Vic Wharton tweet says refs from last night got suspended

#101
#101
jhen713 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Preface: The game shouldn't have come down to needing a 4th down stop to win, etc.

That's where I take issue, too. By definition, there is disputable evidence regarding the ball's position. To overturn the spot that was called on the field, the replay official needed indisputable video evidence of the ball's correct spot. No video evidence was available to show where the ball was making any available evidence disputable. Thus, by the rule, the spot could not have been overturned.

Right or wrong, it seems like the review process has evolved from the "indisputable evidence" standard (i.e. confirming that there was a reasonable basis for the call on the field) to a "let's get the 'right call' on the field."
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#102
#102
He didnt control the ball all the way through the catch. He bobbled it again when he ended with it in his right arm.
 
#103
#103
well, how bout the facemask call on the last drive? Vandy player grabbed UT defender's facemask, UT player was only one called.

The biggest error was the replay to overturn the bad spot. It was a horrible spot, but that was ref's mistake, not UT's. They should not have been punished for it. There was no way video showed the ball on that sneak. You could not see the ball thus making it IMPOSSIBLE to overturn the call.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#104
#104
OrangeInKy said:
The biggest error was the replay to overturn the bad spot. It was a horrible spot, but that was ref's mistake, not UT's. They should not have been punished for it. There was no way video showed the ball on that sneak. You could not see the ball thus making it IMPOSSIBLE to overturn the call.
Click to expand...

How was UT punished by either the bad spot or the correction?
 
#105
#105
OrangeInKy said:
well, how bout the facemask call on the last drive? Vandy player grabbed UT defender's facemask, UT player was only one called.

The biggest error was the replay to overturn the bad spot. It was a horrible spot, but that was ref's mistake, not UT's. They should not have been punished for it. There was no way video showed the ball on that sneak. You could not see the ball thus making it IMPOSSIBLE to overturn the call.
Click to expand...

And Vandy should have been?
 
#109
#109
bamawriter said:
UT wasn't punished by the ball being spotted correctly. The result was what everyone on the field deserved.
Click to expand...

I get what you're saying, but I don't understand how the call was reversed based on the established criteria. What indisputable video evidence was used to determine the new ball spot?
 
#110
#110
dreVol said:
I get what you're saying, but I don't understand how the call was reversed based on the established criteria. What indisputable video evidence was used to determine the new ball spot?
Click to expand...

I understand this argument, and I won't argue that there was indisputable evidence of anything. But working eyeballs and common sense could tell you that he got the first down. If the ultimate point of instant replay is to get the call right, then I don't see how anyone can argue that it didn't work in this instance.
 
#111
#111
bamawriter said:
I understand this argument, and I won't argue that there was indisputable evidence of anything. But working eyeballs and common sense could tell you that he got the first down. If the ultimate point of instant replay is to get the call right, then I don't see how anyone can argue that it didn't work in this instance.
Click to expand...

And if that's the goal, then the criteria should be changed, in my opinion. It seems like everytime a play is reviewed, I question my understanding of the meaning of "indisputable."

If a review takes more than 10 seconds, then the video evidence isn't indisputable.

If a review requires 100x magnification and 50 super slow-mo replays, then the video evidence isn't indisputable.

If we're simply double checking the officials' real-time calls, then let's change the rule to reflect that.
 
#112
#112
I hate the bobble rule. It is too subjective. If the player catches the ball and it does not touch the ground it should be a catch, regardless. It is just a bad rule that allows for too much interpretation.
 
#113
#113
he never bobbled it. he was holding the ball, like books, then just grabbed it in his hands. watch it again.
 
#114
#114
dreVol said:
And if that's the goal, then the criteria should be changed, in my opinion. It seems like everytime a play is reviewed, I question my understanding of the meaning of "indisputable."
Click to expand...

The interesting thing is, I haven't seen anyone, even on VN, argue that it wasn't a first down. Maybe the standard is up for debate, and I get that. But "indisputable" or not, no one actually seems to be disputing it.
 
#115
#115
Notorious B.E.N said:
But when he landed he bobbled it, he didn't complete the catch.
Click to expand...

I would just respectively request that you look at it again....it was ruled a catch....he had the foot down without a doubt...but there DEFINITELY wasnt enough to overturn it even if he didnt have control...which the video obviously shows he did...officating that game would be difficult and I dont slam officals...but man they lost control of that game and had an effect on the game....still its tough in a game like that...
 
