"In disputable video evidence" redefined

[Orangeslice13]

Thought I read you saying you didn't have time to argue about this earlier. I must've been mistaken.

What else does he/she have to do?

 

[bamawriter]

Thought I read you saying you didn't have time to argue about this earlier. I must've been mistaken.

You are. I'm sure that's not terribly surprising.

 

[VolsSportsFan]

Please watch the original video and get back with me, and specifically watch the officials and their actions on the play.

As I said, I watched it about 10 times and I have no idea how he determined that's where the ball should be spotted. He wasn't just off, he was way off.

 

[bamawriter]

As I said, I watched it about 10 times and I have no idea how he determined that's where the ball should be spotted. He wasn't just off, he was way off.

Don't you know that at least one linesman sees the ball on 100% of all plays in 100% of all games?

 

[LWSVOL]

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.

I agree. But for the sake of replay official, he can make the judgment without seeing the ball, as he did Saturday night

 

[NWGVol]

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?

How do you know he didn't see the ball? And don't give the BS about where ACS helmet was and his arm holding the ball and all the other bull**** that doesn't confirm where the ball was. How do you know the linesman didn't see the ball?

You don't know any more than the folks that disagree with you. Which is the premise of a lot of people that disagree with the over turn of the call.

I have no problem with someone that thinks it was wrong to overurn the call or with someone who thinks it was wight to overturn the call. What I do have a problem with is your smug ass and others like you thinking it was so clear cut. The rule is too damn vague to allow it to be clear cut in a ruling like this.

 

[SteveninTenn]

What we dont know is when the whistle blew. If it was a quick whistle Tennesse players could have stopped or let up. The line judge may have spotted it where the whistle sounded. IF this was the case, the replay official would have no way of verifying when the whistle blew even if he asked an official on the field. The only way to check that is have the guys on the field see the what the booth sees at the same time and point out the moment the whistle sounds. There no way for them to explain it over a phone or intercom.

 

[SteveninTenn]

I have NEVER seen a spot overturned in college or pro football. NEVER in the history of replay have I ever I personally witnessed that call reversed. I've seen coaches loose that challenge every time. Bottom line is that guy upstairs should do what every other replay official does which is defer to the official closest to the ball and give them the final say. If the replay guy had done that the Vols would have won that game.

 

[nagle]

That would be a logical rule change.

no, actually i took a dump.

 

[gunner]

I have NEVER seen a spot overturned in college or pro football. NEVER in the history of replay have I ever I personally witnessed that call reversed. I've seen coaches loose that challenge every time. Bottom line is that guy upstairs should do what every other replay official does which is defer to the official closest to the ball and give them the final say. If the replay guy had done that the Vols would have won that game.

That's a great point, precedent has been set many times by replay officials that have reviewed similar plays in college football. Those officials have followed the rules, I guess that is what irriates me the most in a situation like this is the complete lack of consistency with regard to this call and the blatant disregard of the replay rule in college football.

By rule the call on the field is presumed to be correct until there is indisputable video evidence which refutes the call in question, therefore, the vast majority of observers would say clearly thers WAS NOT indisputable video evidence to overturn the spot on that play, and clearly, the call on the field should never be overturned in that situation!

 

[gunner]

I agree. But for the sake of replay official, he can make the judgment without seeing the ball, as he did Saturday night

Not really, by rule it is NOT a judgement call on his part. By rule the call on the field is correct and without indisputable video evidence to refute the call on the field he CAN NOT use his judgement or best guess to spot a ball that he can't see on the replay, and that' s what he did on the call. He did NOT have indisputable video evidence to clearly refute the call on the field. The rule is cited below.

NCAA 2013/2014 Rules and Interpretations

ARTICLE 2. The instant replay process operates under the fundamental assumption that the ruling on the field is correct. The replay official may reverse a ruling if and only if the video evidence convinces him beyond all doubt that the ruling was incorrect. Without such indisputable video evidence, the replay official must allow the ruling to stand.

