Hunt: Contradictions & ‘Running Pictures’

I tried to stay above the fray. I really did.

Go back and read SFN’s comments on the topic. Note that we were very careful to focus on the failure to use replay and didn’t harp on the result of the replay; which…upon further review…indicated that Akron’s running back failed to score a touchdown on the game’s final play. All we chose to stress was the same thing the rest of the world was stressing and that the Fayetteville Observer succintly expressed:

But it doesn’t matter whether the knee of Akron running back Dennis Kennedy hit the ground before the ball broke the plane of the end zone or not. If there’s a replay system in effect and a game-deciding score on the final play happens, it SHOULD be reviewed. Otherwise, what’s the point of having such a system?

I got pretty steamed yesterday when I saw quotes from UNC-CH grad and ACC director of officials Tommy Hunt. Hunt not only refused to admit the obvious that the play shuold have been reviewed more thoroughly by the game officials; he went so far as to use terms like “clearly” to describe the situation (as if there was no doubt about anything).

Hunt’s chutzpah really bothered me. His ability and willingness to proclaim without the slightest reservation that the result of the play was so unalienably clear was an insult to everyone’s intelligence. Again, I tried not to focus on the absurdity that everything that was so obviously murky was so crystal clear to Tommy Hunt.

But, today’s comments take the cake. Check out the following quote from today’s N&O:

Everything I saw looked like he scored; all the shots we got on video look like he scored,” Hunt said Monday. “We don’t count on still pictures. They are not dependable. We always get an amateur picture [in situations like this]. A running picture is much more valuable than a still photo.”

First, I need I need Cardiff Giant on this one. Cardiff, where are you? I challenge you to satire Hunt’s comments about “Running Pictures”. Running pictures? Is this 1930? I can’t get the thought of silent movies and Charlie Chaplin out of my head. It harkens to Lee Fowler and Bobby Purcell’s disdain 21st century techonology and the evil internet. Cardiff…this is your charge!

Second, I’d like to draw your attention to Hunt’s comments in the N&O ONE DAY EARLIER!

“We only had three shots of that play and no cameras on the goal line,” said Hunt, who attended the Duke-Wake Forest game in Winston-Salem. “[But] our person in the booth can slow it down, re-run it, FRAME IT, and he said it was a touchdown. Officials [also] said it was clearly a touchdown. When I saw it on ESPN, I concurred with their call.”

Wow. Could he be more of an idiot? Seriously. No wonder the moron is being forced into retirement this year. (Hopefully John Swofford can find another Carolina grad to slide into his spot before too many people post for the position)

* On one hand, Hunt procaims that the replay officials are in a great situation because they can STOP the video to “FRAME IT”…which then becomes the equivalent of…you guessed it…A PICTURE!

* But, on the other hand, they “don’t count on still pictures” because “they are not dependable”.

So, if “still pictures” are not dependable, then why do the replay officials slow down and STOP videos to make calls?

What Hunt should be articulating (even though it would make his case look even weaker) is the importance of THE ANGLE of the picture, be it a photograph or one of these fancy “moving pictures”. I actually believe and understand his comment that, “We always get an amateur picture [in situations like this].” But, just because something is an amateur photograph doesn’t make it any less credible. The key element in this is THE ANGLE OF THE PICTURE, not the nature of it being still or moving.

Hunt has talked so much that he has admitted the problem without being smart enough to recognize it, “We only had three shots of that play and no cameras on the goal line.” He is so married to his position that he can’t admit that his cameras were NOT in as good of a position as the photograph that was taken by Chris Coker in the stands.

The problem is not the nature of the pictures; the problem is the angle of the pictures and the inability of Tommy Hunt to (insert your complaint here).

General Headscratchers NCS Football

60 Responses to Hunt: Contradictions & ‘Running Pictures’

  1. cfpack03 09/12/2006 at 10:59 AM #

    Its not about the L! Its about incompetence, and this isn’t the first time. I guess you still don’t get it either, so I’ll just copy GoPack80’s post from above.

