SEC Instant Replay Calls

[KBVol]

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...

Great point and example. The most incredibly frustrating part of replay for me is to see the replay in slo-mo, have the play in question to be as clear and obvious as the nose on your face that the play needs to overturned, and then to have the blithering idiot replay official uphold the obviously bogus call. Your example of EM from the Ky game last year is the perfect example.

 

[VOL 4 Life 83]

That's reviewing whether or not the catch was in bounds, not the spot of the ball.

I am giving you a simple example of how a reviewable play goes down, since that specific example is reviewable, just like the spot of the ball.

Here is how an OFFICIAL is supposed to interpret forward progress. Every single example from the rule book talks about the "spot of the ball."

Series of Downs,
Line to Gain
SECTION 1. A Series: Started,
Broken, Renewed
Forward Progress—ARTICLE 3
Approved Ruling 5-1-3
I. Airborne A1 receives a legal forward pass one yard within the
opponent’s end zone. As A1 receives the ball, he is contacted by B1 and
first comes to the ground with the catch at the one-yard line, where the
ball is declared dead. RULING: Touchdown (Rule 8-2-1-b).
II. Airborne A1 receives a legal forward pass one yard within Team B’s
end zone. As A1 receives the ball, he is contacted by B1 and first comes
to the ground, on his feet, with the catch at the one-yard line. After he
regains his balance, he runs and is downed at Team B’s five-yard line.
RULING: Not a touchdown. Team A’s ball at the spot where the ball is
declared dead.
III. Airborne A2 receives a legal forward pass at Team A’s 35-yard line. As
A2 receives the ball, he is contacted by B1 and first comes to the ground
with the ball at Team A’s 33-yard line, where the ball is declared dead.
RULING: Team A’s ball at the 35-yard line. This is the point of forward
progress.
IV. A4, with the ball breaking the plane of the 50-yard line while in his
possession, dives over the 50-yard line, which is the line to gain for a
first down. He is knocked back to Team A’s 49-yard line, where any part
of his body except his hand or foot touches the ground. RULING: First
down at forward progress spot (Rule 4-1-3-b).
V. A6 has the ball in his possession and is not controlled by an opponent, as
he dives over the 50-yard line, which is the line to gain for a first down,
and is forced back across the 50-yard line. A6 continues to run and is
tackled at Team A’s 49-yard line, where any part of his body except his
hand or foot strikes the ground. RULING: No first down. The point of
forward progress is Team A’s 49-yard line.
VI. A5, with the ball breaking the plane of the goal line while in his
possession, dives over the goal line and is knocked back to the oneyard
line, where any part of A5’s body except his hand or foot touches
the ground. RULING: Touchdown. The ball is dead when it breaks the
plane of the goal line in A5’s possession.

 

[bamawriter]

Nothing in that section says anything about if there is an official present or not.

So the ball can be spotted without anyone seeing it?

 

[volnpowell]

Read the second paragraph of the post you quoted.

I know what you are saying, but being technical by rule it is by CLEAR VISUAL evidence to overturn a call which if can not see ball, would not be correct application of rule imo.

 

[VOL 4 Life 83]

Just so you know 83, if Bama was on the short end of the call in question, I'd be saying everything you are, word-for-word.

I'm not above my bias.

The rule book is not bias. I think you are seeing as you aren't a Vol fan arguing FOR a call that went against us, just sayin'

 

[bamawriter]

The rule book is not bias. I think you are seeing as you aren't a Vol fan arguing FOR a call that went against us, just sayin'

Maybe. But James Franklin is a peckerhead, so I'm hardly in his corner.

 

[VOL 4 Life 83]

So the ball can be spotted without anyone seeing it?

So how the hell did the Referee make the call that there wasn't enough forward progress to begin with?? There are two line judges and a back judge on every single play that looks DIRECTLY down the line.

