"In disputable video evidence" redefined

[tim]

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.

Overturning a call should not occur unless all doubt is removed. That is the standard. The call was botched twice.

 

[LWSVOL]

Overturning a call should not occur unless all doubt is removed. That is the standard. The call was botched twice.

read the rule again. if the video evidence CONVINCES HIM beyond doubt, he can reverse it.

Of course he can botch it but the rule gives him the leeway to do so.

 

[bamawriter]

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.

I hate to respond to questions with questions, but I think I would be able to better respond to you if you could answer the following for me first:

1. Do you think that a linesman sees the exact spot of the ball on 100% of all plays in the typical game of football?

2. Do you think that officials (on-field or in the booth) ever make mistakes?

 

[bamawriter]

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...

Gunner keeps making the same argument in defense of the on-field official. "His opinion is the one that matters" and such. I think there's plenty of blame to go around, but I applaud the officials, as a group, for ultimately getting the call right.

 

[volfan411]

I hate to respond to questions with questions, but I think I would be able to better respond to you if you could answer the following for me first:

1. Do you think that a linesman sees the exact spot of the ball on 100% of all plays in the typical game of football?

2. Do you think that officials (on-field or in the booth) ever make mistakes?

I will answer number 1 with the spot of the ball is his opinion so should they review every spot what if they mark the ball 6 inches short on 2nd down it affects 3rd down then so every spot could be subject to review.

I will answer number 2 with yes and yes. We have seen it happen twice against Vandy this year and 2 years ago.

I also seen in the LSU/TaM game the on field official mark the ball the same way the official in our game did and the replay official probably had more evidence to turn that one over but did not and the reason given was he could NOT see the ball.

 

[bamawriter]

I will answer number 2 with yes and yes. We have seen it happen twice against Vandy this year and 2 years ago.

I also seen in the LSU/TaM game the on field official mark the ball the same way the official in our game did and the replay official probably had more evidence to turn that one over but did not and the reason given was he could NOT see the ball.

I won't argue against the comparison to the LSU-A&M play. But if he picked up the first, it was by a few inches. ACS picked up the first by a few feet. Both spots were bad, but only one was baffling.

 

[bamawriter]

I will answer number 1 with the spot of the ball is his opinion so should they review every spot what if they mark the ball 6 inches short on 2nd down it affects 3rd down then so every spot could be subject to review.

I see your point. As a general rule, the replay official will typically look at spots on possession downs. Right or wrong, that's just how it is.

 

[tim]

read the rule again. if the video evidence CONVINCES HIM beyond doubt, he can reverse it.

Of course he can botch it but the rule gives him the leeway to do so.

Read the words immediately after the boldened.

 

[Volunteer_Kirby]

Seems like it is a pretty conclusive case. Replay official gets final ruling, always will. We have been screwed in worse ways than this and will continue to get our fair share of good and bad calls. It's the nature of the beast. And sometimes the beast goes in the opponent's favor. So it goes . . .

 

[bamawriter]

Read the words immediately after the boldened.

Doubt is up to the individual, is it not?

 

[volfan411]

I see your point. As a general rule, the replay official will typically look at spots on possession downs. Right or wrong, that's just how it is.

Yes I agree but the spot on the other 2 downs can be just as important when. You come up inches short. I complain in just about every game about the spot and my thinking is with the new rules and emphasis being placed on safety that refs are quick to rule forward progress has been stopped.

 

[Burger]

There's no record of that anywhere else. The SEC office has been bombarded with questions about the replay from our fans. But, so far everyone has said the refs were correct in all their reviews

They're protecting these refs then?

 

[tim]

I won't argue against the comparison to the LSU-A&M play. But if he picked up the first, it was by a few inches. ACS picked up the first by a few feet. Both spots were bad, but only one was baffling.

Does it matter (I disagree btw, LSU QB was more obvious). An inch or a yard, if you cannot see the ball you cannot make the call. (Obvious OJ joke). It is apparent LSU and TAMU got the "A" team refs and we got the leftovers.

 

[tim]

Doubt is up to the individual, is it not?

Beyond doubt. But yes, it is. However, the standard is simple. If you cannot see the ball you cannot overturn the call. Ask yourself if he could overturn Pigs catch if there was no video of the ball as he was going out of bounds. I dont dispute the fact that the replay official saw waht we saw, but he cannot overturn based on that. He will not make the same mistake as I will guarantee he is being or has already been re-trained on spot calls.

 

[LWSVOL]

Read the words immediately after the boldened.

I have. he interprets beyond doubt. We can all disagree with what beyond doubt is to each of us and we can certainly disagree what the replay guy views as beyond doubt. But again, it is left up to his discretion to determine what is beyond doubt.

the rule does not quantify doubt. leaves it up to your interpretation, my interpretation or the replay officials interpretation.

you believe the ball has to be visible. the replay guy obviously doesn't believe that

 

[LWSVOL]

Yes I agree but the spot on the other 2 downs can be just as important when. You come up inches short. I complain in just about every game about the spot and my thinking is with the new rules and emphasis being placed on safety that refs are quick to rule forward progress has been stopped.