    You still don’t get it do you? It’s not the fact that we lost. It’s the fact that a system that is in place to prevent exactly what is happening here (controversy) was not even used. And to further it, the man in charge of it all (Hunt) has made a complete ass of himself in trying to defend it. Plain and simple, the play should have been reviewed. If he would just simply admit they made a mistake in not reviewing (and weren’t in that great of a position to begin with to deal with goal line situations), many of us wouldn’t have a problem. Hell, I’m sure it wouldn’t have got overturned, but if they would have at least reviewed it there wouldn’t be as big a problem as there is. They screwed up, it’s time for the head of officials to take some accountability.

  2. class of 74 09/12/2006 at 11:05 AM #

    Mr. Hunt may I offer some advice. When in a hole STOP digging. Admit your crew’s mistake and ask forgiveness is all that is left for you at this point. The clear picture doesn’t lie.

  3. VaWolf82 09/12/2006 at 11:16 AM #

    I’m reminded of a list of quotes supposedly taken from officer fitness evaluations in the British Navy:

    “This officer would be out of his depth in a car-park puddle.”

    “In his last fitness evalution period, this officer hit rock bottom. Since then, he has begun to dig.”

    Or as a current comedian says:

    “You can’t fix stupid.”

  4. Matt E. 09/12/2006 at 11:32 AM #

    I must have missed where someone has said that the play wasn’t reviewed?

    In the college football review system every play is reviewed in the booth by the replay official. Just because the officials on the field didn’t get buzzed doesn’t mean the play wasn’t reviewed. No official on the field ever views a replay anyway, that is handled by the replay official in the booth.

    College Football Replay

  5. tcthdi-tgsf-twhwtnc 09/12/2006 at 11:57 AM #

    Some of you people talk about Akron like there an awful team. Just about any DI team can beat another any weekend. This is the reason they go out and play the games. We have played two pretty good teams to start the season but the way you guys talk it is like we lost to Prairie View. We have played two championship teams over the past two weeks which is far more than anything our football or basketball program has been in 20 years. It is no surprise when a championship team beats a lower level ACC team. I think we are lucky to have survived the App State game and arn’t 0-2.

    One of these days the money guys will figure out that facilities don’t win games. Have you ever seen Cameron? How many championships has the god awful RBC Center brought us? The only thing the RBC did for State was to take away parking for the football games.

  6. Great Dane Guy 09/12/2006 at 12:12 PM #

    I also wanted to respond to Chucks unfortunate response in the Media Q&A yesterday. I hope to read SFN’s take on it also. Why not just respond with the typical “they played a dagum good game” and let it be?

  7. PBdafan 09/12/2006 at 12:25 PM #

    “We have played 2 pretty good teams”. Lets see, last year the Akron Football Juggernaut lost to Army, Ball State, Central Michigan, and Miami of Ohio, while squeaking past that traditional powerhouse Buffalo 13-7.

    My, how our standards have fallen.

  8. choppack1 09/12/2006 at 12:26 PM #

    “I must have missed where someone has said that the play wasn’t reviewed?”

    Matt – he doesn’t clearly say whether it was reviewed or not. He implies that the video official looked at it, and it was so clear there was no reason to review. Of course, a photograph disputes that – as did the replay on the jumbotron.

  9. redfred2 09/12/2006 at 12:32 PM #

    It is a final, game changing, and terribly handled last second call. It screwed up a decent outcome from a sharply improved offense/QB and well played fourth quarter effort. Somebody in regards to the officiating definitely needs to answer and be punished with fines, suspensions, or whatever. Maybe that’s too much to ask these days, ten in minutes in time out for you Mr Official.

    Let’s just say that one horrendous call, and one particularly well played quarter, does not a football game make.

    But it’s a start. Overdue and much anticipated, but a damn good start. Possibly the absolutely FORCED and FIRST step in developing a total offensive package either way.

  10. redfred2 09/12/2006 at 12:38 PM #

    From another thread but:

    I take it that the picture is just that, a single still frame. If not it should be fairly easy to tell how the elbow/arm moved in relation to rest of the player’s body in slo mo or frame by frame. Did it stop moving downward, bounce off the turf, or what? It’s not a TD at the split that photo(?) was taken either way.

  11. Cardiff Giant 09/12/2006 at 12:53 PM #

    I’m Cardiff Giant … and I’m reporting for duty.

