Vic Wharton tweet says refs from last night got suspended

#26
#26
JFBanicki said:
Well the problem is that even though it is easy to say the QB crossed the first down marker, it was completely impossible to see where the ball was at the time or if he even had it. The whole point of the replay is to get the correct call and to overturn a call on the field they must have indisputable video evidence which is something they did not have on that call. Without being able to see the ball it is not only reasonable, but rather easy to dispute the overturn.
By them overturning the call on VERY disputable video they completely threw the whole point of the replays out the window and just did as they pleased. They also did it at a time that had a major affect in the outcome of the game.

Now should one questionable call get them suspended no, but factor in that it removed one of the conferences most popular teams from bowl eligibility and the possible revenues that were just lost and I could see the conference using that as a reason to suspend them.
Click to expand...

Bingo!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#27
#27
secking said:
Suspended for? Getting all the calls correct? For actually doing a pretty good job last night? I guess we gotta blame everyone but Butch.
Click to expand...

In my opinion, the spot on the last replay was the least of the refs' screw ups last night.

No delay of game penalty, the missed facemask on the offensive player, and the two generous spots BEFORE the fourth down come to mind.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#29
#29
Tnrdgerunr said:
It was absolutely correct, the head of officials was ask on TV about the call and he said Pig didn't maintain control through the whole catch.
Click to expand...

If I remember correctly that guy was hired by ESPN to interpret the rules and was not the head of officials for that game.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 10 people
#30
#30
DERELICK_MY_VOLS said:
Could not see where the ball was and the QB's hand position was low toward his lap. The ball is not his helmet and shoulders....that was the questionable call I have a problem with....the lack of evidence to over turn the call on the field.
Click to expand...

This 100%

From the TV replay angle they showed there is no way you could see where the ball was so how could they overturn the spot; That is unless the booth official had another angle from the opposite side of the field where the ball was visable.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#31
#31
supersmo18 said:
I was at the game and I would agree with this. As many times as they showed the zoomed-in replay on the jumbotron, it was clear that he had possession with a foot in-bounds. Botched call, IMO.
Click to expand...

Didn't complete the catch. Bobbled right as he stepped out of bounds.
 
#32
#32
volfan411 said:
It does not matter where the ball is at that point the line judge marks the ball where forward progress was stopped so even if he moves forward after that the ball is spotted where he was ruled stopped. So he could have reached the line but according to the spot it was after he had been stopped.
Click to expand...

The forward progress rule is the issue that hasn't been talked about enough. If the play was blown dead and the line judge spotted the ball according to its position when the play was officially over, then it doesn't matter where Carta-Samuels' body was when he fell down. The play is over when forward progress is stopped. Has everyone forgotten how that rule effed us in the Bama game when AJ stripped the ball?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 6 people
#33
#33
The booth assumed the player had the ball mid torso, which could not be seen since the player's back was to the camera. However, Vu would have probably went for it on fourth down anyway. Still, the booth did make an incorrect decision according to protocol.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#35
#35
dreVol said:
The forward progress rule is the issue that hasn't been talked about enough. If the play was blown dead and the line judge spotted the ball according to its position when the play was officially over, then it doesn't matter where Carta-Samuels' body was when he fell down. The play is over when forward progress is stopped. Has everyone forgotten how that rule effed us in the Bama game when AJ stripped the ball?
Click to expand...

I cannot believe posters on here keep talking about where the ball ended up and that is not the question. The question is where did the line judge rule forward progress stopped and both officials came running in to the same spot so I have to think the play was whistled dead and that is the spot where the ball was at.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#36
#36
volfan4evr said:
The booth assumed the player had the ball mid torso, which could not be seen since the player's back was to the camera. However, Vu would have probably went for it on fourth down anyway. Still, the booth did make an incorrect decision according to protocol.
Click to expand...

it was 4th down.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#38
#38
The thing about it is that Pig should of caught the damn ball. Its like the old saying goes never leave it in the refs hands.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#39
#39
That first fumble initial call was absolutely rwdiculous. I have no idea how anyone in the building could have seen him as down. The 4th down spot on V andy was the same way. Where do they get these guys?
 
#41
#41
Who cares? The refs didn't cost us that game. We had multiple opportunities to put the game away and simply didn't execute. Blame officiating all you want but Vandy was trying to give us that game and in true Tennessee fashion of the last several years we played hot potato and gave it back.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#42
#42
Notorious B.E.N said:
He did bobble it after he landed and stepped out.
Click to expand...

He did bobble it, recaptured and controlled it and drug his foot. The very definition of a catch. You show 100 officials the replay - circle the ball held firmly and his foot on the ground and 99 would rule it a catch.

I have a bias - buy my eyes do not - that was a catch and should not have been overruled.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#43
#43
livefaith said:
That first fumble initial call was absolutely rwdiculous. I have no idea how anyone in the building could have seen him as down. The 4th down spot on V andy was the same way. Where do they get these guys?
Click to expand...

The spot after the third down run by Vandy was off by about a yard. He gave him progress that he never reached imo.
 
#44
#44
Want to state my opinion on this and leave it alone. All of these questionable calls have 3 things in common…

1. They were nit-pick calls, the kind where they try exceedingly hard to find a way to reverse the call on the field, even to the point of bringing on a so-called officiating "expert" to explain the call. The Howard sideline catch was in fact a catch, he had it pinned to his chest the whole time. Just because he shifted it slightly after landing out of bounds does not mean he didn't control it.

2. All of them went against the Vols. These are the kinds of calls that used to plague Vandy for years. Not anymore, it's apparent to me the Vols are the new "beneficiaries" of this type of officiating. Only question is how long will the Vols be treated this way.

3. There is no way in hades any of those calls would ever be made against the upper tier SEC teams. Especially in the waning minutes of a close game. Never.

I've seen enough of this stuff over the last few years to convince me that UT is in the SEC/NCAA doghouse in a major way. Don't know why, and doubt I ever will, but it's getting harder every year to keep doing this.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 9 people
#45
#45
Is he talking about the Tennessee Vanderbilt refs or the high school game with the late hit at the end of the game where the coach got suspended.
 
#46
#46
Morpheus said:
Want to state my opinion on this and leave it alone. All of these questionable calls have 3 things in common…

1. They were nit-pick calls, the kind where they try exceedingly hard to find a way to reverse the call on the field, even to the point of bringing on a so-called officiating "expert" to explain the call. The Howard sideline catch was in fact a catch, he had it pinned to his chest the whole time. Just because he shifted it slightly after landing out of bounds does not mean he didn't control it.

2. All of them went against the Vols. These are the kinds of calls that used to plague Vandy for years. Not anymore, it's apparent to me the Vols are the new "beneficiaries" of this type of officiating. Only question is how long will the Vols be treated this way.

3. There is no way in hades any of those calls would ever be made against the upper tier SEC teams. Especially in the waning minutes of a close game. Never.

I've seen enough of this stuff over the last few years to convince me that UT is in the SEC/NCAA doghouse in a major way. Don't know why, and doubt I ever will, but it's getting harder every year to keep doing this.
Click to expand...

This is absolute fact. We need to bully back. Be vocal and take fines. Our AD has to lead charge.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#47
#47
jimallvol said:
The thing about it is that Pig should of caught the damn ball. Its like the old saying goes never leave it in the refs hands.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it hit him right in the chest. The hand adjustment after he came down out of bounds, made look as if he didn't have full possession. Pig killed us, the unnecessary block in the back on dobbs td run was a huge blow. 2 big screw ups at the most critical times.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top