View Full Version : Instant Replay
LoganBuck
11-14-2009, 06:24 AM
I am sick of watching the integrity of the sport of college sports being thrown away by instant replay. I have seen absolutely horrible calls go to high ranked teams, and am sick of it. It is happening in all conferences. Having conference officials in the booth making million dollar decisions cripples the integrity of the process. What can be done to straighten this out?
1. Replay Officials must not have conference affiliation.
2. Reemphasize the definition of irrefutable evidence.
Thoughts?
Redhook
11-14-2009, 07:32 AM
I see it each week in the NFL as well. It's mind-boggling sometimes.
As much as I wanted UC to win last night, that fumble reversal was a terrible call. There wasn't one ounce of evidence that should've reversed that call.
the ball only has to break the plane of the white line and it certainly did that :dunno:
OSUredsFAN
11-14-2009, 09:49 AM
the ball only has to break the plane of the white line and it certainly did that :dunno:
Did he?? if the replay is so undisputable, then why are we discussing this right now. The ball may have crossed the line, but did he have a control? I'm not sure. There wasn't enough evidence to overturn that play, IMHO.
It doesnt matter if he loses control at any point after the tip of the ball touches that white line. Looks like it did to me :dunno:
Sea Ray
11-14-2009, 10:19 AM
I must be in the minoroty in all of this but I thought the ball did touch the goalline and if the replay showed that then the call should be reversed. Simple as that. If the tip of the ball touches the plane of the goalline, it's a TD. Unlike the announcers on TV, after seeing the replay I thought to myself "they just might overturn this."
I think the college system works better than the NFL replay system. I haven't seen many issues and I have seen a few bad calls get corrected
jimbo
11-14-2009, 10:22 AM
the ball only has to break the plane of the white line and it certainly did that :dunno:
Without a shadow of a doubt? Hardly.
However, the play was called on the field, it should have stood because there was not enough evidence either way to reverse it.
SeeinRed
11-14-2009, 10:24 AM
I don't know that it was indisputable, but if you look at the position of the ball in relationship to the WVU player reaching for it, it is definately beyond the goal line IMO. It apears to me that he loses control after the nose of the ball crosses the goal line and might even get it back before he pulls it back, but again that just how I saw it. Was it enough to overturn the call? Probably not, but the person who has to be convinced according to the rule is the replay official and apparently he was. So beyond that, it doesn't matter I guess.
FWIW, I am a UC fan and I didn't think it would be overturned. I may not agree with a lot of the calls, but I'd rather have instant replay as it is right now than not have it at all. I definately don't think there is a conspiracy going around, and I do think they get it right a majority of the time.
jimbo
11-14-2009, 10:43 AM
I definately don't think there is a conspiracy going around, and I do think they get it right a majority of the time.
With instant replay, they should get it right all of the time.
All of us here who saw the play can come up with an opinion of how we saw it, but the problem is it was not obvious and indisputable.
Cyclone792
11-14-2009, 11:00 AM
Without a shadow of a doubt? Hardly.
However, the play was called on the field, it should have stood because there was not enough evidence either way to reverse it.
Gameday highlighted the ball and froze the frame. One third of the ball crossed the plane of the goal line - with Pead still clearly having control - and at that point the play is over and it's a touchdown.
The officials got it correct.
Sea Ray
11-14-2009, 11:01 AM
Gameday highlighted the ball and froze the frame. One third of the ball crossed the plane of the goal line - with Pead still clearly having control - and at that point the play is over and it's a touchdown.
The officials got it correct.
Exactly. Isn't that what replay was intended to do?
SeeinRed
11-14-2009, 11:03 AM
With instant replay, they should get it right all of the time.
All of us here who saw the play can come up with an opinion of how we saw it, but the problem is it was not obvious and indisputable.
