Vic Wharton tweet says refs from last night got suspended

#76
#76
volstuckinNC said:
I don't think I've ever seen them contradict the officiating crew in that instance. Pig had clear control. He shifted the ball to his right hand and raised his left hand to keep the defender from getting to the ball. Good call on the field totally botched by the review ref.

There was also a blatant block in the back by Candy that wasn't called early on the last drive. On the facemask call, the offense also had hands in the facemask so those should have offset.

All this would have been irrelevant if we had an offensive game plan that could score 15 points. First game that really, really makes me question the coaching.
Click to expand...

Having that guy in the booth is as useless as interviewing the coaches at halftime; there's no way the guy is going to say "Oh wow, that ref is so freakin' wrong". He's going to agree with them no matter what to "protect their own".
 
#77
#77
gunner said:
I agree, but they didn't and here we are. The lack of execution by the offense this season is very concerning.
Click to expand...

I watched the game with 6 friends and they all echo your sentiment. VERY CONCERNING. We were surprised that this was the execution we were seeing after 2 weeks of prep.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#80
#80
chatt-townVOL said:
Anyone know anything about this?
Click to expand...

Lmao at this thread Vic is probably referring to the NFL ref that just got suspended for talking trash. But since we're playing, here's my take:

The Pig Howard catch was a catch. After he stepped out of bounds he shifted the ball from that awkward position he secured it in to a normal grip. He never lost control. The QB sneak was probably enough for a first down, but I agree that there is no camera angle that shows that conclusively.

Both calls should have been upheld, but if they were Vandy would feel twice as robbed as we do. They outplayed us.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#82
#82
Notorious B.E.N said:
He did bobble it after he landed and stepped out.
Click to expand...

Wrong he bobbled it then controlled it with his left foot on the ground. No conclusive evidence to overturn that! It was a catch!
No conclusive evidence that Candy got the 1st down, he was short!

Ridiculous officiating and they should all be fired! I was at the game and this is the 3rd game the officials have taken in 3 yrs!

:cray:

Tennesseeduke
 
#86
#86
It'd be nice if every challenge didn't take 2-3 minutes. That's really my only gripe with the officials last night.
 
#87
#87
The main reasons I am still infuriated by the block in the back call:
-Who ever heard of a block in the back on a non-ST's play.
-It as more like a lovepat on the back, & was far away from the ball. Ie, inappropriate & ticky tack.
-On the very next drive AJ Johnson was blocked hard in the back about a half yd from the ball near Jordan Matthews, & that was not called.

Pathetic refereeing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#88
#88
Orange to the Bay said:
The main reasons I am still infuriated by the block in the back call:
-Who ever heard of a block in the back on a non-ST's play.
-It as more like a lovepat on the back, & was far away from the ball. Ie, inappropriate & ticky tack.
-On the very next drive AJ Johnson was blocked hard in the back about a half yd from the ball near Jordan Matthews, & that was not called.

Pathetic refereeing.
Click to expand...
you can't be serious.......it was a definite block in the back and was the only way Dobbs scores on that play.
 
#89
#89
KBVol said:
It was an awful spot. I was hoping like hell that it would some how not be reviewed because as soon as I saw it it was evident it would be overturned. As far as not being able to see the ball, I don't know. I just know that 2/3 of his body was beyond the line to make before his forward progress was stopped.
Click to expand...

While it may have been a bad spot, the rule is there that you must have INDISPUTABLE video evidence because there is an assumption that the line judge (or other official) on the field may have been able to see something that is not visible on video. IMO, without being able to see THE BALL (which is what would have needed to cross that plane for the first down) on video, I don't think you can call it "indisputable evidence."

We don't know what the line judge saw. And the guy in the booth doesn't really either.
 
Last edited:
#90
#90
VolsSportsFan said:
Saying the line judge ruled the forward progress really doesn't help matters because that would be just as wrong.

If that guy seriously thought his forward progress was stopped there, he needs to be banned from ever calling a game again.
Click to expand...

Why not the ball is spotted where forward progress is deemed stopped so it does matter. As a matter of fact it is all that matters.

And I agree it was a terrible spot but that is not what we are discussing we are discussing did the booth have evidence that the ball was at any other spot than the one marked by the line judge when the whistle blew.
 
