Somewhere there’s a disconnect between the SEC officials and South Carolina head football coach Will Muschamp and he needs to get to the bottom of it before his team plays another snap.

The explanation Muschamp gave for the sequence of events at the end of the first half surrounding the potential Rico Dowdle touchdown just doesn’t add up.

First, we’ll take a look at what happened, then Muschamp’s responses in his post-game press conference, the actual rules and then what it all means.

The play

South Carolina had the ball first-and-goal from the 4-yard line and Dowdle, with 53 seconds, took a handoff up the middle. He stumbled, but tried to keep his feet long enough to reach the football into the end zone for a touchdown. By his celebration, he thought he had done just that.

Instead, the official on the near sideline was fairly quick in his call that Dowdle was down before the ball crossed the goal line. Dowdle hit the dirt with 50 seconds left in the half. With 18 seconds left on the play clock, quarterback Ryan Hilinski received a snap, rendering the previous play unreviewable at that point.

The Gamecocks would go on to have an incomplete pass on second down, a fumbled snap on third down and another incompletion on fourth down and instead of going into halftime down one score and receiving the football, they went into the half down 14 points and the momentum of a goal line stop went into the Alabama locker room.

But South Carolina lost by 24 points, so why is this a big deal? Because Muschamp doesn’t appear to have a clear understanding of the video replay rules, and SEC official(s) went wrong somewhere, too.

Muschamp’s response

Following the game, Muschamp was asked about the replay review:

“Once the ball is marked down on the field, there is no review,” Muschamp said. “It’s the same as last year in the Florida game. Our fan base is still emailing - there’s no review, guys. Once it’s marked down, it’s over. That’s it, end of sentence. You can’t review it. You can’t call timeout and get a review, it just can’t be reviewed. That’s the rules.”

Probed further about whether he regretted moving so quickly to snap the ball on second down instead of giving the replay official more time, Muschamp responded:

“The SEC can’t,” Muschamp said, when asked further about the play. “Once the ball has been called down, once the whistle is blown, it’s over. We can’t do anything.”

When it was noted that the SEC actually can, and did review the play:

“They’re telling me there’s nothing we can do,” Muschamp said. “There’s nothing I can do in that situation. I knew on the field what they were saying. Once the whistle blows, guys, they’re not going to overturn the official call on the field. Not going to happen in that situation.”

When asked, if in theory the call could be overturned:

“Yeah,” Muschamp said. “I’m just saying on the field that they were telling us they’re not overturning the call. There’s not a lot we can do in that situation.”

Muschamp clarified through a USC spokesperson after the game that he was told by the official before running the second-and-goal play that the replay official looked at the spot and would not overturn it.

The SEC video replay rules

Muschamp is wrong in at least one facet of his explanation - A head coach has one challenge that he may use at anytime during the game if his team has not used all its timeouts, according to the 2019 SEC football video replay rules in the league’s notes packet.

The SEC's explanation and video replay

So regardless of what an official told him between plays, Muschamp could have challenged the call and made the replay official take another look at the play.

It is also absolutely a reviewable play, according to letter e. in the Dead and Loose Balls section, a “Ball carrier’s forward progress” is reviewable “with respect to a first down or the goal line.”

Maybe Muschamp isn’t clear on the rules, but he can challenge that play, and it is a play that is reviewable.

What it all means

-- First, respectfully, Muschamp needs to have a clear understanding of what can be challenged and reviewed, and what can not. He asserted no fewer than 10 times that the play could not be either reviewed or overturned, and that’s not accurate.

-- There are several issues with the statement that ref on the field said the play was already reviewed and would not be overturned, so don’t challenge it.

First, the timing of it all makes it nearly impossible for the replay booth official to determine whether Dowdle’s knee was down or not. Commentators Brad Nessler and Gary Danielson, for example, were pretty adamant on the broadcast that Dowdle, in fact was not down. Two replay angles appear to show Dowdle’s knee never touching the ground while one, shot from a higher angle, is inconclusive.

There were 22 seconds that ran off the play clock between Dowdle’s run and the snap of the football. The time it would take to queue up replays for the replay official, analyze those replays, get word to the on-field official that the call would be upheld and then communicate that with Muschamp that he shouldn’t challenge - all of that seems highly unlikely in that amount of time.

And why is it any on-field official’s duty to tell a head coach whether or not he should challenge a play? That seems like a competitive advantage - or, in this case, disadvantage - when an official is guiding a coach. If a coach wants to call for a challenge and it proves to be incorrect, he can not challenge another play in a game. That could have an influence on any controversial calls later in the game.

-- Official replay reviews take time. In fact, one earlier in the game took over two minutes.

On a play so critical to the dynamic of the football game, it’s unbelievable that the replay official wouldn’t want to take a close look at different angles on a potential scoring play. On the television broadcast, they didn’t have time to show the audience but one of the three replay angles that were shown at different points after the play.

“That deserved a better look,” Danielson said on the broadcast. “Did (the knee) come down or not? With that look, I would say it didn’t.”

College football rules analyst Gene Steratore says a replay review was needed.

“I think in this situation, as you guys have alluded to, it’s just too close not to look at it. It appears the right knee makes contact with the ground, but no dirt pops up. Do I think they can overturn it? That’s a tall ask, but stopping it to look because it is so close, I would have expected they would have done that.”

Final thoughts

-- Something isn’t right here. There’s no way that the replay official had time to take a close enough look at a play of that amount of importance to the outcome of the game and make that decision in such haste.

-- No on-field official should tell a head coach he should not challenge a play because he will lose, which is what Muschamp asserted through a school spokesperson after the game.

-- Muschamp should know what can be reviewed and what can not be reviewed, and he should also know what he can challenge and when he can challenge. It is apparent he did not know or understand this aspect of the rule.

-- South Carolina still had two timeouts and three plays left to punch the ball into the end zone. Calling a timeout after Dowdle was ruled down, albeit in hindsight, seems like the smartest decision. It would give the replay official more time to look at the play (and Muschamp could eventually challenge the play if he was not satisfied) but it also allows the offense some time to gather itself and reset after a play when all 11 players on the field thought it was a touchdown.

-- Does this non-touchdown change the outcome of the game? Almost certainly not. But the point remains that there is a disconnect somewhere between Muschamp, SEC officials and the review systems. And a failure to understand and inability to make the right judgments - whether it’s by replay review or coach’s decision - may actually cost South Carolina a game in the future.