propel them to a landmark season. They were ranked as high as No. 6 in the BSC rankings and finished No. 12 in the AP final poll.
Now the Tar Heels have South Florida. How appropriate that the Bulls crack the Top 25 for the first time in their 11-year existence on the eve of their game with Carolina. South Florida is No. 23 in the AP poll after its win two weeks ago at Auburn.
Chapel Hill writer Lee Pace is in his 18th season writing "Extra Points," a colorful and in-depth look at Tar Heel football. He'll answer your questions about the Tar Heels regularly during the season in his "Extra Points Mailbag" column and on the Tar Heel Sports Network's pregame show. Email him your questions (please, no recruiting questions) about the Tar Heels at leepace@nc.rr.com and he'll answer the most interesting ones.
