Vic Wharton tweet says refs from last night got suspended

[BeecherVol]

I posted in the wrong thread I see.

 

[utvolpj]

I agree that there was not indisputable video evidence.

so the call on the field should have stood?

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).

they have to be linked. If the rule is changed in the future you may have a point but right now you can't change a call without indisputable video evidence. That did not exist on Sat night

 

[40Cap]

If the purpose of instant replay is something other than getting the call right, what is it?

You can cite the purpose of replay all day, still not sure where you're getting that verbiage, but the fact of the matter is they did not apply it properly based on the "criteria" prescribed by the rule. If they wish to lower the standard by which calls can be overturned, then that's fine. But based on current "criteria", and the current standard, they applied it incorrectly. We lost, we suck, I can live w/ that. It ain't the refs or the replay officials fault. UT sucks, it should never come down to one replay against Vandy for us to win or lose, shame on the Vols for allowing it to be that close. But in this instance they did not apply replay correctly.

 

[IBlvNTmWrk]

If the purpose of instant replay is something other than getting the call right, what is it?

From my understanding, it is exactly as you and PJ are describing it... jointly.

Getting the call right is a "desired outcome" of instant replay not "the purpose", which is very different than over ruling the call on the field based on speculation. The process to achieve the "desired outcome" is to be accomplished through a defined set of specifications that have been agreed to by the referees (both on the field and in the booth). If the booth decides to use "judgement"... which is not part of the agreed to specifications... then they need to revisit the whole process.

 

[bamawriter]

so the call on the field should have stood?

Yes. However, it would have been a bad call and Vanderbilt would have been screwed.

they have to be linked. If the rule is changed in the future you may have a point but right now you can't change a call without indisputable video evidence. That did not exist on Sat night

If you changed to rule to simply read "enough evidence to convince the replay official", the purpose of the rule would be absolutely no different than it is right now. The standard would be problematic, but the purpose would not change.

Purpose defines standards/criteria/requirements, not the other way around.

 

[BeecherVol]

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.

Not all replay situations are the same IMO.

A QB sneak is the most difficult play to spot the ball properly in the game. The only official(s) that could have actually witnessed where the ball was located was one of the 2 or 3 standing over the play, because it was pretty obvious the replay official could not.

According to the replay standards he didn't have enough evidence to overturn it. He went off what he perceived as probability which may have been right or wrong.

The discussion over probability and its role in replay may need to be visited as an option in the future, but thats a different discussion.

 

[bamawriter]

You can cite the purpose of replay all day, still not sure where you're getting that verbiage, but the fact of the matter is they did not apply it properly based on the "criteria" prescribed by the rule. If they wish to lower the standard by which calls can be overturned, then that's fine. But based on current "criteria", and the current standard, they applied it incorrectly. We lost, we suck, I can live w/ that. It ain't the refs or the replay officials fault. UT sucks, it should never come down to one replay against Vandy for us to win or lose, shame on the Vols for allowing it to be that close. But in this instance they did not apply replay correctly.

I agree with all of that. Despite it, the replay official ultimately corrected a bad call on the field; the rest is just debating ends and means.

 

[bamawriter]

Not all replay situations are the same IMO.

A QB sneak is the most difficult play to spot the ball properly in the game. The only official(s) that could have actually witnessed where the ball was located was one of the 2 or 3 standing over the play, because it was pretty obvious the replay official could not.

According to the replay standards he didn't have enough evidence to overturn it. He went off what he perceived as probability which may have been right or wrong.

The discussion over probability and its role in replay may need to be visited as an option in the future, but thats a different discussion.

I don't have an issue with anything in your post.

 

[utvolpj]

I agree with all of that. Despite it, the replay official ultimately corrected a bad call on the field; the rest is just debating ends and means.

which is absolutely not allowed without indisputable video evidence

Yes. However, it would have been a bad call and Vanderbilt would have been screwed.

doesn't matter if that's your belief. That's the rule as written

If you changed to rule to simply read "enough evidence to convince the replay official", the purpose of the rule would be absolutely no different than it is right now. The standard would be problematic, but the purpose would not change.

Purpose defines standards/criteria/requirements, not the other way around.

seriously? The purpose can't exist in a game of rules without the criteria/requirements. Replay was implemented with the belief it would remove subjectivity from the call on the field. That was not the case on Sat night

 

[bamawriter]

seriously? The purpose can't exist in a game of rules without the criteria/requirements. Replay was implemented with the belief it would remove subjectivity from the call on the field. That was not the case on Sat night

Civil courts and criminal courts have the same purpose: to see justice done. They have totally different standards with it comes to evidence.

Again, purpose defines standards.

 

[Vol8188]

I think the pig catch was a horrible call. What I saw was pig clearly catch the ball and then the ball does love after he steps out, but only because he is tucking it away into his right arm.

 

[dreVol]

Civil courts and criminal courts have the same purpose: to see justice done. They have totally different standards with it comes to evidence.

Again, purpose defines standards.

And the appropriate standard is applied to achieve the stated purpose. The courts don't apply any standard they want to achieve said goal.

