SEC Instant Replay Calls

#2
#2
Something HAS to change. The level of inconsistency of officiating from one game to the next is mind-boggling.

I still can't believe Emmanuel Moseley was ejected for targeting...
 
  • Like
Reactions: 13 people
#3
#3
VOL 4 Life 83 said:
Something HAS to change. The level of inconsistency of officiating from one game to the next is mind-boggling.

I still can't believe Emmanuel Moseley was ejected for targeting...
Click to expand...

And one thats still makes me furious is that one in 2013 when the Vols had Vandy stopped on 4th down and an apparent win, and it was overturned - Vandy went on to win and there was no Bowl game that season, No possible way could the have had indisputable evidence of that one
 
  • Like
Reactions: 6 people
#4
#4
508mikey said:
And one thats still makes me furious is that one in 2013 when the Vols had Vandy stopped on 4th down and an apparent win, and it was overturned - Vandy went on to win and there was no Bowl game that season, No possible way could the have had indisputable evidence of that one
Click to expand...

This. Probably the worst decision I have ever seen in reversing a call.

Probably not a bad idea, as long as it doesn't take forever in getting the ruling.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#5
#5
508mikey said:
And one thats still makes me furious is that one in 2013 when the Vols had Vandy stopped on 4th down and an apparent win, and it was overturned - Vandy went on to win and there was no Bowl game that season, No possible way could the have had indisputable evidence of that one
Click to expand...

Read the line to gain rule in the section on replay review. They got it right on that one.
 
#6
#6
We have certainly had our fair share of terrible calls and replay reviews. Music City Bowl and Gaffney phantom catch come strait to mind. As well as the Vandy 4th down overturn.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#9
#9
It was impossible to tell where to spot the ball regardless if you think he got it or not therefore the call should stand. They just made up a spot on the fly. Ridiculous.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#10
#10
Vols_74 said:
It was impossible to tell where to spot the ball regardless if you think he got it or not therefore the call should stand. They just made up a spot on the fly. Ridiculous.
Click to expand...

The line to gain rule says nothing about the spot of the ball.
 
#11
#11
bamawriter said:
Read the line to gain rule in the section on replay review. They got it right on that one.
Click to expand...

I remember it clearly. That call was wrong to me. They guessed that he made the line to gain. There was no clear evidence at all.regardless of what the rule says they aren't consistent with it then. What made it worse was an earlier game that same day, can't remember who, but they had a play exactly the same. It was a "yeah looks like he probably got it, but can't see the ball, so there's no clear evidence" and they stood by the call. How it stands in that game and reverses in the UT games is wrong and inconsistent.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#12
#12
bamawriter said:
The line to gain rule says nothing about the spot of the ball.
Click to expand...

Fine it was impossible to tell whether he made the line to gain or not from the angle of the replays. There was never a straight down the line angle of the play. You could never see the ball which is all that matters in any line to gain. My head can be over the goal line but not the ball therefore no touchdown. Same applies in this situation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#13
#13
Vols_74 said:
Fine it was impossible to tell whether he made the line to gain or not from the angle of the replays. There was never a straight down the line angle of the play. You could never see the ball which is all that matters in any line to gain. My head can be over the goal line but not the ball therefore no touchdown. Same applies in this situation.
Click to expand...

Sounds like your gripe is with the rule, not the application.
 
#16
#16
Vols_74 said:
It should never have been overturned either way is all I'm saying because there was no way to tell from replay of the ball crossed the line to gain.

Agree to disagree.
Click to expand...

Well, I agree with you. Unless you can visibly see the ball crossing the line on instant replay and it is painfully obvious that it crossed the 1st down line, you can't overturn the ruling on the field
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#17
#17
VOL 4 Life 83 said:
Well, I agree with you. Unless you can visibly see the ball crossing the line on instant replay and it is painfully obvious that it crossed the 1st down line, you can't overturn the ruling on the field
Click to expand...

If you know who has the ball, and you know that he isn't holding it by his knees, and his entire upper body crosses the line to gain, then you know that he achieved the line to gain. Since the spot of the ball isn't the point of the review, you've got all the indisputable evidence you need.

Again, the rule does not deal with the spot of the ball. Spots aren't reviewable; LTGs are. Many plays happen in every game where the ball can't be spotted with certainty, but they still count.

Is it a bad rule? It certainly could be.
 
