"In disputable video evidence" redefined

#326
#326
Cdywolfe said:
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.
Click to expand...

I really don't have a problem with this.
 
#327
#327
bamawriter said:
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.
Click to expand...

This. The other guy didn't see it at all and was merely going on what the other marked.
 
#328
#328
bamawriter said:
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.
Click to expand...

You are still missing my point, we will have to respectfully disagree. I appreciate your opinion.
 
#329
#329
gunner said:
You are still missing my point, we will have to respectfully disagree. I appreciate your opinion.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure I get your point. You think that, even though it was perfectly clear that the on-field spot was wrong, the replay official should have upheld it if he couldn't determine the exact point where it should have been spotted. You think that the assumption of a correct call on the field should apply even when it is obvious to anyone with the gift of sight that that the call on the field was blown.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#330
#330
bamawriter said:
I'm pretty sure I get your point. You think that, even though it was perfectly clear that the on-field spot was wrong, the replay official should have upheld it if he couldn't determine the exact point where it should have been spotted. You think that the assumption of a correct call on the field should apply even when it is obvious to anyone with the gift of sight that that the call on the field was blown.
Click to expand...

Your getting closer, this is what I think in a nutshell regarding the 4th down call.

I'm not sure the call on the field was completely wrong, it was close. I watched it on TV not in person, the camera angle can be deceiving. The linesman was on the field with a better view than anyone; therefore, he gets the benefit of the doubt.

The replay official starts with the assumption that the call on the field is correct regardless of what he previously saw on the play. The replay official must review the video evidence of the play. There must be indisputable video evidence to overturn the call.

The replay official didn't have the required evidence to overturn this call because he could not see the ball and the linesmen did see the ball.

Therefore, it is very disputable where the ball should be marked. The replay official did not follow the replay rule, he used his own discretion to change the call based on circumstantial evidence of where he saw the runner at the end of the play which is completely outside of his authority and inconsistent with the rule.

Based upon those facts and circumstances the call should not have been overturned as there was not indisputable video evidence to overturn it.

I hope this helps.
 
#331
#331
bamawriter said:
If UT didn't get screwed, then who cares?

If UT didn't get screwed, then your whole argument is that the system should have screwed Vandy.
Click to expand...

My argument is the replay official should follow the replay rule and not make his own assumptions or inferences.
 
#332
#332
gunner said:
Your getting closer, this is what I think in a nutshell regarding the 4th down call.

I'm not sure the call on the field was completely wrong, it was close. I watched it on TV not in person, the camera angle can be deceiving. The linesman was on the field with a better view than anyone; therefore, he gets the benefit of the doubt.
Click to expand...

I watched it about 10 times and not once can I figure out why he marked it where he did. Even taking into angle he was well off where the player ended up; and he wasn't down nor had his progress been stopped.

So i really have no problem saying he was completely wrong on that spot.
 
#333
#333
gunner said:
Your getting closer, this is what I think in a nutshell regarding the 4th down call.

I'm not sure the call on the field was completely wrong, it was close. I watched it on TV not in person, the camera angle can be deceiving. The linesman was on the field with a better view than anyone; therefore, he gets the benefit of the doubt.

The replay official starts with the assumption that the call on the field is correct regardless of what he previously saw on the play. The replay official must review the video evidence of the play. There must be indisputable video evidence to overturn the call.

The replay official didn't have the required evidence to overturn this call because he could not see the ball and the linesmen did see the ball.

Therefore, it is very disputable where the ball should be marked. The replay official did not follow the replay rule, he used his own discretion to change the call based on circumstantial evidence of where he saw the runner at the end of the play which is completely outside of his authority and inconsistent with the rule.

Based upon those facts and circumstances the call should not have been overturned as there was not indisputable video evidence to overturn it.

I hope this helps.
Click to expand...

Out of curiosity, how do you know that the linesman saw the ball? That is a very problematic assumption.
 
#335
#335
gunner said:
My argument is the replay official should follow the replay rule and not make his own assumptions or inferences.
Click to expand...

Either the ruling on the field was right or it wasn't. In this case, you don't need to see the ball to figure out that it wasnt.
 
#337
#337
BeecherVol said:
I see BW is still carrying the fight.
Click to expand...
Yup, he is. He wants to make it clear that it doesn't matter where the ball got spotted as long as it gives Vandy a first down. Because he believes that the QB clearly advanced the ball to a first down. Thus, he feels awarding the first down is more important than the accuracy of the spot.

That about right, BW?

Just for clarification, I have the opposite view. I believe determining the exact spot is most important and then the result of that spot is what it is.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#338
#338
ZZ13 said:
Yup, he is. He wants to make it clear that it doesn't matter where the ball got spotted as long as it gives Vandy a first down. Because he believes that the QB clearly advanced the ball to a first down. Thus, he feels awarding the first down is more important than the accuracy of the spot.

That about right, BW?

Just for clarification, I have the opposite view. I believe determining the exact spot is most important and then the result of that spot is what it is.
Click to expand...

Yes, you summarized it well. A few inches forward or back is less relevant than the multiple feet by which ACS had the first down.
 
#340
#340
bamawriter said:
Yes, you summarized it well. A few inches forward or back is less relevant than the multiple feet by which ACS had the first down.
Click to expand...

I still say they should just change the rule so that the replay official can look at the replay, identify a bad spot and just award a first down without going through the charade of pretending to accurately spot the forward progress in the middle of a scrum.
 
#342
#342
GAVol said:
I still say they should just change the rule so that the replay official can look at the replay, identify a bad spot and just award a first down without going through the charade of pretending to accurately spot the forward progress in the middle of a scrum.
Click to expand...

That would be a logical rule change.
 
#343
#343
bamawriter said:
Out of curiosity, how do you know that the linesman saw the ball? That is a very problematic assumption.
Click to expand...

Please watch the original video and get back with me, and specifically watch the officials and their actions on the play.
 
#344
#344
GAVol said:
I still say they should just change the rule so that the replay official can look at the replay, identify a bad spot and just award a first down without going through the charade of pretending to accurately spot the forward progress in the middle of a scrum.
Click to expand...


No matter what they do, I just want each official to consistently follow the rules in place, and on the 4th down play the replay official did not follow the replay rule. He did what he wanted instead.
 
#345
#345
GAVol said:
I still say they should just change the rule so that the replay official can look at the replay, identify a bad spot and just award a first down without going through the charade of pretending to accurately spot the forward progress in the middle of a scrum.
Click to expand...

Heck we should check every spot on replay.
If the bad spot on 3rd down had been corrected then they probably don't go for it on forth.
 
#346
#346
gunner said:
Please watch the original video and get back with me, and specifically watch the officials and their actions on the play.
Click to expand...

That did not even come close to answering my question. But feel free to try again.

How do you know the linesman saw the ball?
 
#347
#347
Cdywolfe said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yes, the replay official didn't follow the rules, and that's even more apparent than the original spot of the ball being off.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top