Most jaw dropping stats

[Oskie Volum]

WAIT!!! I thought it was all Dooley's fault that the extra 2 were on the field??? So r yall saying it was a chaotic situation and both sidelines were running around like chickens with their heads cut off???

Sarcasm aside anyone that was at the the game knew it was a chaotic moment. Also, anyone thats been close enough to that field to smell the grass would know that the field is not flat. If u r standing on one sideline u can barely see the the people on the other sideline from the waist down. So being able to count the # of players on the goal line 35 yds away in a chaotic split second is very difficult.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[Burger]

Good grief...not again! The ball carrier was clearly beyond the point that was needed for a 1st down. It's called common sense, and refs are allowed to use it.

When a rule is in writing, that is the only thing that counts. We don't know if he had a first down. It wasn't right for the ref guess and assume.

 

[Boca Vol]

When a rule is in writing, that is the only thing that counts. We don't know if he had a first down. It wasn't right for the ref guess and assume.

Every replay from every angle showed the ball carrier beyond the spot needed for the 1st down. Officials are allowed, per the rules, to correct egregious errors.

Only a handful of Vol fans have an issue with the overturned call. The rest of the football world accepts it as the correct call

 

[TGVol]

Every replay from every angle showed the ball carrier beyond the spot needed for the 1st down. Officials are allowed, per the rules, to correct egregious errors.

No way this is true because I have not seen any replay that shows that the ball actually passed the first down line (and refs are not supposed to assume anything just based on where the bodies fell which is clearly what they did). This is one of those calls where there is not enough evidence and should have been left as called (by the way if initial call was a first down I would feel the same way in terms of not enough evidence to overturn - so this is not about being a fanboy but simply stating what I saw in replays).

 

[Burger]

No way this is true because I have not seen any replay that shows that the ball actually passed the first down line (and refs are not supposed to assume anything just based on where the bodies fell which is clearly what they did). This is one of those calls where there is not enough evidence and should have been left as called (by the way if initial call was a first down I would feel the same way in terms of not enough evidence to overturn - so this is not about being a fanboy but simply stating what I saw in replays).

Exactly, this post is correct. I try to be objective as I can about our season, but we got boned on that call.

 

[bamawriter]

No way this is true because I have not seen any replay that shows that the ball actually passed the first down line (and refs are not supposed to assume anything just based on where the bodies fell which is clearly what they did). This is one of those calls where there is not enough evidence and should have been left as called (by the way if initial call was a first down I would feel the same way in terms of not enough evidence to overturn - so this is not about being a fanboy but simply stating what I saw in replays).

It is clear from the replay that the spot on the field is incorrect. It is possible to determine that the spot on the field was wrong. The rulebook regarding replay of spots goes silent after that. It says absolutely nothing about having to see exactly where the ball should be spotted, only that there is clear video evidence that the spot on the field should be overturned.

 

[TGVol]

The rulebook regarding replay of spots goes silent after that. It says absolutely nothing about having to see exactly where the ball should be spotted, only that there is clear video evidence that the spot on the field should be overturned.

Link to this rulebook?

 

[bamawriter]

Link to this rulebook?

http://www.ncaapublications.com/productdownloads/FR14.pdf

Pg 107.

Under the list of reviewable plays:

"Ball carrier’s forward progress with respect to a first down."

It says nothing about needing to see the ball in order to reverse the ruling on the field.

Under the philosophy of the replay rule it says:

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.

(pg 106, emphasis mine)

So the replay official only needs to determine that the ruling on the field was incorrect in relationship to the first down. It says nothing about determing the exact spot of the ball beyond the line to gain. Once the replay official determines that the original spot is incorrect, it's a first down.

 

[TGVol]

http://www.ncaapublications.com/productdownloads/FR14.pdf

So the rule does not say anything at all - one way or the other. Can you point out any other game (college or pro) where something like this (4th down conversion or TD) was overruled without clear camera evidence that the ball crossed the plane? Cause I have been watching football for 30 years and since they have started instant replay I have never seen it applied by assuming the ball crossed the plane.

 

[bamawriter]

So the rule does not say anything at all - one way or the other. Can you point out any other game (college or pro) where something like this (4th down conversion or TD) was overruled without clear camera evidence that the ball crossed the plane? Cause I have been watching football for 30 years and since they have started instant replay I have never seen it applied by assuming the ball crossed the plane.

Full-fledged instant replay review has only been used in the NFL since 1999, and universally in Division I-A since 2006. And, from what I can tell, the line to gain review is not terribly common. I can't personally tell you how many I've seen, and I'm betting you can't either.

Regardless, whether or not you or I have seen a similar situation before is meaningless. The rule is what it is. There was indisiputable video evidence to overturn the ruling on the field. I put it this way in another thread:

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

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

-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.

 

[TGVol]

And, from what I can tell, the line to gain review is not terribly common. I can't personally tell you how many I've seen, and I'm betting you can't either.:

:crazy: Every scoring play in NFL is reviewed - how come they always look for camera angle that shows where the ball is before they overrule anything? If you watch as much football as you say you must be able to find at least one other case where they overturned something without seeing the ball? I can't (because it never happened in any game I ever watched). And we already determined that the rule is inconclusive - because it does not spell out that refs are free to ignore the ball (so the next best thing we can do is to resort to what is commonly done in practice).