 

[bamawriter]

How do you know he didn't see the ball? And don't give the BS about where ACS helmet was and his arm holding the ball and all the other bull**** that doesn't confirm where the ball was. How do you know the linesman didn't see the ball?

You don't know any more than the folks that disagree with you. Which is the premise of a lot of people that disagree with the over turn of the call.

I have no problem with someone that thinks it was wrong to overurn the call or with someone who thinks it was wight to overturn the call. What I do have a problem with is your smug ass and others like you thinking it was so clear cut. The rule is too damn vague to allow it to be clear cut in a ruling like this.

I have two eyes and a Hi Def TV. I know, beyond all doubt, that if he thought he saw the ball, he was mistaken. But most likely, I think he was looking for #6 in white in the scrum, and somehow mistook him someone else for him. I do not think he did it on purpose. Crap happens.

 

[bamawriter]

Not really, by rule it is NOT a judgement call on his part. By rule the call on the field is correct and without indisputable video evidence to refute the call on the field he CAN NOT use his judgement or best guess to spot a ball that he can't see on the replay, and that' s what he did on the call. He did NOT have indisputable video evidence to clearly refute the call on the field. The rule is cited below.

NCAA 2013/2014 Rules and Interpretations

ARTICLE 2. The instant replay process operates under the fundamental assumption that the ruling on the field is correct. The replay official may reverse a ruling if and only if the video evidence convinces him beyond all doubt that the ruling was incorrect. Without such indisputable video evidence, the replay official must allow the ruling to stand.

Again, there is indisputable video evidence that the call on the field was incorrect. You are complaining that he couldn't know where to spot the ball, even if it was clear that the original spot was wrong.

 

[gunner]

Again, there is indisputable video evidence that the call on the field was incorrect. You are complaining that he couldn't know where to spot the ball, even if it was clear that the original spot was wrong.

Again, that's the point you keep missing over and over again by the rule the spot on the field was deemed to be correct.

So by RULE THE ORIGINAL SPOT WAS CORRECT!!

Once the official spots the ball that's were it is, like it or not. And, by rule there was nothing on the replay to change that!

If you think they got the call right, that's your opinion, I am simply and clearly pointing out that the replay official did not follow the rules when he overturned the call on the field.

 

[gunner]

I have two eyes as a Hi Def TV. I know, beyond all doubt, that if he thought he saw the ball, he was mistaken. But most likely, I think he was looking for #6 in white in the scrum, and somehow mistook him someone else for him. I do not think he did it on purpose. Crap happens.

Please let me see if I get this, so because you have a hi-def TV, you know more than a trained SEC Official who was on the field right on top of the play in better position than anyone to make the spot of the ball.

Moreover, you then argue that you know that he didn't see what he he thought he saw and he was mistaken.

What? Are you omnipotent? Am I debating this call with a deity? Tell me now because I don't want to debate with God.

 

[volfan411]

Again, that's the point you keep missing over and over again by the rule the spot on the field was deemed to be correct.

So by RULE THE ORIGINAL SPOT WAS CORRECT!!

Once the official spots the ball that's were it is, like it or not. And, by rule there was nothing on the replay to change that!

If you think they got the call right, that's your opinion, I am simply and clearly pointing out that the replay official did not follow the rules when he overturned the call on the field.

This is what is killing me that people do not get like it or not the spot that the ball was marked on the field is correct unless there is video evidence that it is incorrect period.

 

[gunner]

As I said, I watched it about 10 times and I have no idea how he determined that's where the ball should be spotted. He wasn't just off, he was way off.

That may be the case in your opinion, but his opinion is what matters. Not mine or yours. Once the call is made it is what it is unless it's overturned by the replay official.

Do you think that there was indisputable video evidence on the replay to overturn the call even though from the camera angles on the replay its not definitive as to exactly where the ball was in reference to the 1st down marker?