#116
#116
bamawriter said:
The interesting thing is, I haven't seen anyone, even on VN, argue that it wasn't a first down. Maybe the standard is up for debate, and I get that. But "indisputable" or not, no one actually seems to be disputing it.
Click to expand...

Having been at the game at that point the officals had already had a rough night and the trust level wasnt very high....you gotta have something in you to overturn that call at that point in the game with the way the game had been officiated to that point...I think that's a big issue here...they struggled at best all night...
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#117
#117
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 was fourth down.
 
#118
#118
bamawriter said:
The interesting thing is, I haven't seen anyone, even on VN, argue that it wasn't a first down. Maybe the standard is up for debate, and I get that. But "indisputable" or not, no one actually seems to be disputing it.
Click to expand...

You're right about it being a first down. In my opinion, if you're going to have a standard, use it. Whether it will always generate the "right" outcome is debatable, but at least there will be some level of predictability. Otherwise, it's a question of the ends justifying the means.

Did Vanderbilt get a first down? Likely, yes.
Was there indisputable evidence to overturn the line judge's spot? No.

I'm fine with ends justifying the means (i.e. getting the calls right), but that isn't the standard and it's certainly not applied consistently.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#119
#119
bamawriter said:
The interesting thing is, I haven't seen anyone, even on VN, argue that it wasn't a first down. Maybe the standard is up for debate, and I get that. But "indisputable" or not, no one actually seems to be disputing it.
Click to expand...
The rule for replay reads:
"To reverse an on-field ruling, the replay official must be convinced beyond all doubt by indisputable video evidence through one or more video replays provided to the monitor."
Regardless of what you, I , or anyone else thinks, with regards to the rule, there is no way that should have been over-turned...even though it was a bad spot. Had the rule stopped at "convinced beyond all doubt", it would have been fine to overturn, it's the "by indisputable video evidence" part that's troublesome.
 
#120
#120
40Cap said:
Regardless of what you, I , or anyone else thinks, with regards to the rule, there is no way that should have been over-turned...even though it was a bad spot. Had the rule stopped at "convinced beyond all doubt", it would have been fine to overturn, it's the "by indisputable video evidence" part that's troublesome.
Click to expand...

Like I said, everyone is debating whether the video evidence was indisputable, but absolutely no one is disputing that the official on the field made a bad spot that was corrected in the replay booth.
 
#121
#121
bamawriter said:
Like I said, everyone is debating whether the video evidence was indisputable, but absolutely no one is disputing that the official on the field made a bad spot that was corrected in the replay booth.
Click to expand...

Riiiiight. Whether the call on the field was bad has no bearing on the replay official's ability to overturn the call as the rule is written. That's the problem I have with it. A lot if wrong calls are made during the course of a game. Should the replay official review and overturn every one of them?
 
#122
#122
bamawriter said:
Like I said, everyone is debating whether the video evidence was indisputable, but absolutely no one is disputing that the official on the field made a bad spot that was corrected in the replay booth.
Click to expand...
But replay is not designed simply to correct a bad call, it is a tool for correcting calls that can be corrected via "indisputable video evidence". There is a reason that standard is set so high, to take assumption and subjectivity out of it.
 
#123
#123
dreVol said:
Riiiiight. Whether the call on the field was bad has no bearing on the replay official's ability to overturn the call as the rule is written. That's the problem I have with it. A lot if wrong calls are made during the course of a game. Should the replay official review and overturn every one of them?
Click to expand...

I'd be happier if the NCAA went to a challenge system similar to the NFL's. I think the risk/reward scenario makes long stoppages in play less likely.

That said, that isn't really relevant when discussing this particular play. The spot on the field was wrong, and it was corrected upon review. Whether or not one believes it met the criteria, the review accomplished the sole purpose of instant replay: getting the call right.
 
#124
#124
40Cap said:
But replay is not designed simply to correct a bad call, it is a tool for correcting calls that can be corrected via "indisputable video evidence". There is a reason that standard is set so high, to take assumption and subjectivity out of it.
Click to expand...

No, replay is designed to get the call on the field correct. The standard for doing so is supposed to be "indisputable video evidence." In this case, replay accomplished it's sole purpose, despite failing to meet the prescribed standard. It's kind of an "ends justifying the means" situation.
 
#125
#125
Not saying the call was wrong or that it cost the Vols the game. However, if they can use the video to overturn the spot and the measurement with the chains; why do they waste time by bringing the chains out on the field. In every TV game, just use the replay to determine if it's a first down.

That would be much quicker than having a couple of fat guys drag the chain and markers across the field, and having the ref stretching the chain.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top