#19
#19
bamawriter said:
If you know who has the ball, and you know that he isn't holding it by his knees, and his entire upper body crosses the line to gain, then you know that he achieved the line to gain. Since the spot of the ball isn't the point of the review, you've got all the indisputable evidence you need.

Again, the rule does not deal with the spot of the ball. Spots aren't reviewable; LTGs are. Many plays happen in every game where the ball can't be spotted with certainty, but they still count.

Is it a bad rule? It certainly could be.
Click to expand...

Sorry but I cannot agree with this. The call on the field was that the spot of the ball was not enough for a first down, yet somehow, the ref during replay saw that ball crossed the line? There simply WAS NOT enough video evidence to overturn the call on the field, point-blank period.

It's what the game announcers harp on during every single reviewable call.

To caveat that point, if a runners upper body crosses the goal line, is it considered a touchdown? No. Not unless any part of the ball crosses the goal line. You cannot award a runner a touchdown because his upper body crossed the goal line while not carrying the ball at his knees. That makes no sense whatsoever. It's the same thing for a first down.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#20
#20
VOL 4 Life 83 said:
Sorry but I cannot agree with this. The call on the field was that the spot of the ball was not enough for a first down, yet somehow, the ref during replay saw that ball crossed the line? There simply WAS NOT enough video evidence to overturn the call on the field, point-blank period.

It's what the game announcers harp on during every single reviewable call.

To caveat that point, if a runners upper body crosses the goal line, is it considered a touchdown? No. Not unless any part of the ball crosses the goal line. You cannot award a runner a touchdown because his upper body crossed the goal line while not carrying the ball at his knees. That makes no sense whatsoever. It's the same thing for a first down.
Click to expand...

Any time your argument includes "spot of the ball", then you argument doesn't jibe with the rule. The replay official isn't looking for a spot. If the ball is past the line, then the line has been gained. One does not need to see the ball to know that it is past the line.

If I put a ping pong ball under my hat, and I walk across the room, you know that the ball is across the room. You may not know exactly where the ball is on my head, but if the question is "is the ball across the room?", then you can answer quite easily.
 
#21
#21
bamawriter said:
Any time your argument includes "spot of the ball", then you argument doesn't jibe with the rule. The replay official isn't looking for a spot. If the ball is past the line, then the line has been gained. One does not need to see the ball to know that it is past the line.

If I put a ping pong ball under my hat, and I walk across the room, you know that the ball is across the room. You may not know exactly where the ball is on my head, but if the question is "is the ball across the room?", then you can answer quite easily.
Click to expand...

You are completely misinterpreting the rule. It's the "spot of the ball" that's in question. Sure, the ball carrier has the ball, and his body may have crossed the line, but until the damn ball crosses the line it isn't a first down, touchdown, safety, whatever. That's the letter of the law. It's the ball, not the runner that's in question.

If that's the case, then why review goal line TD carries. Almost all of those guys cross the line, but did the ball??
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#22
#22
On replay, I think it was pretty clear that Carta-Samuels got the first down. I could be wrong but I remember getting a horrible feeling when they showed the replay because it looked like they were going to overturn it.

Wish the full game was uploaded somewhere to go back and rewatch that part.
 
#23
#23
VOL 4 Life 83 said:
You are completely misinterpreting the rule. It's the "spot of the ball" that's in question. Sure, the ball carrier has the ball, and his body may have crossed the line, but until the damn ball crosses the line it isn't a first down, touchdown, safety, whatever. That's the letter of the law. It's the ball, not the runner that's in question.

If that's the case, then why review goal line TD carries. Almost all of those guys cross the line, but did the ball??
Click to expand...

If I wasn't on my phone I'd link it, but you can google it pretty easily. The line to gain review rule does not include the spot of the ball. The question is not "where should the next play begin?", it's "on what down should the next play begin?"

To your point about the endzone: if the play in question had happened in a "goal-to-go" situation, the review would have resulted in a touchdown. Of course, there tend to be cameras on the goal line, which cuts down on the subjectivity.
 
#24
#24
He may very well have had the ball between his knees. He may had it clinched in his teeth. He may have fumbled the ball? Who knows? We never saw the ball cross the line. Call stands on field. Period
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#25
#25
Also all reply views were at an angle behind the offense therefore it would "appear" from that angle he got further than he actually did.

So again. How is it indisputable?
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement



Back
Top