-
Follow us on Twitter @buckeyeplanet and @bp_recruiting, like us on Facebook! Enjoy a post or article, recommend it to others! BP is only as strong as its community, and we only promote by word of mouth, so share away!
- Thread starter BB73
- Start date
Maple;2079415; said:
No, His right elbow landed in bounds while he had control of the ball, then he slid out of bounds before his foot came down in bounds. He had control of the ball when the ball touched the ground.
That call review was FUBAR on two different levels. It was a catch by applying the rules that define a catch and there was certainly no indisputable video evidence showing that there was not a catch.
That replay official should be relieved of his duties. He doesn't understand the rules of the game and certainly doesn't understand the role of the replay official.
Upvote
0
It was also impossible to determine whether his elbow (clutching the ball and partially under it) hitting the turf caused the sideways shift or whether the ground did, as both were simultaneous... and neither caused the ball to move conclusively.Zander42;2079507; said:
Impossible to change that call via replay, the call on the field should've stood. The same would hold true if it were initially ruled incomplete.
Upvote
0
Absolutely. The RR-esque rollout punt option play was inexcusable.NFBuck;2079502; said:
Or false-starting their way out of a chance to win in regulation.
Upvote
0
jwinslow;2079511; said:
Fundamentally agree although to me it looked like a catch, even if the ground caused some movement of the ball since he didn't trap the ball and it didn't move very much.
I certainly agree that the biggest error the ref made was not adhering to the inconclusive video evidence standard. I just don't understand why some crews don't understand that or why the various directors of officiating, or the NCAA, doesn't emphasize that more.
Upvote
0
Zander42;2079524; said:
I'm thinking that for the National Championship Game, they should have 3 directors of officiating in the replay booth. If they all agree that a call should be overturned, do it. If they don't all agree, it's inconclusive. Rather than just relying on the whim of just one guy - too many of those guys are clueless about how to handle the replay booth.
Imagine if LSU would lose in OT the way that VT did last night. Of course, that would be a fitting ending to the suckage that has been the 2011 season.
Upvote
0
buckeyesin07
Veni. Vidi. Vici.
BB73;2079528; said:
This is a great idea. Replay officials simply have too difficult a time understanding the standard of review under which they are supposed to be operating. Way too often these guys make calls that lead me to believe they're applying a de novo standard rather than an indisputable video evidence standard. Certainly that conclusion applies to the replay official's overturning the Va Tech TD in OT last night. And that's a shame--he upholds that call and UM very likely loses that game, given the difficulty they had in moving the ball all night.
Upvote
0
Gatorubet
Loathing All Things Georgia
A very good point. This also brings up a point about "indisputable evidence". Many times that issue in invoked when you have a play where a perfect shot of the catch or fumble - whatever - is unavailable. There is no clear, really good view of the actual occurrence, and so what is called on the field stands because there was no "better view" of the event than (supposedly) the official on the field.buckeyesin07;2079558; said:
That is not the case here. Here, what happened was very clearly imaged. There was no hidden ball or body part masked by another players like happens sometimes in looking for where a knee hits the ground in the middle of a goal line scrum. Here, the replay guy had a perfect view of the catch. So unlike the normal "inconclusive" view that would make the call hold up - given the lack of "indisputable" evidence to the contrary - this call was a clear view and the replay official essentially using his own analysis of whether it was a catch.
Which is all to say that I think it is always "de novo" if you have a really good view of the play. The "indisputable" thing seems only to come into play as a practical matter when what actually happened is not capable of being seen by the replay guy due to a lack of clear views/angles. When it can be seen clearly, then whatever the guy watching thinks it is makes it indisputable - to him at least.
When I first saw it I thought he did not have adequate control of the ball. Now when I look at it I think he made an amazing once-in-a-lifetime play on such a big stage by a guy not likely going to the NFL. Taking it away sucks.
Upvote
0