80% of the ball spots are off a few inches or more. could be plus or minus but are off. JMO on the percentage..

 

[gunner]

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.

You are correct in the regard that he must be convinced and have no doubt.

But, by rule the call on the field was correct and the replay official based on the replay could not see the ball on the replay to accurately know where to spot it.

How could he not have doubts? Just because the runners helmet reached the 33 yard line doesn't mean the ball reached the 1st down marker. He simply assumed that it did which is not indisputable video evidence.

 

[gunner]

I also seen in the LSU/TaM game the on field official mark the ball the same way the official in our game did and the replay official probably had more evidence to turn that one over but did not and the reason given was he could NOT see the ball.

Boom. that's my point exactly how can you spot something you can't see? He used circumstantial evidence to do so not indisputable evidence.

 

[bamawriter]

But, by rule the call on the field was correct and the replay official based on the replay could not see the ball on the replay to accurately know where to spot it.

But therein lies the issue. You are reading something into the replay rule that isn't there. The replay rule only spells out that the review official gets to determine whether the call on the field is correct or not. That's a yes or no question. To that end, I think there is a major gap when it comes to spots, because the answer to the question "Where should the ball be spotted?" isn't yes or no.

There were two parts to this review:

1. Was the spot on the field correct? That could be answered with the visual evidence as a big "no". It was clearly incorrect. If this were a catch, or a fumble, or a foot in bounds, then the "no" would be the end of the review. That's also where the rulebook sort of ends.

2. Where should the ball have been spotted? There is no way that the review official could have been certain. But, despite giving the replay official authority over spots, it doesn't really deal with a situation where the spot on the field can easily be overturned, but the correct spot isn't clear. I'm sure you'll argue that it would naturally default back to the original spot even though that spot was already determined to be wrong. But the rulebook doesn't actually say that (at least not that I can find). The rulebook simply grants the review official the authority to overturn the original call on the field, which he did.

This may make a good argument for why spots shouldn't be reviewable at all, now that I look at it.

 

[gunner]

read the rule again. if the video evidence CONVINCES HIM beyond doubt, he can reverse it.

Of course he can botch it but the rule gives him the leeway to do so.

He certainly botched it. IMO, based upon my experience from viewing hundreds of college football games, over the years, he is the only replay official I have seen to overturn a spot of the ball without direct video evidence to do so. That's what most concerning is the clear lack of consistency on his part.

 

[LWSVOL]

You are correct in the regard that he must be convinced and have no doubt.

But, by rule the call on the field was correct and the replay official based on the replay could not see the ball on the replay to accurately know where to spot it.

How could he not have doubts? Just because the runners helmet reached the 33 yard line doesn't mean the ball reached the 1st down marker. He simply assumed that it did which is not indisputable video evidence.

he reversed it so it had to be beyond his having doubts. No one but he can explain why he had no doubt.

 

[Sandvol]

I slipped the head linesman a C-note and was making my way up to the replay booth but didn't get there in time.

 

[gunner]

he reversed it so it had to be beyond his having doubts. No one but he can explain why he had no doubt.

I completely understand your point, my point is he made a mistake, based upon the evidence available to him the call should have never been reversed.

I would love to hear his explanation has to what he saw on video that would lead him to believe that the spot on the field should be overturned. Unless he could see the ball reach the marker he did not have the evidence. All he had was circumstantial evidence which is not enough to overturn the call.

 

[gunner]

But therein lies the issue. You are reading something into the replay rule that isn't there. The replay rule only spells out that the review official gets to determine whether the call on the field is correct or not. That's a yes or no question. To that end, I think there is a major gap when it comes to spots, because the answer to the question "Where should the ball be spotted?" isn't yes or no.

There were two parts to this review:

1. Was the spot on the field correct? That could be answered with the visual evidence as a big "no". It was clearly incorrect. If this were a catch, or a fumble, or a foot in bounds, then the "no" would be the end of the review. That's also where the rulebook sort of ends.

2. Where should the ball have been spotted? There is no way that the review official could have been certain. But, despite giving the replay official authority over spots, it doesn't really deal with a situation where the spot on the field can easily be overturned, but the correct spot isn't clear. I'm sure you'll argue that it would naturally default back to the original spot even though that spot was already determined to be wrong. But the rulebook doesn't actually say that (at least not that I can find). The rulebook simply grants the review official the authority to overturn the original call on the field, which he did.

This may make a good argument for why spots shouldn't be reviewable at all, now that I look at it.

I am not reading anything into the rule. The rule is simple the call on the field is the judgement of the official who made it. No one else. It his his call to make. He made it. If you think it was wrong that is your opinion. But, once the call is made it is what it is, in this case no one had a better view than the linesman on the field. Thus by rule, the call on the field was correct, and there wasn't enough evidence on the replay video to overturn it.

 

[ice]

That was clearly the right call. You're missing the biggest issue. The game should not have been that close.

Ya, what he said.
When it comes down to inches and seconds against Vandy, we know we are in bad shape.