Tell you what, you look in the rule book and get back to me when you find this mythical "no official present to view the spot rule"

 

[bamawriter]

Tell you what, you look in the rule book and get back to me when you find this mythical "no official present to view the spot rule"

I'm 100% sure an official is present on every play. I'm also 100% sure that there is at least one play, and likely more than one, in every game where none of the officials tasked with spotting the ball can actually see it. The ball still gets spotted.

 

[VOL 4 Life 83]

I'm 100% sure an official is present on every play. I'm also 100% sure that there is at least one play, and likely more than one, in every game where none of the officials tasked with spotting the ball can actually see it. The ball still gets spotted.

And you just supported my argument. They spot THE BALL. If they screw the spot up and the coach challenges or the officials in the booth buzz the on field referee it gets reviewed.

But once the call is made on the field, right or wrong, 100% inconclusive video evidence must be available to support or change the official ruling on the field. There wasn't 100% inconclusive evidence to show the "ball" crossed the "line to gain."

 

[Vols_74]

He not going to get it 83 because he's a bammer. You have proven the point eloquently.

 

[bamawriter]

And you just supported my argument. They spot THE BALL.

By looking at where the ball carrier wound up. Sort of like how the replay official looked at where the ball carrier wound up. There is no rule that states that an official MUST see the ball in order to determine a spot.

 

[OHvol40]

By looking at where the ball carrier wound up. Sort of like how the replay official looked at where the ball carrier wound up. There is no rule that states that an official MUST see the ball in order to determine a spot.

But there IS a rule stating there has to be conclusive evidence to overturn the current spot on replay, which there was not.

 

[VOL 4 Life 83]

By looking at where the ball carrier wound up. Sort of like how the replay official looked at where the ball carrier wound up. There is no rule that states that an official MUST see the ball in order to determine a spot.

I get it bama, it's all really an estimation. The rule book is basically saying the same thing, it's an interpretation of where the ball is spotted. When it's an obvious first down there is no need for a measurement, etc etc.

However, when the official makes the estimation, he is making it on where the ball is spotted. It happens so many times when an official runs in from the sideline during a touchdown run, just to be proven wrong during video review because the ball (if it can be seen in the players hands) crosses the goal line.

Spotting for a first down is no different, it either is or isn't determined by whether or not the BALL crossed the line, supported by video review or the original call on the field.

 

[TrueOrange]

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.

To be fair, the thing with the Music City Bowl was more an error with how the rules were written and actually worked in that case, not a replay review; it was mostly that something like that hadn't come up and no one had even considered something like that happening before then (and the rule was immediately rectified the very next season once people saw how something like it could happen).

The Gaffney play was never a reviewed play (though you might not have been implying such).

 

[bamawriter]

I get it bama, it's all really an estimation. The rule book is basically saying the same thing, it's an interpretation of where the ball is spotted. When it's an obvious first down there is no need for a measurement, etc etc.

However, when the official makes the estimation, he is making it on where the ball is spotted. It happens so many times when an official runs in from the sideline during a touchdown run, just to be proven wrong during video review because the ball (if it can be seen in the players hands) crosses the goal line.

Spotting for a first down is no different, it either is or isn't determined by whether or not the BALL crossed the line, supported by video review or the original call on the field.

Honestly, I get where you're coming from. I think it's a tad impractical, but you're well-reasoned in your argument. When this play first happened, I looked up the replay language and thought "that wording leaves way too much to interpretation. " But they pay lawyers to write the rulebook, so why would I expect any different?

 

[TrueOrange]

But there IS a rule stating there has to be conclusive evidence to overturn the current spot on replay, which there was not.

But I'm not sure that rule's actually saying "the ball must be entirely visible" either. The guy was holding the ball around gut/chest level, wasn't he?

 

[VOL 4 Life 83]

Honestly, I get where you're coming from. I think it's a tad impractical, but you're well-reasoned in your argument. When this play first happened, I looked up the replay language and thought "that wording leaves way too much to interpretation. " But they pay lawyers to write the rulebook, so why would I expect any different?

