CourtJester
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2008
- Messages
- 301
- Likes
- 247
Sorry for beating what is likely a dead horse at this point, but I'm still kind of pissed the replay refs sometimes can't manage to properly interpret slow motion video any better than the refs on the field can judge a bang/bang play in real time. This is not the best quality image (it's a pic of an image from my computer monitor), but it does show the last moment Blanc's left foot was on the turf, as well as him having the ball secured with both hands. I understand that you probably can't tell either of these definitively from this image, but if you go back and watch the video you will see that this is after the bobble between his legs, and from this point on he clearly goes to the turf with the ball securely held with his hands in the exact same positions they are here.
Please note I am NOT saying the replay ref should have reversed the call on the field. You could make a good faith argument for that, but the securing of the ball and his left foot leaving the turf happened in very close proximity; I think he secured the ball a split second before his foot lost contact with the ground, or at worst at the same time, but I can see where reasonable minds could differ. My point is that the video is at worst inconclusive on this issue, and that the replay official should have said that the call on the field "stands" rather than "is confirmed." And that should have been the case if the ref on the field had called it a catch as well--the call should have stood.
IMO, this particular call is another good example of how psychology and knee-jerk reactions enter into the process. Because Blanc clearly bobbled the ball to begin with, the replay official (perhaps subconsciously) wasn't going to give him the benefit of the doubt on when he secured the ball relative to going out of bounds, even though the evidence is at worst inconclusive. I think the same thing happened with Pig's "fumble" against UGA. Because he clearly lost contact with the ball with his right hand before the goal line, the ref wasn't going to spend much time wondering if his left hand might have still maintained control of the rear of the ball at the time it broke the plane--and that ref reversed the call on the field. North's catch against UGA illustrates the same thing, i.e., his catch was upheld because he caught the ball cleanly (and did a hell of a layout to even make the play close), even though I'd bet a month's pay that he didn't have contact with the turf inbounds with control of the ball as long as Blanc did. But because the catch was clean and amazingly athletic, he got the benefit of the doubt.
IMO the video evidence of all three plays was inconclusive (although I would say the video evidence of Blanc's catch is actually the strongest of the three), and the call on the field should have stood in all three cases. But the replay official only thought one of them was inconclusive (North's). That's not much of a batting average when the standard is supposed to be something everyone would agree on. :banghead2:
Please note I am NOT saying the replay ref should have reversed the call on the field. You could make a good faith argument for that, but the securing of the ball and his left foot leaving the turf happened in very close proximity; I think he secured the ball a split second before his foot lost contact with the ground, or at worst at the same time, but I can see where reasonable minds could differ. My point is that the video is at worst inconclusive on this issue, and that the replay official should have said that the call on the field "stands" rather than "is confirmed." And that should have been the case if the ref on the field had called it a catch as well--the call should have stood.
IMO, this particular call is another good example of how psychology and knee-jerk reactions enter into the process. Because Blanc clearly bobbled the ball to begin with, the replay official (perhaps subconsciously) wasn't going to give him the benefit of the doubt on when he secured the ball relative to going out of bounds, even though the evidence is at worst inconclusive. I think the same thing happened with Pig's "fumble" against UGA. Because he clearly lost contact with the ball with his right hand before the goal line, the ref wasn't going to spend much time wondering if his left hand might have still maintained control of the rear of the ball at the time it broke the plane--and that ref reversed the call on the field. North's catch against UGA illustrates the same thing, i.e., his catch was upheld because he caught the ball cleanly (and did a hell of a layout to even make the play close), even though I'd bet a month's pay that he didn't have contact with the turf inbounds with control of the ball as long as Blanc did. But because the catch was clean and amazingly athletic, he got the benefit of the doubt.
IMO the video evidence of all three plays was inconclusive (although I would say the video evidence of Blanc's catch is actually the strongest of the three), and the call on the field should have stood in all three cases. But the replay official only thought one of them was inconclusive (North's). That's not much of a batting average when the standard is supposed to be something everyone would agree on. :banghead2:
