"In disputable video evidence" redefined

#301
#301
Anybody want to take a crack at coming up with the name of a horse that simply refuses to die?

I'll start: Vandywhine
 
#302
#302
Ask yourself this one question...Is it possible that he had the ball down by his waist with players grabbing and pulling his arms? If the answer is yes, then we got screwed. I think there's probably a 95% chance he made the first down, but the truth is no one knows for sure and therefore the overturn was dead wrong!
 
#303
#303
Fighting Possum said:
Ask yourself this one question...Is it possible that he had the ball down by his waist with players grabbing and pulling his arms? If the answer is yes, then we got screwed. I think there's probably a 95% chance he made the first down, but the truth is no one knows for sure and therefore the overturn was dead wrong!
Click to expand...

His waist was past the marker.
 
#304
#304
Fighting Possum said:
Ask yourself this one question...Is it possible that he had the ball down by his waist with players grabbing and pulling his arms? If the answer is yes, then we got screwed. I think there's probably a 95% chance he made the first down, but the truth is no one knows for sure and therefore the overturn was dead wrong!
Click to expand...

Watch the replay, there wasn't anyone there to really "pull at his arms". He went straight over his center.

So, the answer is no.
 
#305
#305
bamawriter said:
This. Process of elimination is fairly simple in a case like this. If the ball isn't between his legs, and the entire upper half of his body is beyond the marker, and no one stripped the ball from him, then he had to have picked up a first down.

There is an argument to be made about how one can determine the exact spot. But there is no rational argument to be made that it didn't get beyond the sticks.
Click to expand...

Really? How do you spot a ball that you can't see. All you can do is guess at it, and that leaves the replay official with plenty of doubt. There wasn't enough evidence on video to change the call based upon the rule.
 
#307
#307
LWSVOL said:
if you go read the rule it doesn't reference the ball advancing for a first down. Indisputable evidence could be the player holding the ball's advancement past the first down marker.

it just says indisputable evidence.. does not reference the ball as part of indisputable evidence.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure the ball has to cross the first down line to be a first down. A players helmet crossing doesn't matter. The ball has to cross the endzone line to be a touch down.
 
#308
#308
bamawriter said:
Well, if you know who has the ball, and you know that he has it somewhere north of his groin, and his entire upper body is past the marker, common sense says he got the first down.
Click to expand...


That is an inference, by rule you must have actual video evidence; such as, observing the ball past the line to make. What you are describing is circumstantial evidence. The evidence was not on video to over turn the call.
 
#309
#309
Orange Blazer said:
I'm pretty sure the ball has to cross the first down line to be a first down. A players helmet crossing doesn't matter. The ball has to cross the endzone line to be a touch down.
Click to expand...


I'm glad that some else gets this besides me. I agree with you opinion completely.
 
#311
#311
Boca Vol said:
Would you be making this argument for Vandy if it was UT on offense instead of Vandy?
Click to expand...


I have made the same or similar argument for years regarding the instant replay rule, this is just one of the worse reversals that I have ever seen.
 
#312
#312
gunner said:
I have made the same or similar argument for years regarding the instant replay rule, this is just one of the worse reversals that I have ever seen.
Click to expand...

So you would be arguing on here that Vandy got screwed?
 
#314
#314
gunner said:
Really? How do you spot a ball that you can't see. All you can do is guess at it, and that leaves the replay official with plenty of doubt. There wasn't enough evidence on video to change the call based upon the rule.
Click to expand...

Either way, he easily got the first down. I know football is a game of inches, but I think haggling over exactly where the ball was spotted in this instance is pointless as long as Vandy was going to get a fresh set of downs.
 
#315
#315
bamawriter said:
Either way, he easily got the first down. I know football is a game of inches, but I think haggling over exactly where the ball was spotted in this instance is pointless as long as Vandy was going to get a fresh set of downs.
Click to expand...


You are completely missing the point, I am not arguing if he got the first down or not. My argument is based on the replay rule which starts with the assumption that the call on the field is correct for the call to be overturned the replay official must have the indisputable video evidence, he did not have such evidence. Thus, by rule the call on the shall stand.
 
