James Franklin is supposedly....

[dreVol]

Again, not true. Let's go step-by-step:

1. You can see down the line that the official marked (thanks in part to it being notably behind the play). You can see that the ball isn't there.

So, immediately there is indisputable video evidence the overturn the call on the field. But, accepting that fact, where should the ball be spotted?

2. Carta-Samuels maintained possession throughout the play. He went into the pile with the ball, and came out of the pile with the ball.

3. Carta-Samuels' arms are bent, so the ball cannot have been lower than his waist.

4. Carta-Samuels' waist is clearly beyond the first down marker. So if the ball isn't below his waist, then the ball has to be past the first down marker.

The rules regarding replay only state that there needs to be indisputable visual evidence to overturn the call on the field. While the rulebook makes a spot reviewable, it does not give any instruction as to what to do when the original spot can be overturned, but the correct spot can't be determined. Seems like a major oversight, but it's an oversight encoded in the rulebook.

You may argue that if the correct spot can't be determined, then it should go back to the original spot even though that spot was indisputably determined to be incorrect. But the rulebook does not mandate that.

Your conclusion to point 1 begs the question. There is no video evidence that the spot was behind the play, because there is an absence of evidence. You can't conclude that the spot was wrong and advance to points 2-4 without establishing the ball's position on the field. If you can't establish the ball's position with replay video, then you must defer to the ruling on the field. Otherwise the rule can be summarized as follows: "Well, we can't really tell where the ball should be spotted, but we're pretty sure the spot is wrong, so we'll just put the ball at the X yard line because that's the fair thing to do."

For all we know, the official determined forward progress was stopped where he marked the ball. If that's the case, the angle of ACS's arm bend becomes irrelevant.

 

[Boca Vol]

Your conclusion to point 1 begs the question. There is no video evidence that the spot was behind the play, because there is an absence of evidence. You can't conclude that the spot was wrong and advance to points 2-4 without establishing the ball's position on the field. If you can't establish the ball's position with replay video, then you must defer to the ruling on the field. Otherwise the rule can be summarized as follows: "Well, we can't really tell where the ball should be spotted, but we're pretty sure the spot is wrong, so we'll just put the ball at the X yard line because that's the fair thing to do."

For all we know, the official determined forward progress was stopped where he marked the ball. If that's the case, the angle of ACS's arm bend becomes irrelevant.

That happens all the time. Can the refs tell with absolute certainty where to spot the ball when there is a pile of players? No. They make a guess, and spot it.

 

[dreVol]

That happens all the time. Can the refs tell with absolute certainty where to spot the ball when there is a pile of players? No. They make a guess, and spot it.

But should that also be the accepted standard for video review?

 

[bamawriter]

For all we know, the official determined forward progress was stopped where he marked the ball. If that's the case, the angle of ACS's arm bend becomes irrelevant.

If the line judge had ruled that forward progress had stopped, but the ball carrier was not down, then he failed to properly inform the referee of that fact. The review process changes depending on what was called on the field.

 

[Boca Vol]

But should that also be the accepted standard for video review?

I'm not sure. I think in the case of the Vandy game, it really didn't matter as long as it was spotted past the 1st down marker. I think the ref even said something to the effect of, "After further review, the runner reached the 33 yard line which was enough for a 1st down."

 

[hog88]

I'm not sure. I think in the case of the Vandy game, it really didn't matter as long as it was spotted past the 1st down marker. I think the ref even said something to the effect of, "After further review, the runner reached the 33 yard line which was enough for a 1st down."

But even you have to admit that there was no way the replay official could have seen where the ball was. Without being able to see the ball, there was no indisputable video evidence to overturn the call on the field.

 

[LotteryPick]

Bad call or not, UT flat out lost.

Losing your best WR and having a QB struggling to throw the ball (injured his thumb, maybe? Never got confirmation) obviously threw a wrench in the game plan, though.

Regardless, UT lost.

 

[Boca Vol]

But even you have to admit that there was no way the replay official could have seen where the ball was. Without being able to see the ball, there was no indisputable video evidence to overturn the call on the field.

I think in the refs mind that it was clear on the
replay he crossed the spot needed for a 1st. If
the ball wasn't fumbled, it was reasonable that the carrier still had the ball.

The written rules are vague, thus this discussion.

 

[hog88]

I think in the refs mind that it was clear on the
replay he crossed the spot needed for a 1st. If
the ball wasn't fumbled, it was reasonable that the carrier still had the ball.

The written rules are vague, thus this discussion.

The rules are not vague, its indisputable video evidence. He could have been in control of the ball but the ball down by is crotch thus no first down.

That being said, I do think the call on the field was incorrect. My point is that the VR official didn't have the video evidence to overturn the call. So that was just as bad.

 

[tim]

The rules are not vague, its indisputable video evidence. He could have been in control of the ball but the ball down by is crotch thus no first down.

That being said, I do think the call on the field was incorrect. My point is that the VR official didn't have the video evidence to overturn the call. So that was just as bad.

I agree with you and saw the exact play/call 4 hours or so earlier in the LSU game. Basically both officiating crews were right according to the SEC. Which is a chicken shiat way of not answering the question.

 

[CountVolcula]

First off, only one of the reversed calls was even remotely questionable. The fourth down conversion was absolutely reversed correctly.

Second, Jones and Co dialed back the passing game so much that it ceased to be a threat. The two INTs weren't what derailed UT's offense, it was the 2.8 yards per attempt. Vandy's safeties got to play in the box without any legit worry about being burned. UT's coaches flat out stopped running routes to get them out of the box.

It always helps to have an unbiased eye

 

[Boca Vol]

Unfortunately the rules, as written, are pretty vague. However, there is sort of a "catch-all" at the end of the Instant Replay section of the rulebook.

ARTICLE 6. No other plays or officiating decisions are reviewable. However, the replay official may correct egregious errors, including those involving the game clock, whether or not a play is reviewable. This excludes fouls that are not specifically reviewable (Reviewable fouls: Rules 12-3-2-c and d, 12-3-4-b and 12-3-5-a).

I would assume the overturned spot was considered an egregious error considering the ball carrier was beyond the spot needed and the ball wasn't on the ground or behind him. That's what Rocky Goode was talking about when he mentioned the refs are allowed to use common sense.

The rules are not vague, its indisputable video evidence. He could have been in control of the ball but the ball down by is crotch thus no first down.

That being said, I do think the call on the field was incorrect. My point is that the VR official didn't have the video evidence to overturn the call. So that was just as bad.

Like I said earlier, they gave themselves a "catch-all"....see above. And the "indisputable evidence" you keep mentioning is left up to the replay official's interpretation..which can include common sense. The ball clearly wasn't between his crotch given the angle of his arms, and the fact that the ball wasn't fumbled.

 

[KoachKletus]

jesus christ,,,he crossed the line, it was clear to everybody that he got a first down - but the one official who spotted the ball. RP was correct and we lost the game. It's vandy. It has really sucked the past couple of years, 2011 we had to beat them on a last minute interception, 2012, 2013 was major suckatooge on our part. 2012 UK loss was double major suckatooge. It is what it is but won't be no more.