Nobody is going to get it right all of the time. Nobody. Without being in the replay officials mind, I don't know why he made that decision. Maybe it was clear and indisputable in his mind. Even saying clear and indisputable is subjective to one's view. Everything is subjective when it comes to making these types of calls. I wouldn't have overturned the call, but that doesn't mean he was 100% wrong for doing it. Its just my opinion, but his is the only one that counts.
jimbo
11-14-2009, 11:39 AM
Gameday highlighted the ball and froze the frame. One third of the ball crossed the plane of the goal line - with Pead still clearly having control - and at that point the play is over and it's a touchdown.
The officials got it correct.
I didn't see it, but I wonder what camera angle they used for that freeze frame because none of the ones they were replaying the down with last night was right on the goal line. I watch a lot of horse racing and know all about "angle" when it comes to the finish line. Just being a little off is going to give you an inaccurate viewpoint. The angle they used most often last night for the replay was to the left of the goal line, which will give the illusion that the ball is farther ahead than it actually is.
As far as I know, the replay officials use whatever cameras the broadcasting network is using so they aren't seeing anything different than we are. The replay officials jobs are not to make calls, but to overturn calls that are blatantly wrong. The play in question does not fall under that criteria, IMO. If it had been called a touchdown on the field, my argument would be the same.
jimbo
11-14-2009, 11:53 AM
Having thought more of my horse racing analogy, I wonder if the NCAA or the NFL has ever considered utilizing a photo finish type system similar to what they use in horse racing. They are very accurate, inexpensive, and easy to use. They can set them up on the goal lines, and they will have a perfect angle and will an actual photo of when the ball crosses the plane.
Sounds too easy.
LoganBuck
11-14-2009, 12:50 PM
It isn't just about UC, we are seeing this across college football. How many times as Indiana been hosed this year? Florida and Alabama have gotten some weird calls as well. I don't agree with the call in the UC game last night, I don't call that indisputable. The freeze frame didn't show him having control of the ball, imo.
My question is what can be done to ensure that replay is above board?
paintmered
11-14-2009, 12:57 PM
http://cmsimg.cincinnati.com/apps/pbcsi.dll/bilde?NewTbl=1&Avis=AB&Dato=20091113&Kategori=SPT0101&Lopenr=911140801&Ref=PH&Item=4&MaxH=475&MaxW=485&Border=0
From Bearcat Banter...
I will say that those of you watching the game on TV had a much better vantage point than I did from the Lair (pretty much the worst possible view from inside the stadium).
LoganBuck
11-14-2009, 01:08 PM
http://cmsimg.cincinnati.com/apps/pbcsi.dll/bilde?NewTbl=1&Avis=AB&Dato=20091113&Kategori=SPT0101&Lopenr=911140801&Ref=PH&Item=4&MaxH=475&MaxW=485&Border=0
From Bearcat Banter...
I will say that those of you watching the game on TV had a much better vantage point than I did from the Lair (pretty much the worst possible view from inside the stadium).
The opposite view down the line of scrimmage was inconclusive, in my opinion. This picture is the wrong angle. I go back to the ruling on the field. It wasn't conclusive in my view. Granted I was watching in Pizza Hut, with a my five year old eating his onion personal pizza next to me.
dabvu2498
11-14-2009, 01:11 PM
The opposite view down the line of scrimmage was inconclusive, in my opinion. This picture is the wrong angle. I go back to the ruling on the field. It wasn't conclusive in my view. Granted I was watching in Pizza Hut, with a my five year old eating his onion personal pizza next to me.
Here's the one you're looking for:
http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f169/krighton77/replay.jpg
LoganBuck
11-14-2009, 01:15 PM
Here's the one you're looking for:
http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f169/krighton77/replay.jpg
I can't over rule the call on the field based on that.
dabvu2498
11-14-2009, 01:15 PM
I can't over rule the call on the field based on that.
I question if he had possession at that point.
I see people saying that the ball crossed the plane but they dont know if it was enough to over turn it.