 

[gunner]

This is what is killing me that people do not get like it or not the spot that the ball was marked on the field is correct unless there is video evidence that it is incorrect period.

Agreed. It's hard to get something when your mind is already made up. I have been trying to "educate the masses" who seem to be confused on the rule since the game was over.

 

[LWSVOL]

Not really, by rule it is NOT a judgement call on his part. By rule the call on the field is correct and without indisputable video evidence to refute the call on the field he CAN NOT use his judgement or best guess to spot a ball that he can't see on the replay, and that' s what he did on the call. He did NOT have indisputable video evidence to clearly refute the call on the field. The rule is cited below.

NCAA 2013/2014 Rules and Interpretations

ARTICLE 2. The instant replay process operates under the fundamental assumption that the ruling on the field is correct. The replay official may reverse a ruling if and only if the video evidence convinces him beyond all doubt that the ruling was incorrect. Without such indisputable video evidence, the replay official must allow the ruling to stand.

he has to be convinced what he is seeing over turns the ruling. Convinced beyond his doubt, not mine or yours. The written rule leaves it to his discretion as to what is doubt. As long as he is convinced, he can reverse it.

 

[tim]

he has to be convinced what he is seeing over turns the ruling. Convinced beyond his doubt, not mine or yours. The written rule leaves it to his discretion as to what is doubt. As long as he is convinced, he can reverse it.

The reversal was wrong without video evidence. If a fumble occurs, the ref calls it Vandy's ball (even if a Vol emerges with it) and it wasnt on video it would still be Vandy's ball..agree?

 

[volfan411]

Agreed. It's hard to get something when your mind is already made up.

The other thing that is killing me is posters are saying we deserved to lose for playing so poorly well what if we had played great and it came down to that call would they be mad then. It should not matter if a team plays good or bad there should never be a situation that a decision by a ref decides the outcome of the game.

 

[LWSVOL]

That's a great point, precedent has been set many times by replay officials that have reviewed similar plays in college football. Those officials have followed the rules, I guess that is what irriates me the most in a situation like this is the complete lack of consistency with regard to this call and the blatant disregard of the replay rule in college football.

By rule the call on the field is presumed to be correct until there is indisputable video evidence which refutes the call in question, therefore, the vast majority of observers would say clearly thers WAS NOT indisputable video evidence to overturn the spot on that play, and clearly, the call on the field should never be overturned in that situation!

doesn't matter what the vast majority think. the replay official is the only one that matters because he is making call.

he decides if the video evidence removes all doubt in his mind that the call was wrong. He then reverses it. that is what happened..

what we believe about the video evidence doesn't matter.. just like many times during a game we disagree with calls made by referees that are not replayed. PI calls, late hit calls, etc...

 

[tim]

The other thing that is killing me is posters are saying we deserved to lose for playing so poorly well what if we had played great and it came down to that call would they be mad then. It should not matter if a team plays good or bad there should never be a situation that a decision by a ref decides the outcome of the game.

Ironic.

 

[LWSVOL]

The reversal was wrong without video evidence. If a fumble occurs, the ref calls it Vandy's ball (even if a Vol emerges with it) and it wasnt on video it would still be Vandy's ball..agree?

I'm not debating if the call made by the official was correct or not. My debate is the way the rule is written he determines if the video evidence can be used to over turn the call or not. It is his discretion that the video evidence is enough to over turn it. No matter what I think the evidence shows.

 

[tim]

doesn't matter what the vast majority think. the replay official is the only one that matters because he is making call.

he decides if the video evidence removes all doubt in his mind that the call was wrong. He then reverses it. that is what happened..

what we believe about the video evidence doesn't matter.. just like many times during a game we disagree with calls made by referees that are not replayed. PI calls, late hit calls, etc...

Right. So when a call is reviewed it should be clear before it is overturned.