Vic Wharton tweet says refs from last night got suspended

#126
#126
bamawriter said:
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.
Click to expand...

wrong. It failed its sole purpose since the video evidence didn't exist. Whether the result was correct or not is irrelevant
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#127
#127
utvolpj said:
wrong. It failed its sole purpose since the video evidence didn't exist
Click to expand...

Again, sole purpose: get the call right. Everything else is criteria and methodology.

If you think the replay official got it wrong, then we're discussing whether replay accomplished its sole purpose. Arguing the evidence is simply arguing means rather than ends.
 
#128
#128
bamawriter said:
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.
Click to expand...
Read the rule, and tell me what replays purpose is
 
#129
#129
bamawriter said:
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.
Click to expand...

How did the replay official know where to spot the ball (here, the 33 yard line) without knowing where the ball was? Did he do a regression analysis to determine where most QBs tuck the ball on a 6 inch QB sneak? Did he just guess where the QB might've been holding the ball?

He might've gotten the call right, but I think it raised significant questions about the applicable standard. I just don't know how the official can say he got the call right if he doesn't have the evidence available to support his decision.
 
#130
#130
bamawriter said:
Again, sole purpose: get the call right. Everything else is criteria and methodology.

If you think the replay official got it wrong, then we're discussing whether replay accomplished its sole purpose. Arguing the evidence is simply arguing means rather than ends.
Click to expand...

yes that's its purpose but it has to use "indisputable video evidence" to accomplish that. That simply did not exist on Sat night. If you can't see the ball you can't change the spot. Pretty simple concept

it failed the requirement to overturn the call. That is why the rule is in place
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#134
#134
dreVol said:
How did the replay official know where to spot the ball (here, the 33 yard line) without knowing where the ball was? Did he do a regression analysis to determine where most QBs tuck the ball on a 6 inch QB sneak? Did he just guess where the QB might've been holding the ball?

He might've gotten the call right, but I think it raised significant questions about the applicable standard. I just don't know how the official can say he got the call right if he doesn't have the evidence available to support his decision.
Click to expand...

I'm not going to dispute that the actual placement of the ball could not be accurately determined. There is no way it could be. But the critical issue on that play was whether or not he got a first down. He go that right, even if he had a margin of error of a few inches.
 
#135
#135
utvolpj said:
yes that's its purpose but it has to use "indisputable video evidence" to accomplish that. That simply did not exist on Sat night. If you can't see the ball you can't change the spot. Pretty simple concept

it failed the requirement to overturn the call. That is why the rule is in place
Click to expand...

That is a criteria, not a purpose. They could change the criteria to "a preponderence of the video evidence" and it wouldn't change the purpose of getting the call right.
 
#136
#136
utvolpj said:
and completely ignoring the rules it must use to accomplish that purpose (of course that's likely intentional)
Click to expand...

I've acknowledged, on multiple occassions, that there was not indisputable evidence. The replay official used bad criteria to make a good call.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#139
#139
bamawriter said:
That is a criteria, not a purpose. They could change the criteria to "a preponderence of the video evidence" and it wouldn't change the purpose of getting the call right.
Click to expand...

it has to use that to accomplish anything. You can't have a replay official using his best guess. You can't separate the use of replay to change a call from the "indisputable video evidence" requirement
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#140
#140
bamawriter said:
You, like several others, are confusing "criteria" with "purpose".
Click to expand...

it's not a criteria it's a requirement

bamawriter said:
I've acknowledged, on multiple occassions, that there was not indisputable evidence. The replay official used bad criteria to make a good call.
Click to expand...

which is not allowed by rule and means moving the spot was not allowed in that instance
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#141
#141
utvolpj said:
it has to use that to accomplish anything. You can't have a replay official using his best guess. You can't separate the use of replay to change a call from the "indisputable video evidence" requirement
Click to expand...

There is certainly an argument to be made for the replay official divorcing himself from what seems like common sense when reviewing a play. His eyes should be the sole determining factor. But in this case, justified or not, the refs common sense played a part in the call.
 
#143
#143
bamawriter said:
There is certainly an argument to be made for the replay official divorcing himself from what seems like common sense when reviewing a play. His eyes should be the sole determining factor. But in this case, justified or not, the refs common sense played a part in the call.
Click to expand...

where is the rule that allows for that? There is not one since the replay official must use the video to determine his ruling. It's why there is a difference between "call stands" and "call is confirmed"

the spot looked to be wrong but overruling it was also wrong. Replay officials do not get to use "common sense"
 
#144
#144
bamawriter said:
You, like several others, are confusing "criteria" with "purpose".
Click to expand...
Where are you getting the "purpose" of replay. That's a serious question, is that coming form the rulebook? It may be and I'm not aware of it. The rule I cited is from the rulebook, and it's pretty black and white and leaves no room for assumption.
 
#145
#145
bamawriter said:
A requirement is also not the same thing as a purpose.
Click to expand...

it must use that requirement to accomplish its purpose. There is no option to freelance

bamawriter said:
Again: bad methodology, correct outcome.
Click to expand...

by the definition of the rule it was the incorrect outcome.

You have to be trolling since this is a very simple concept. You can talk about should have beens if you'd like but there's not really a gray area here
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#146
#146
utvolpj said:
where is the rule that allows for that? There is not one since the replay official must use the video to determine his ruling. It's why there is a difference between "call stands" and "call is confirmed"

the spot looked to be wrong but overruling it was also wrong. Replay officials do not get to use "common sense"
Click to expand...

You just rephrased exactly what I said before the part you bolded.
 
#147
#147
40Cap said:
Where are you getting the "purpose" of replay. That's a serious question, is that coming form the rulebook? It may be and I'm not aware of it. The rule I cited is from the rulebook, and it's pretty black and white and leaves no room for assumption.
Click to expand...

If the purpose of instant replay is something other than getting the call right, what is it?
 
#148
#148
utvolpj said:
it must use that requirement to accomplish its purpose. There is no option to freelance



by the definition of the rule it was the incorrect outcome.

You have to be trolling since this is a very simple concept. You can talk about should have beens if you'd like but there's not really a gray area here
Click to expand...

I'm not trolling in the least. I'm sure if I was a UT fan the lack of evidence would bother me. But I'm not bothered by bad methodology if the refs get the call right. I thought the call on the field was blown, and I thought it was really obvious. As such, the ends justified the means of the review.

But, I agree the the means were totally wrong.
 
#149
#149
bamawriter said:
You just rephrased exactly what I said before the part you bolded.
Click to expand...

so you agree that by rule the replay official got it wrong?

bamawriter said:
If the purpose of instant replay is something other than getting the call right, what is it?
Click to expand...

the purpose is to get a call right based on indisputable video evidence. If that indisputable video evidence does not exist then no change can be made
 
#150
#150
utvolpj said:
so you agree that by rule the replay official got it wrong?
Click to expand...

I agree that there was not indisputable video evidence.

the purpose is to get a call right based on indisputable video evidence. If that indisputable video evidence does not exist then no change can be made
Click to expand...

You are combining the purpose and the standard into one sentence. You could change the standard (indisputable video evidence) without changing the purpose (get the call right).
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top