4th Down

[JonGrudensAgent]

My OP was and STILL is. I am focusing on one play. The linesman spotted the ball. It's HIS call. They reviewed the play, the ball was not visible, therefore the ruling BY RULE cannot be overturned. Why is this so hard to understand? They blew it. Our ball, 2 kneel downs, game over. I dont care about how the rest of the game went. They blew the freakin call if no one saw the ball, it CANNOT be argued.

Other than the people that matter reversing the call and Vandy winning the game, no it can't be argued.

Get over it.

 

[Tnrdgerunr]

I am a high school football official. My position is line judge. Myself and the head linesman's job first and foremost is to get ALL spots. A spot is where the BALL is when the runner is ruled down.

The linesman last night was at eye level with the play. He knew in that situation that the spot was critical. He came in and spotted the ball where HE ruled the BALL was stopped when the play ended.

Has anyone (and I'm just asking) seen any footage where you can see where the ball landed? The QB looked like he surged past the line to gain, but where is the BALL.

I thought it had to be indisputable evidence before a ruling on the field could be overturned. The ONLY evidence could have been seeing the BALL. And I'm so sick and effn tired of these post, well you can't blame the game on THAT play, horses***!!! That was the ballgame, game, set, and match, period, end, done. If they didnt see the BALL in the booth, then it's plain and simple, we had the game taken away from us last night.
It doesn't matter how bad this guy or that guy played, we were robbed by the booth.

GBO

You're a HS official? I hope you never call a game for our HS or Pee Wee league either for that matter. The only way he doesn't get a 1st down is if he's carrying the ball between his ankles.

 

[fur burglar]

Ok, so you saw the BALL cross the line to gain. Can you please show the film on here where you saw that. Thanks.

His entire body was past the first down line. He didn't fumble. Where could the ball have been?

Try showing me video of him being anywhere close to short of the first down or any article at all questioning the review.

 

[fur burglar]

I agree the spot should have never been overturned, the officials had a better view than any of the replays. The replays were inconclusive at best. No way it should have been overturned!

As for the two kneel downs, Vandy still had three timeouts, we would have needed a first down to win or a real good punt with 48 seconds left.

That's not true. There was a camera angle directly behind the line judge; he couldn't see anything. The overhead shot clearly showed a first down.

 

[JFBanicki]

I agree with the OP on the situation but the fact is the coaches refused to let Dobbs try anything after the Vandy secondary was decimated. Our play calling the entire second half was so predictable I was shocked everytime we did manage a first down. Also that fake FG was an absolute joke! Why in the world would you let your kicker try and throw it across the field, when you won't even let your QB throw it 10 yards down the field??? Or why would we continue to run hurry up when you have the ball with 5 minutes left to play and you haven't scored since the start of the 3rd qrt?

Sure that ruling did cost us the game, but the fact is it should have never came down to that.

 

[fur burglar]

Ok, so you saw the BALL cross the line to gain. Can you please show the film on here where you saw that. Thanks.

Streaming Online - WatchESPN

3:25:37

 

[gunner]

You sir are completely missing the point. The replay rule starts with the assumption that the call on the field is correct. For the call to be overturned there must be indisputable video evidence that the call was wrong. In this case there isn't any evidence that shows the ball on the play just the players body. If the replay official can't see the ball on video, he can't definitely mark it after the play. By rule there was not indisputable video evidence to overturn the call. That's the point.

 

[gunner]

You're a HS official? I hope you never call a game for our HS or Pee Wee league either for that matter. The only way he doesn't get a 1st down is if he's carrying the ball between his ankles.

Obviously. You don't know much about officiating! The officials are there to enforce the rules of the game. They can't make inferences about what they think happened. If an official doesn't see it on the field it didn't happen.

Similarity, in this case if its not on the video, it didn't happen, and you can't see the ball on the play near the line to make on the video; therefore, by rule the official can not over turn the play.

I hope this helps.

 

[volbrawler]

His entire body was past the first down line. He didn't fumble. Where could the ball have been?

Try showing me video of him being anywhere close to short of the first down or any article at all questioning the review.

That's not the point brother. The spot was short.. the replay needs to show the BALL advancing, not his body. Bodies don't get first downs, ball progression does.

 

[Big Orange 1]

You're a HS official? I hope you never call a game for our HS or Pee Wee league either for that matter. The only way he doesn't get a 1st down is if he's carrying the ball between his ankles.

Ok, please respect me enough to read my post, I read your post bashing my ability to officiate. We are fellow Vol fans right?

I'm not saying that the original spot was correct. It looked like he made it, I'll admit that. The linesman came in and spotted the ball. As I mentioned in my OP, that is first and foremost the linesman and line judge's responsibility, above all else, as the name line judge and linesman implies. All i'm saying is, that EVERY time there is a review, no matter who the commentators are and no matter which network the game is on, they reiterate every time that there must be clear video evidence to overturn a call made on the field. The replay does not show where the BALL advanced to. Thats all.

 

[KBVol]

I'm glad someone here understands the rule! Call on the field was he was short, replay video was inconclusive. No evidence on the replay to overturn the spot. It should have been UT ball after the Vols stopped them on downs.

The replay official did not follow the rule, he reversed the call without any video evidence, and it cost UT a victory last night.

Maybe he thought the evidence was five of Carta-Samuels 6 feet of height was beyond the first down line to make. I didnt like it either, but he made the correct call.

 

[NashVol.]

Maybe he thought the evidence was five of Carta-Samuels 6 feet of height was beyond the first down line to make. I didnt like it either, but he made the correct call.

It's all about the ball. You want to argue with the rule book? That's cool...

 

[Carl Pickens]

The QB was past the line to gain for a 1st down. It was correctly over turned.