 

[bamawriter]

:crazy: Every scoring play in NFL is reviewed - how come they always look for camera angle that shows where the ball is before they overrule anything?

In both college and the NFL, broadcasters generally have cameras at or near the goalline. Finding an angle that shows whether or not the ball broke the plane is usually not difficult.

Such camera angles are often more difficult to find on line to gain reviews. So while your comparison isn't exactly apples-to-oranges, it's at least comparing red apples to green.

As I said in my last post, it is possible to determine whether the ball crossed the line to gain without actually seeing the ball. And since the rule doesn't require that the ball be clearly seen, then it appears that the review was handled properly.

Whether or not you've seen a similar situation is ultimately meaningless. Until a few years ago, I'd never seen a one-point safety. That doesn't mean one-point safeties weren't in the rulebook.

 

[sanefan]

:crazy: Every scoring play in NFL is reviewed - how come they always look for camera angle that shows where the ball is before they overrule anything?

Unless you are in the tent with the replay official and he is thinking out loud, you have no idea what he is looking for before making a decision.

Just because the announcers are talking about it does not mean the official making the call is. I have never heard one say what he looked for and what he saw when announcing a replay decision.

 

[TGVol]

Unless you are in the tent with the replay official and he is thinking out loud, you have no idea what he is looking for before making a decision.

Just because the announcers are talking about it does not mean the official making the call is. I have never heard one say what he looked for and what he saw when announcing a replay decision.

Highly qualified analysts/announcers calling the games (mostly former players/coaches who have see it all) know what refs are looking for. And they (along with camera crews) are always looking for visual evidence of where the football is in these types of plays. How do we know this? Because we watch and listen to what they are saying as they break down the plays. :loco:

 

[bamawriter]

Highly qualified analysts/announcers calling the games (mostly former players/coaches who have see it all) know what refs are looking for. And they (along with camera crews) are always looking for visual evidence of where the football is in these types of plays. How do we know this? Because we watch and listen to what they are saying as they break down the plays. :loco:

You've switched arguments here. You've gone from "he didn't follow the rules" to "I think he should have done it differently."

 

[TGVol]

You've switched arguments here. You've gone from "he didn't follow the rules" to "I think he should have done it differently."

Not at all. There is no explicit rule saying what they need to look for (at least not in the rulebook you pointed the link for). Given this why should we not expect them to follow the implicit "rule" that is followed all the time which is to look at the location of the football (if this was not true you would have already pointed out another example - since you can't your argument has nothing to back it up).

 

[bamawriter]

Not at all. There is no explicit rule saying what they need to look for (at least not in the rulebook you pointed the link for). Given this why should we not expect them to follow the implicit "rule" that is followed all the time which is to look at the location of the football (if this was not true you would have already pointed out another example - since you can't your argument has nothing to back it up).

Do you think that at least one ref sees the ball on every single play in every single game?

 

[TGVol]

Do you think that at least one ref sees the ball on every single play in every single game?

Probably there are plays in many games where none of the refs have a clear view of the ball. And in those cases they still have to make the call - if there is no visual evidence on film to overturn those calls (because the ball is not visible there either) then the plays have to stand as called - which is exactly what we are arguing here.

 

[bamawriter]

Probably there are plays in many games where none of the refs have a clear view of the ball. And in those cases they still have to make the call - if there is no visual evidence on film to overturn those calls (because the ball is not visible there either) then the plays have to stand as called - which is exactly what we are arguing here.

Once again, you are citing a rule that does not exist.

And now you've just shown that the "implicit" rule also doesn't exist.

 

[TGVol]

Once again, you are citing a rule that does not exist.

So are you - the link you posted proves that.

 

[Boca Vol]

Probably there are plays in many games where none of the refs have a clear view of the ball. And in those cases they still have to make the call - if there is no visual evidence on film to overturn those calls (because the ball is not visible there either) then the plays have to stand as called - which is exactly what we are arguing here.

Let me ask you this, would you have an issue if the call on the field was a 1st down...as it should have been? Would you say that UT got hosed? Because the video evidence still doesn't show the ball.

 

[governmentmule]

i thought this was suppose to be a jaw dropping stats thread?not rehashing a referees call ?

 

[bamawriter]

So are you - the link you posted proves that.

As much as you would like that to be true, you won't find any post from me stating what the official must or must not do, only what he is allowed to do. The difference between your argument and mine is significant.

 

[TGVol]

Let me ask you this, would you have an issue if the call on the field was a 1st down...as it should have been? Would you say that UT got hosed? Because the video evidence still doesn't show the ball.

I would have no problem with that. However the call on the field cannot be reversed without video evidence where the ball is (indisputable evidence - at least that is how it's always applied - every review I've ever seen they are always desperately looking for some camera angle that shows the ball or otherwise they say inconclusive evidence and cannot be overturned). Again, if anyone knows of any other examples where it was not applied like this I'd like to hear about them.

 

[TGVol]

i thought this was suppose to be a jaw dropping stats thread?not rehashing a referees call ?

It started out by me posting about UT losing 4 games in the weirdest ways possible (controversial calls) - that was supposed to be the jaw dropping stat since I don't think you can find any team in last few years that had anything close to this happen to them. But you are right that post took a turn in wrong direction - sorry about that. On the other hand, nobody else seems interested in posting any more jaw dropping stats so hopefully it does not bother you too much we keep debating those controversial games.