  12. ncsuman 09/12/2006 at 12:57 PM #

    Hopefully this loss will be a wake up call for all parties (including fans, coaches, players etc.) We are not as good as we think we are. We have all these highly skilled player, but yet we have no “team.” Maybe the coaches will realize it is time to get back to the basics and teach these guys how to play together and play smart, or maybe it is wishful thinking.

  13. nckestrel 09/12/2006 at 1:25 PM #

    Link

    “Akron coach J.D. Brookhart wanted nothing to do with overtime…
    Both [Akron and Air Force] made bold moves, passing up potential game-tying kicks for potential game-winning plays late in close games Saturday…
    And what were the chances that a close officials’ call would have gone the road team’s way in either of the those games?
    Exactly.”

    Does this writer(Russo) know anything about the NCSU-Akron game? That “close official’s call” did go the road team’s way in that game. The game directly contradicts the statement you finish the piece with. What kind of conclusion is that?? The only reason Akorn’s last play was a “good call” was because the close official’s call went the road team’s way.

  14. tcthdi-tgsf-twhwtnc 09/12/2006 at 1:54 PM #

    “My, how our standards have fallen.”

    From what? I don’t know how long you have been a State football fan but State football has been been pretty bad since the Dick years and we were not all that good then. You have to go back to the 70’s to when State had a football program save one season with Rivers that ended up only being an ok season.

    State football hasn’t been on any kind of stage much less National since 1980. There was some hype early in Amato’s tenure but that is all it was.

  15. GAWolf 09/12/2006 at 1:54 PM #

    ^^ I think that’s a misprint. He meant to say “And what were the chances that a close officials’ call would have gone the home team’s way in either of those games?

    Nonetheless, has anyone emailed this blog entry to Swofford? He should be forced to respond to this type of ridiculous double-standard.

  16. cfpack03 09/12/2006 at 2:04 PM #

    That’s just it twhwtnc – we all bought into the hype, forked over our hard-earned $, and for what? That’s our frustration here. Akron may be an OK team, but they DO NOT compare to what NC STATE football SHOULD BE.

  17. bTHEredterror 09/12/2006 at 2:05 PM #

    If you’ve seen the replay, I would be interested to know what Kennedy’s body was doing in that frame? Was he extending, in which case the elbow may have been swinging through and just the still shot makes it clear his elbow hit, where in motion it may not appear to hit.

  18. WestCoast 09/12/2006 at 2:12 PM #

    Yes the game is over. We lost.

    It was mentioned that Lee Fowler doesn’t want to make public issues out of what I’ll call “hot topics”. But I can’t help but feel that nothing’s getting done behind the scenes either by making sure the referees are reprimanded, etc. Hell, they were reprimanded after we lost two years ago at Carolina….or were they?

    Fowler/Amato…someone needs to stand up for this school and make things happen. Not because they want to cry about a loss, but b/c it’s the right thing to do.

  19. bTHEredterror 09/12/2006 at 2:22 PM #

    RE: Clarksa link to the tarheel replay review comments, there is a statement that 50 % of ACC refs reviewed calls are overturned!

    50% overturned!!!!???? Thats why it wasn’t reviewed, and why Stone’s overscrimmage pass was not overturned. They are certainly aware of that rate, and want to avoid padding that stat. I’m willing to bet that it is a goal of the ACC officiating crews to reduce the number (whatever the cost to the ppor league schools), and explains Tommy Hunt’s comments. It was close enough to try and explain away or deny. In a typical poor use of judgement (this statistic likely represents inherent deficiencies with the league officials) Hunt decides to use denial rather than accountability. Bet this approach jumps up to bite the league office in a national TV game soon.

  20. MatSci94 09/12/2006 at 2:35 PM #

    If instant replay is not going to be used to determine if the game winning – last second touchdown was or was not scored, then lets dump the whole system to make the games shorter.

    To answer other comments, I don’t beleive that it was reviewed because in every other situation the ref announces that the play is under review.

  21. BoKnowsNCS71 09/12/2006 at 2:43 PM #

    A few years ago I remember watching the ACC refs in person and on TV. I could see how bad they were. On TV the commentaors also pointed it out several times during the regular season. The coup de gras was when K. State was plaing in the Sugar Bowl and the ACC refs did such a bad job that it became a running joke by the guys calling the game.

