"In disputable video evidence" redefined

#76
#76
GoBigOrange86 said:
We were outplayed and outcoached and we deserved to lose.

However, there was not enough evidence to overturn the call. Carta-Samuels head was over the line, but there was no telling where the ball was. That in addition to overturning the Pig Howard reception were extremely questionable.
Click to expand...

On Pigs "catch" the ball clearly shifts as he goes out of bounds. It may have been him attempting to get a better grip, but the ball moved. And that means he did not have clear possession
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#79
#79
allvol123 said:
Yea. To hell with written rules and definitions of words.
Click to expand...

Yes go by the letter of the law, even though it was one of the worst spots in history and anyone with eyes can tell he got the first down, unless you think the ball was at his feet.

But again, latch onto this as something you can whine about as an excuse we lost, instead of oh...I don't know...blaming a horribly prepared football team that couldn't beat a Vandy team that was giving them the game. At home. With a bowl on the line.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#80
#80
508mikey said:
but did the ball ? that ref may have seen that part but the clown in the booth sure didnt
Click to expand...

Unless you think he carried the ball with his feet, yes.

Let's be honest here...if this were reversed you'd be telling Vandy fans to suck it up because they got it right, just like 2011 with the stupid whistle in OT.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#81
#81
VolsSportsFan said:
Yes go by the letter of the law, even though it was one of the worst spots in history and anyone with eyes can tell he got the first down, unless you think the ball was at his feet.

But again, latch onto this as something you can whine about as an excuse we lost, instead of oh...I don't know...blaming a horribly prepared football team that couldn't beat a Vandy team that was giving them the game. At home. With a bowl on the line.
Click to expand...

Yes, you had a better view than TWO line judges ON THE FIELD.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#82
#82
allvol123 said:
Yes, you had a better view than TWO line judges ON THE FIELD.
Click to expand...

This is correct. The spot was made by two line judges in the same spot. Either the refs on the field really need glasses or the replay official had a hidden agenda because they weren't on the same page all game.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#83
#83
Vol logic said:
This is correct. The spot was made by two line judges in the same spot. Either the refs on the field really need glasses or the replay official had a hidden agenda because they weren't on the same page all game.
Click to expand...

Yup, refs never make mistakes on the field. I don't even know why we even have instant replay...
 
#86
#86
bud0323 said:
It was a first down, but it should've never come down to that. During the drive one of our DBs was called for a face mask, but it was the receiver who grabbed the face mask.
Click to expand...

That was the most inexplicable call in the whole game, and a critical one on their final drive. :question:
 
#88
#88
SEC big-wigs should destroy the booth official. That call kept extra money out of their pockets with one less team in a bowl
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#89
#89
mrredskin said:
SEC big-wigs should destroy the booth official. That call kept extra money out of their pockets with one less team in a bowl
Click to expand...

He even looked like someone who doesnt know football - I would bet he just judged it by the espn announcers opinions
 
#90
#90
BoroVol20 said:
Even as a Tennessee fan, Carta-Samuels clearly crossed the line.
Click to expand...

He may have crossed the line, but you are completely missing the point! You can't see the ball cross the line on the replay; therefore, there was no evidence captured on video to reverse the call on the field.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#91
#91
doublec5 said:
Interpret how you want - rule from NCAA 2013/2014 Rules and Interpretations document.

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.
Click to expand...


Just watching the replay, I have no idea where the ball should have been spotted. I don't understand how any rational person who watched that replay could see indisputable video evidence that the original call on the field was wrong. Based upon the rule, the call on the field should have never been overturned.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#93
#93
xJesusx56 said:
As much as I hate it, if you don't think he crossed the line, then you are a complete idiot.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying he didn't cross the line, I'm saying that based on the video evidence there was no proff that the ball crossed the line. In fact based on the replay it was completely inconclusive.

The replay official ignored the rule book when he overturned the call on the field as by rule there must be indisputable video evidence to reverse the call on the field.

On the replay you can not see the ball, just the player so one must make an assumption the ball crossed the line to make the first down. Let me be completely clear, There was not indisputable video evidence that the ball crossed the line to make so by rule, the play can't be overturned!

I know it's a technicality but that's the rule plain and simple.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#94
#94
xJesusx56 said:
As much as I hate it, if you don't think he crossed the line, then you are a complete idiot.
Click to expand...

It does not matter if he crossed the line it matters where the ball was when the whistle blew both officials spotted the ball in the same spot so I have to think that is where it was when the whistle blew. He could have broke loose and ran for a TD but if the whistle had blown he was down unless you are Eric Gordon.
 
#96
#96
volmoon said:
Until tonight, the rule for overturning a call on the field required "indisputable video evidence." Tonight, the call was reversed without video evidence of THE BALL advancing for a first down. There was no video evidence of the ball crossing the first down line.
Click to expand...

Just shut up. The reversed call was correct.
 
#98
#98
allvol123 said:
Thinking he did is irrelevant.

If you can't understand the written rule then it does not matter.
Click to expand...

That is right there are so many factors in ball placement the only review should be is the ball placed where the line judge spotted it. No one can hear when the whistle is blown and that alone is a HUGE factor in ball placement.
 
#99
#99
The black line is lined up with the football presnap, the yellow line is about 6 inches past the black line. The snap was taken, and the QB pushed for 3 whole steps, and then slid on top of the pile. He was completely over the black line, and 3/4 over the yellow line. And the ref comes in, and places the ball back on the black line.

It may have been the worst spot in the history of spots. And replay got it right. Completely because it was indisputable that the call on the field was wrong. They don't need to see the ball, to know that his feet were past where they actually marked the ball.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#100
#100
wolfe said:
If a TN player was carrying the ball you wouldn't be on here whining about the reversed call.
Click to expand...

That is an atrocious execution of the replay rule, don't give a damn who had the ball.

Me understanding words and rules appears like whining to you because you are not very intelligent.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top