#316
#316
gunner said:
You are completely missing the point, I am not arguing if he got the first down or not. My argument is based on the replay rule which starts with the assumption that the call on the field is correct for the call to be overturned the replay official must have the indisputable video evidence, he did not have such evidence. Thus, by rule the call on the shall stand.
Click to expand...

There was indisputable video evidence that the call on the field was wrong. What there isn't video of is exactly where the right spot would be. But video shows, clearly, that the on-field spot was incorrect, so one can move past that assumption rather quickly.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#317
#317
Listen... If you're okay with saying I realize the rules got bent a little bit but I'm okay with it because the appropriate and just outcome was reached then fine. That's actually about where I am. I was okay with that two years ago, and though it breaks my heart, I'd be a hypocrite if I was not okay with it today.

With all that said what was being challenged was the spot of the football. You cannot see the football therefore indisputable video evidence to change the spot is not possible. Just saying "well it really looks like he made it past the line so just spot the ball somewhere past where the first downline was" is not how it's supposed to be done.

I'm not trying to argue that we got screwed. But those out there arguing that the call was properly overturned under the current rules of football are just being stubborn and/or ignorant.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#318
#318
bamawriter said:
There was indisputable video evidence that the call on the field was wrong. What there isn't video of is exactly where the right spot would be. But video shows, clearly, that the on-field spot was incorrect, so one can move past that assumption rather quickly.
Click to expand...

As I just said above the only problem with that is that's not how it's supposed to be done. You can't just say "well he obviously made the first down. I have no idea where the ball should be so just move it forward a couple yards and give them a first down". Under the current rules that's not how we do it.

Now, as I said if you're okay with the rules being bent a little bit to facilitate what was the just and right call then okay. Though I would've gladly taken the win on a bad call, I can't exactly argue against that point of view. But I feel like there's really no argument against the rules having been bent to get to that point.
 
#319
#319
Cdywolfe said:
As I just said above the only problem with that is that's not how it's supposed to be done. You can't just say "well he obviously made the first down. I have no idea where the ball should be so just move it forward a couple yards and give them a first down". Under the current rules that's not how we do it.

Now, as I said if you're okay with the rules being bent a little bit to facilitate what was the just and right call then okay. Though I would've gladly taken the win on a bad call, I can't exactly argue against that point of view. But I feel like there's really no argument against the rules having been bent to get to that point.
Click to expand...

I pretty much agree with everything you just said. The second paragraph is pretty much exactly where I'm at.
 
#320
#320
bamawriter said:
There was indisputable video evidence that the call on the field was wrong. What there isn't video of is exactly where the right spot would be. But video shows, clearly, that the on-field spot was incorrect, so one can move past that assumption rather quickly.
Click to expand...


Have you read the rule?

By rule the only assumption that can be made is the call on the field is correct, nothing else.

If you can't see the ball in the video, it's clearly disputable when the ball should be spotted.
 
#322
#322
gunner said:
Have you read the rule?

By rule the only assumption that can be made is the call on the field is correct, nothing else.

If you can't see the ball in the video, it's clearly disputable when the ball should be spotted.
Click to expand...

You're argument is flawed.

The rule is to assume that the call is correct unless there is clear visual evidence that it was incorrect. In a play like whether a pass was complete or not, then the decision is black and white: it's either a catch or it isn't.

But in the case of a spot, it's not simply whether the original spot was correct or not. The replay official not only has to determine whether the spot was correct (it wasn't), he then must determine where the correct spot is (impossible to do with any certainty). So, the assumption that the call of the field is correct could easily be handled in this case; it clearly wasn't. Your only real gripe can be where the correct spot should have been.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#323
#323
There were two replays shown one had the camera angle from the offensive side which was shown far more than the one from the defensive side. What was clear is looking at both angles the runner appeared to be down at different spots. The offensive angle he appeared more forward than he did on the defensive angle. So which angle was used to properly spot where the ball was assumed to be?

From the defensive angle you can clearly see both linesman running in on the same line. They did not see it differently from each other when looking straight down the line.
 
#325
#325
mountainair said:
From the defensive angle you can clearly see both linesman running in on the same line. They did not see it differently from each other when looking straight down the line.
Click to expand...

As I've said before, this argument is incorrect. One linesman signals to the other that he sees the spot, and the other comes in and marks the same spot as the one who called it. They did not necessarily make identical calls.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top