#91
#91
If they got suspended for anything it should be the awful 3rd and inches spotting where he clearly lost yardage. No way they pick up the sneak if he spots it correctly. Of course, they're not the reason UT allowed a TD or couldn't complete a pass.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#92
#92
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...
It is a moot point, however, I would like to know, never being a football official what the point of reference the official who made the call is referencing his decision on the play being a catch. Was he concentrating on the foot, the ball, the sideline. If his concentration was on all three that would be a tough call to make. Also the fact that he had at least 10 people on the sideline making X's with their arms and yelling incomplete as loud as they could, were trying to help him make his decision. Once again maybe one of you officials can make me better understand why he said the play was a completition! Thanks!
 
Last edited:
#93
#93
PineyBluff Vol said:
It is a mute point, however, I would like to know, never being a football official what the point of reference the official who made the call is referencing his decision on the play being a catch. Was he concentrating on the foot, the ball, the sideline. If his concentration was on all three that would be a tough call to make. Also the fact that he had at least 10 people on the sideline making X's with their armso and yelling incomplete as loud as they could, were trying to help him make his decision. Once again maybe one of you officials can make me better understand why he said the play was a completition!
Click to expand...
A mute point. Is that anything like a moot point??

If the passing game were just mediocre it wouldnt have mattered.
 
#94
#94
Notorious B.E.N said:
He did bobble it after he landed and stepped out.
Click to expand...

There's a precedent with this type of catch that shows why it should not have been overturned.

Who remembers the bowl game against UNC, I believe near the end of the game, when Janzen Jackson got penalized for a personal foul (they said he "launched" into the WR)? It was a sideline catch, and the catch was reviewed because the ball moved in his arms (clearly as a result of the hit, not because he was adjusting his grip on the ball or anything like that) as he was going out of bounds. It was called a catch on the field, and I can't remember if the replay official confirmed the catch or simply made it stand, but the phrase that was used was "The ball moved within the confines of the player's possession", which is why it wasn't ruled incomplete.

But of course the same scenario goes against us.
Pig had possession of that ball. That was a bad call.
 
Last edited:
#95
#95
PineyBluff Vol said:
It is a moot point, however, I would like to know, never being a football official what the point of reference the official who made the call is referencing his decision on the play being a catch. Was he concentrating on the foot, the ball, the sideline. If his concentration was on all three that would be a tough call to make. Also the fact that he had at least 10 people on the sideline making X's with their arms and yelling incomplete as loud as they could, were trying to help him make his decision. Once again maybe one of you officials can make me better understand why he said the play was a completition! Thanks!
Click to expand...

Well, all three of those things certainly play important parts into whether that is called complete or incomplete. Considering the only reason it was ruled incomplete was because of Pig changing hands while he was in the air (which was something the official couldn't see from his angle), it was actually a pretty impressive call. In real time, I certainly thought it looked like he didn't gain possession until after he had stepped out (not counting the "bobble"). If Pig had simply not switched hands mid-air, it would have been the correct call.
 
#96
#96
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...

That play was 4th down. What planet are you on? Had the mark been upheld Tennessee wins. No wonder you don't have a clue and think the officials didn't blow a bunch of calls last night and most of them against TN.
 
#98
#98
fur burglar said:
http://espn.go.com/watchespn/player?id=1216515
http://espn.go.com/watchespn/player?id=1216515


3:25:37 you can clearly see the ball in his hand, under his shoulder, past the first down line
Click to expand...

No, you cannot. You can't cleary see where it should be spotted from that angle, nor at what point he is actually down.

I believe he got a 1st down and that no Vol fan should blame the officiating for Saturday night's debacle, but there is no way to get a definitive spot on where the ball should have been spotted. All the official could do is the same thing we're doing: guessing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#99
#99
865dude said:
I could see it. No way they should have been that far off on the spot in the first place.
Click to expand...

I agree, but in the review, you can't see where the ball is. You can't assume that beaause his helmet got go the 33, that the ball did. Either way, the offensive play/play calling sucked bad and we didn't deserve to win.
 
#100
#100
Volsfaninva917 said:
Why would they be suspended all the replays were correct. Unless the SEC is upset at the amount of times replay had to be used
Click to expand...

I think the call itself on the spot was probably correct. However the replay official cannot rightly make that call if he cannot see the ball... and he couldn't.

The game never should have been close enough for that to matter. But it was....
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top