Oh I think we can all agree that there is always too much room for interpretation on almost all rules in the book.

Targeting, IMO, is definitely the most subjective rule that needs a major overhaul.

 

[TrueOrange]

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

I didn't like that we lost, but at the same time, that explanation also seems to be getting a little too close to that same area of "can you definitively say the moment Pig Howard lost control before the ball crossed the plain based off one stopped still/scene" (sorry, might be blanking on the proper word), when if one watches the play at regular speed it was clear that he was in the process of losing control of the ball after he reached out his arms for the goal line.

 

[VOL 4 Life 83]

But I'm not sure that rule's actually saying "the ball must be entirely visible" either. The guy was holding the ball around gut/chest level, wasn't he?

Does not matter! As I have quoted the rule book in this thread extensively, the call on the field was there was not enough forward progress (i.e. spot of the ball) to determine a first down.

The replay was just as murky. There clearly wasn't enough video evidence to justify overturning the original ruling on the field.

 

[Vols_74]

To be fair, the thing with the Music City Bowl was more an error with how the rules were written and actually worked in that case, not a replay review; it was mostly that something like that hadn't come up and no one had even considered something like that happening before then (and the rule was immediately rectified the very next season once people saw how something like it could happen).

The Gaffney play was never a reviewed play (though you might not have been implying such).

I wasn't implying Gaffney was reviewed just that it was bad call and wish we had review at the time.

MCB I understand the penalty deal and that it was correct call I just believe there were multiple blown calls leading up to that terrible circumstance. I can't remember them all now but it was ridiculous.

 

[Vols_74]

I didn't like that we lost, but at the same time, that explanation also seems to be getting a little too close to that same area of "can you definitively say the moment Pig Howard lost control before the ball crossed the plain based off one stopped still/scene" (sorry, might be blanking on the proper word), when if one watches the play at regular speed it was clear that he was in the process of losing control of the ball after he reached out his arms for the goal line.

Lol, I actually think that was a TD but I can see where maybe somebody says he lost it. But at what point do you lose control? In my estimation its when the ball is no longer in your hand and I think it was still in his hand when it crossed but that's just my opinion

 

[Iam4utalways]

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...

Agreed, by rule it looked like he did it right, but still the ejection. I'm glad it didn't cost us a game or two. Looked like he had time to line up his hit just perfect since the received was totally focused on catching and running, so he was like a sitting duck, you know an easy target.

Nice hit. Dislodged the ball, textbook.

Jump higher Vols.

 

[TrueOrange]

Oh I think we can all agree that there is always too much room for interpretation on almost all rules in the book.

Targeting, IMO, is definitely the most subjective rule that needs a major overhaul.

Not to mention there's a problem in finding an actual deterrent to keep players from doing the latter (targeting).

It's one thing in the NFL where they can review the play after the game and hit a player where he cares about the most (his wallet) with a fine in the fifty thousands or hundreds of thousands of dollars. That's a pretty significant deterrent.

The enforcement at the NCAA level is stuck with the task of preventing it from happening on the field, but I'm not sure of anything significant enough (within reason) that the player can have taken away that stings enough or has the correct amount of impact.

 

[livefaith]

Pig Howard's fumble was over turned WITHOUT indisputable evidence. Everyone thought he fumbled. But when the video was released by that local Sports News Channel in the end zone, and the two views were time synced ... it was proven that the original call was correct and he controlled it past the plane of the front of the goal line.

That play most likely cost us a huuuuge win that year. Overturned on an assumption of one video angle translated as indisputable evidence.

 

[Vols_74]

Pig Howard's fumble was over turned WITHOUT indisputable evidence. Everyone thought he fumbled. But when the video was released by that local Sports News Channel in the end zone, and the two views were time synced ... it was proven that the original call was correct and he controlled it past the plane of the front of the goal line.

That play most likely cost us a huuuuge win that year. Overturned on an assumption of from video angle translated as indisputable evidence.

Not everyone. I believed it was a TD the whole time and a few others on here as well.