Vic Wharton tweet says refs from last night got suspended

#176
#176
utvolpj said:
what's bothering me is you keep saying it was the correct call when it was not according to the rules in place.
Click to expand...

You are concerned with the means; I'm concerned with the ends.

The review wouldn't have been necessary had the refs on the field not badly blown the spot.
 
#177
#177
40Cap said:
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.
Click to expand...

I enjoy lively discussion. I don't pride my opinions as being on the level with jury verdicts.
 
#178
#178
dreVol said:
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.
Click to expand...

The call shouldn't have been screwed up on the field. We can all play the "should" game.
 
#179
#179
bamawriter said:
You are concerned with the means; I'm concerned with the ends.

The review wouldn't have been necessary had the refs on the field not badly blown the spot.
Click to expand...

Because the means are important! There has to be a standard and he broke the standard and just went willy nilly with his call. There's no way he could have seen where that ball went in the pile where forward progress stopped and the pig catch was just as bad.
 
#180
#180
bamawriter said:
You are concerned with the means; I'm concerned with the ends.

The review wouldn't have been necessary had the refs on the field not badly blown the spot.
Click to expand...

We all know it was a questionable spot.

Problem is, that's not the way replay works. Otherwise it would never matter whether there was conclusive video evidence to change a call and the replay guy would just guess.

The other thing that bothered me was that they repotted and didn't even feel the need to bring the chains back out.
 
#181
#181
bamawriter said:
Actually, that's exactly his job. However, there are certain calls that are deemed unreviewable in order to prevent 6 hour long games.
Click to expand...
again, incorrect that is not his job, look it up. I've cited it several times. verify it for yourself since you don't accept my word. If you find a discrepancy, please let me know.
 
#182
#182
GAVol said:
Problem is, that's not the way replay works. Otherwise it would never matter whether there was conclusive video evidence to change a call and the replay guy would just guess.
Click to expand...

I understand that. If you believe his methods taint the result, fine. I'm not going to convince you otherwise.

I'm satisfied by the result, so the methods aren't a huge deal to me. If it really was an iffy call, i'd be right there with you. But it looked really, really obvious to me.
 
#184
#184
40Cap said:
again, incorrect that is not his job, look it up. I've cited it several times. verify it for yourself since you don't accept my word. If you find a discrepancy, please let me know.
Click to expand...

So, the replay official's job is something other than review calls on the field (assuming he has the authority) to make sure they are correct?
 
#187
#187
bamawriter said:
I guess one man's "questionable" is another man's "terrible".
Click to expand...

Questionable, terrible, horrific, God awful . . . whatever you want to call the spot - the replay didn't appear to be definitive enough to bail them out of the mistake.
 
#189
#189
GAVol said:
Questionable, terrible, horrific, God awful . . . whatever you want to call the spot - the replay didn't appear to be definitive enough to bail them out of the mistake.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree. But there was a mistake, and it got corrected. No one was injured by the means of correction, while one side would have been badly injured had no correction been made.
 
#190
#190
bamawriter said:
I don't disagree. But there was a mistake, and it got corrected. No one was injured by the means of correction, while one side would have been badly injured had no correction been made.
Click to expand...

Sure there was someone injured. It changed the outcome of the game by subjectively changing a judgement call. Replay can't work like that.
 
#192
#192
GAVol said:
Sure there was someone injured. It changed the outcome of the game by subjectively changing a judgement call. Replay can't work like that.
Click to expand...

Tennessee didn't stop Vanderbilt. They weren't injured by getting the call correct. They would have unfairly benefited had the incorrect call stood.
 
#193
#193
bamawriter said:
I understand that. If you believe his methods taint the result, fine. I'm not going to convince you otherwise.

I'm satisfied by the result, so the methods aren't a huge deal to me. If it really was an iffy call, i'd be right there with you. But it looked really, really obvious to me.
Click to expand...

I don't think it was obvious that he didn't get it. So Im in the iffy crowd.:)

I think there is an issue with the way the rules of replay are enforced. I think many of them use probability when its not written that way. The sneak in the LSU/A&M game was very similar with a spot being short of the marker with it appearing to be a bad spot. It was upheld with basically the same conditions and the ball not being visible.
 
#194
#194
BeecherVol said:
I don't think it was obvious that he didn't get it. So Im in the iffy crowd.:)

I think there is an issue with the way the rules of replay are enforced. I think many of them use probability when its not written that way. The sneak in the LSU/A&M game was very similar with a spot being short of the marker with it appearing to be a bad spot. It was upheld with basically the same conditions and the ball not being visible.
Click to expand...

The sneak in the A&M game didn't look nearly as clear-cut as the Vandy play. It looked like he got it, but if he did it was by inches. Vandy had it by multiple feet.
 
#195
#195
BeecherVol said:
I don't think it was obvious that he didn't get it. So Im in the iffy crowd.:)

I think there is an issue with the way the rules of replay are enforced. I think many of them use probability when its not written that way. The sneak in the LSU/A&M game was very similar with a spot being short of the marker with it appearing to be a bad spot. It was upheld with basically the same conditions and the ball not being visible.
Click to expand...

Exactly. I assumed the purpose of "indisputable evidence" was to prevent this from happening.
 
#196
#196
bamawriter said:
The sneak in the A&M game didn't look nearly as clear-cut as the Vandy play. It looked like he got it, but if he did it was by inches. Vandy had it by multiple feet.
Click to expand...

We would disagree there.

By multiple feet actually.

I had an interesting conversation about this yesterday.

Had either play been on the goaline can you call it a touchdown if instant replay can not show the football if it is spotted short?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#197
#197
BeecherVol said:
We would disagree there.

By multiple feet actually.

I had an interesting conversation about this yesterday.

Had either play been on the goaline can you call it a touchdown if instant replay can not show the football?
Click to expand...

If the same play had been on the goalline, I would argue that Vandy scored.
 
#198
#198
bamawriter said:
So, the replay official's job is something other than review calls on the field (assuming he has the authority) to make sure they are correct?
Click to expand...
I've already answered this several times, citing the rule, and you continue to choose to ignore it. His job is to determine if there is indisputable video evidence to over-turn. on -field officials have to use a lot of judgement in order to do their job's effectively, replay officials don't have that latitude.
"The instant replay process operates under the fundamental assumption that the ruling on the field is correct."
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#199
#199
vollygirl said:
Exactly. I assumed the purpose of "indisputable evidence" was to prevent this from happening.
Click to expand...

Under the current rules the spot should have stood for that reason.

One can argue that probability should be included into making judgement in that case, but thats a different discussion.
 
#200
#200
Rocky Goode

"As the head of replay officials my job is to make sure we get it right, and in this case we got it right. Not changing that call would have been atrocious"
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top