    Swofford came back the next year with some “accountability” rules for the refs and would jerk refs who blew calls. I think with Instant Replay Swofford now has dropped the ball on the ACC being attentive to some of the idiots who ref games and are not reprimanding them for bad games.

  22. m00kie 09/12/2006 at 3:00 PM #

    It seems that the powers that be in the ACC are once again are getting bogged down into the details and missing the whole point. No one is saying that we should use still pictures over video feeds as Hunt suggests in the N&O article.

    The point is that NONE of the 3-4 “official� camera angles were in a position to have a clear shot of the play. The point is that we have NO camera angles along the goal line where the majority of the critical plays are going to occur.

    I think that the majority of the fans realize that this is a new process that is going to have its growing pains. All the ACC office had to do was simply state that there is room for improvement with the system & that they are looking for ways to improve the process.

    Hunt has taken the criticism personal & spent the last two days defending a process that has a flaw. Amateur still photo or not, the photo shows that there is a better angle for the goal line area.

    Here is a crazy idea, instead of getting defensive about the issues…FIX the issues. Strike that…Hunt still works for the ACC office where they are more worried about saving face when problems surface than actually fixing the problems.

  23. tcthdi-tgsf-twhwtnc 09/12/2006 at 3:29 PM #

    I’m sure Texas fans where saying a few years back that there is no way we should ever lose at home to NC State. A State team that went 6-6. It has been many a decade when any State team could say we should never lose at home to….

    I’m sorry if you bought into the hype but I lost a lot of respect for Amato when I first walked in the Murphy Center lobby and saw many more/bigger pictures of him than Holtz and Rein and Sheriden. Excuse me but what have you done sir to deserve that? It seems to be all about him. I don’t see how you sell lifetime rights to a team that hasn’t accomplished anything. Seems to me that you win something first then go for the rights.

    I’m not down on State football we have always been a good year 7-4 regular season team and bad year 4-7 team. I don’t expect us to be a 9-2, 8-3 team every year. I would like to see that once every three or four years as has always been the case. Hell- even MikO’Cain finished 9-3 once.

  24. Mike 09/12/2006 at 4:23 PM #

    Instant replay is a rule and should be used IF it is a rule. We lost, and whats done is done. But if not going to use the rule…..lets selectively pick and choose which rules we want. I am not one whining to get a win – I just want them to use the rules consistently.

    What about Stone’s 4th down run? Was it reviewed for the spot of the ball? I dont beleive anything Hahn says, but Evans is good wiht his analysis, and he said Stone made it. Now I think the play call stunk, but did he make it? Was it reviewed for spot? Evans can usually tell you within an inch or two before they bring the chains out, has a good eye. There was no indication this play was reviewed either.

    Finally, 50% of the calls are not overturned. 50% of the game stoppage calls might be overturned. IF (emphasized IF) every call is reviewed, only a small percentage are actually overturned. If this were the NFL where the only replays are coaches challenges (or the final minutes), then the 50%factor might be relevant. But the fact that all calls are reviewed (supposedly) gives the zebras a little more support. Agreed though the ACC officials are awful, and every time Ron Cherry and his crew do a game, the natioanl announcers have a field day. Unfortunately, replay does not correct ineptitude for most calls.

  25. redfred2 09/12/2006 at 4:56 PM #

    Where are the unquestionable tapes that the replay official made his rock solid decision upon. I’m not trying to start anything, but I don’t think any camera’s were in place anywhere to make a good decision on. I think, bear with me here, maybe Swofford has sent out word that with gas prices the way they are, the camera guys and referees need to carpool, looks good anyway with the ACC doing it’s small part with global warming and all. Those camera guys were just sticking to a pre-determined schedule from their trip to C-F in which they all agreed, we’re getting the hell out of here before the traffic starts. They already had the AC on pumping full blast, music blaring, kicked back, and chillin’ in the (adaptly named, twice over) “Official” ACC Dodge mini-van with rich corinthian interior. Just sittin back and waitin’ on a detained herd of zebra’s to get the show on the road.

    There is no film. No evidence to the contrary. Case closed. That’s my theory, anyway.

Leave a Reply