Not according to the language of the rule..... If you can't see the BALL then how is the spot made by the official disputable?

 

[Carl Pickens]

You sir are completely missing the point. The replay rule starts with the assumption that the call on the field is correct. For the call to be overturned there must be indisputable video evidence that the call was wrong. In this case there isn't any evidence that shows the ball on the play just the players body. If the replay official can't see the ball on video, he can't definitely mark it after the play. By rule there was not indisputable video evidence to overturn the call. That's the point.

Whether he got the first down or not is irrelevant in this case....there simply wasn't video showing the actual location of the ball....by rule the replay official made a bad ball even if Vandy got the first down

 

[gunner]

Maybe he thought the evidence was five of Carta-Samuels 6 feet of height was beyond the first down line to make. I didnt like it either, but he made the correct call.

Obviously you don't understand the rule, it must be indisputable video evidence. By Rule the reply ref starts with the assumption that the call on the field was accurate and correct. Just because he saw the QB pass the mark on the play has little bearing on the call. The replay official must see the ball carrier posses the ball while getting the first down. In essecene the BALL not the runner must past the mark, and that isn't on the video.

So by rule, there was no evidence to overturn the call on the field. I am not arguing if the initial call is correct or not. I'm just saying the replay call was incorrect by the NCAA rule.

I hope this helps your understanding of the replay rules.

 

[fur burglar]

That's not the point brother. The spot was short.. the replay needs to show the BALL advancing, not his body. Bodies don't get first downs, ball progression does.

Listen, buddy, I posted video and the time down to the second where you can see the ball in his hand over the line.

You're all fooling yourselves, trying to make things seem better.

 

[fur burglar]

You sir are completely missing the point. The replay rule starts with the assumption that the call on the field is correct. For the call to be overturned there must be indisputable video evidence that the call was wrong. In this case there isn't any evidence that shows the ball on the play just the players body. If the replay official can't see the ball on video, he can't definitely mark it after the play. By rule there was not indisputable video evidence to overturn the call. That's the point.

Who you talking to, buster? In the replay, you can clearly see the ball, in his hands, over the line.

 

[governmentmule]

i agree that there wasn't indisputable evidence to over turn the spot, but the game is on the D for not stopping that long ass drive at the end of the game

 

[gunner]

Who you talking to, buster. In the replay, you can clearly see the ball, in his hands, over the line.

I'm not sure what game or replay you reference, but in the UT -Vandy game last night, all you can see is the runner not the ball. The ESPN crew even discuss this during the review. Maybe, you should take a minute and review the game video again and pay closer attention.

 

[VolsSportsFan]

I am a high school football official. My position is line judge. Myself and the head linesman's job first and foremost is to get ALL spots. A spot is where the BALL is when the runner is ruled down.

The linesman last night was at eye level with the play. He knew in that situation that the spot was critical. He came in and spotted the ball where HE ruled the BALL was stopped when the play ended.

Has anyone (and I'm just asking) seen any footage where you can see where the ball landed? The QB looked like he surged past the line to gain, but where is the BALL.

I thought it had to be indisputable evidence before a ruling on the field could be overturned. The ONLY evidence could have been seeing the BALL. And I'm so sick and effn tired of these post, well you can't blame the game on THAT play, horses***!!! That was the ballgame, game, set, and match, period, end, done. If they didnt see the BALL in the booth, then it's plain and simple, we had the game taken away from us last night.
It doesn't matter how bad this guy or that guy played, we were robbed by the booth.

GBO

It's amazing to me that people are saying things like because he was at eye level, he had judged it correctly. This is just stupid, and hilarious considering we pick and choose when refs are smart and when they are stupid.

Who cares if he's right there and "knows" how important the spot is, that in no way means he couldn't be dead wrong....which he was.

And I mean this in all seriousness....if anyone honestly thinks he didn't get the first down, you really need to get your eyes checked. If that were UT there's no way in HADES you'd dare use the "didn't see the ball" argument, you'd say it was clear he got the first down.

 

[FleeceItOut]

Bottom line: was he over the line for the first down? Most likely, but that's not how it was ruled on the field and the evidence was NOT indisputable.

If you watched the LSU/A&M game the same situation occurred and they did not over turn it because they could not see the ball. The plays were identical.

 

[Big Orange 1]

It's amazing to me that people are saying things like because he was at eye level, he had judged it correctly. This is just stupid, and hilarious considering we pick and choose when refs are smart and when they are stupid.

Who cares if he's right there and "knows" how important the spot is, that in no way means he couldn't be dead wrong....which he was.

And I mean this in all seriousness....if anyone honestly thinks he didn't get the first down, you really need to get your eyes checked. If that were UT there's no way in HADES you'd dare use the "didn't see the ball" argument, you'd say it was clear he got the first down.

It amazes me that people no matter how many times you try to explain something won't or can't understand you. I saw where his body landed, it looked like a bad spot. Nevertheless, the spot was spotted where it was. They could NOT see the ball on the replay, the could not see the ball on the replay, they could not see the ball on the replay, they could not see the ball on the replay, replay ball could see not, not replay the ball see. YOU HAVE TO SEE THE BALL, THE BALL, THE BALL. I dont give 2 sh98s if the guy was Andre the Giant, I dont care, they did not have indisputable evidence to overturn the call. You can bet your rear end had that been Alabama, Notre Dame, or Texas it wouldnt have been overturned. Im arguing the RULE, the RULE, the RULE. It must me indisputable, it was NOT. NOT. I'm not defending the official on the field, Im saying the guys in the booth did not have the evidence to overturn it. Would the person who saw the BALL cross the line to gain please stand up.