 

[tnwayback]

Street gossip....Official said, "ball got slapped down below QB's belt and that's why I marked it there"...I'd be pissed to if I were him if that's what happened. But ya know the instant replay showed exactly where his head and shoulders were...that's why it's called...oops... Oh well, we still lost....Rats

 

[bamawriter]

which is absolutely not allowed without indisputable video evidence

Okay. Thanks for repeating what I've already acknowledged multiple times.

I get what's bothering you, and I would feel the same way were I in your position. But as a third party to this particular game, I would have been more bothered by the bad call on the field than I am the dubious methods used to overturn it.

 

[bamawriter]

And the appropriate standard is applied to achieve the stated purpose. The courts don't apply any standard they want to achieve said goal.

Agreed. And if this was something important, like a civil or criminal proceeding, I'd be infinitely more concerned with the standard. But it's a football game, so no one's life, liberty, or rights are at stake.

 

[UT_Tix79]

The ref had indisputable evidence that the call on the field was wrong. Rocky Goode has said this, replay officials have stated this, the head of sec officials stated this.

The line to make was the 33, it was clear to everyone, including Ray Charles, that the spot was terrible. Since the spot was at the feet/shin bone of the QB. The QB didn't fumble the ball, he didnt reach back for the ball, he got up, and handed the ball to the ref.

To the replay official, that is indisputable evidence. He couldn't see the ball, but he could tell that it wasn't fumbled, he could tell that unless he had the ball in his ankles he got the first down. And it was clear he didn't have the ball in his ankles.

It was the correct call

 

[Vol8188]

Street gossip....Official said, "ball got slapped down below QB's belt and that's why I marked it there"...I'd be pissed to if I were him if that's what happened. But ya know the instant replay showed exactly where his head and shoulders were...that's why it's called...oops... Oh well, we still lost....Rats

Head and shoulders doesn't effect the spot of the ball....if you can't see the ball, you can't change the call. It's all dictated on where the ball is.

 

[40Cap]

I agree with all of that. Despite it, the replay official ultimately corrected a bad call on the field; the rest is just debating ends and means.

That's not accurate, but whatever you need to do to fit it to your argument.
Again, it is not the job of the replay official to correct bad calls. If so they would allow them to use it to review holds, blocks in the back and other fouls. It was designed that way intentionally to remove judgement, assumption, and subjectivity from the equation w/ regards to replay.

 

[dreVol]

The ref had indisputable evidence that the call on the field was wrong. Rocky Goode has said this, replay officials have stated this, the head of sec officials stated this.

The line to make was the 33, it was clear to everyone, including Ray Charles, that the spot was terrible. Since the spot was at the feet/shin bone of the QB. The QB didn't fumble the ball, he didnt reach back for the ball, he got up, and handed the ball to the ref.

To the replay official, that is indisputable evidence. He couldn't see the ball, but he could tell that it wasn't fumbled, he could tell that unless he had the ball in his ankles he got the first down. And it was clear he didn't have the ball in his ankles.

It was the correct call

What indisputable evidence was there? Where is the mystery video footage? If the replay official can't see the ball, then how did he decide where to spot it?

 

[utvolpj]

Okay. Thanks for repeating what I've already acknowledged multiple times.

I get what's bothering you, and I would feel the same way were I in your position. But as a third party to this particular game, I would have been more bothered by the bad call on the field than I am the dubious methods used to overturn it.

what's bothering me is you keep saying it was the correct call when it was not according to the rules in place.

 

[bamawriter]

That's not accurate, but whatever you need to do to fit it to your argument.
Again, it is not the job of the replay official to correct bad calls. If so they would allow them to use it to review holds, blocks in the back and other fouls. It was designed that way intentionally to remove judgement, assumption, and subjectivity from the equation w/ regards to replay.

Actually, that's exactly his job. However, there are certain calls that are deemed unreviewable in order to prevent 6 hour long games.

 

[UT_Tix79]

What indisputable evidence was there? Where is the mystery video footage? If the replay official can't see the ball, then how did he decide where to spot it?

Because the QB never lost the ball, he wasn't reaching for his feet, he calmly stood up and handed the ref the ball and got ready for the next play. The spot wasn't 100% important, the fact that he got the first down was...

 

[utvolpj]

Because the QB never lost the ball, he wasn't reaching for his feet, he calmly stood up and handed the ref the ball and got ready for the next play. The spot wasn't 100% important, the fact that he got the first down was...

if he can't see the ball then it's not indisputable

 

[40Cap]

Agreed. And if this was something important, like a civil or criminal proceeding, I'd be infinitely more concerned with the standard. But it's a football game, so no one's life, liberty, or rights are at stake.

yet important enough for you to spend substantial time arguing on a forum for a team you aren't even a fan of. But when the argument swings against you, it's no longer important.

 

[dreVol]

Because the QB never lost the ball, he wasn't reaching for his feet, he calmly stood up and handed the ref the ball and got ready for the next play. The spot wasn't 100% important, the fact that he got the first down was...

How can we conclusively say where the ball should be spotted without any evidence to support the conclusion? The established review standard was not satisfied and as such the call shouldn't have been reversed.