Sounds like you guys understand what a TD is so why all the confusion on it being too close to call.
Either the ball crossed the plane or it didnt.
Caveat Emperor
11-14-2009, 02:01 PM
I can't over rule the call on the field based on that.
On that angle, it's an easy overrule -- when you have to judge the position of the ball, you look at other things on the field to give perspective. In this photo (sideline looking down the end-line), you can see that there's a WVU player (#2) standing with his foot literally on the goal line, and Pead has the football stretched entirely past his shoulder pads.
Touchdown.
On the second angle (earlier photo), there's a Bearcat (can't get the number) with his foot and pads about 6" away from the goal line, and Pead has the ball stretched over his helmet and past his pads by almost a football length.
Touchdown.
Is it indisputable visual proof? Probably not. But neither the pros or nor college actually hold replay to the "indisputable" level (despite their claims to the contrary), so that's a dead issue to me. Is it within the scope of calls usually reversed? Yup. So, from that standpoint, it's hard to be mad at this call either way.
LoganBuck
11-14-2009, 09:10 PM
On that angle, it's an easy overrule -- when you have to judge the position of the ball, you look at other things on the field to give perspective. In this photo (sideline looking down the end-line), you can see that there's a WVU player (#2) standing with his foot literally on the goal line, and Pead has the football stretched entirely past his shoulder pads.
Touchdown.
On the second angle (earlier photo), there's a Bearcat (can't get the number) with his foot and pads about 6" away from the goal line, and Pead has the ball stretched over his helmet and past his pads by almost a football length.
Touchdown.
Is it indisputable visual proof? Probably not. But neither the pros or nor college actually hold replay to the "indisputable" level (despite their claims to the contrary), so that's a dead issue to me. Is it within the scope of calls usually reversed? Yup. So, from that standpoint, it's hard to be mad at this call either way.
I see the hand breaking the plane, not the ball.
My point is that it falls in the muddy zone. You can't overrule the call on the field based on that. We are seeing this all over college football. Like I said this isn't an anti-UC thread, it is about the process.
They need replay officials that aren't on the payrolls of these BCS conferences.
Caveat Emperor
11-14-2009, 09:31 PM
They need replay officials that aren't on the payrolls of these BCS conferences.
You'll never see conferences give up their autonomy when it comes to officiating -- either to use their own crews for games or their own replay officials.
The quick solution is to go to the NFL system -- where, at the very least, you limit the number of times a replay official can influence a game. Additionally, it would limit the number of stoppages in a game, which is always a good thing.
So the hand broke the plane but the ball didnt :laugh:
jimbo
11-15-2009, 11:37 AM
On that angle, it's an easy overrule --
Totally disagree. The only easy overrule would be if the camera was right on the goal line, this one is slightly to the left giving it a false illusion due to the angle.
It simply is not indisputable and should not have been overturned based on what we are seeing. That's how the rules for instant replay are written. The fact that this discussion exists demonstrates just that.
Totally disagree. The only easy overrule would be if the camera was right on the goal line, this one is slightly to the left giving it a false illusion due to the angle.
It simply is not indisputable and should not have been overturned based on what we are seeing. That's how the rules for instant replay are written. The fact that this discussion exists demonstrates just that.
Just because one side doesnt think its a TD doesnt mean its not indisputable. the ball broke the plane and he then had it knocked loose. Its clear if you understand what a TD is.
jimbo
11-15-2009, 12:50 PM
Just because one side doesnt think its a TD doesnt mean its not indisputable. the ball broke the plane and he then had it knocked loose. Its clear if you understand what a TD is.
indisputable: Beyond dispute or doubt; undeniable: indisputable evidence.
There is enough evidence on my "side" to support the claim that the freeze frame shown in this thread is disputable. The angle at which we are looking at the ball gives doubt, and that's enough to not overturn the call, no matter how it was called on the field.
Yea its pretty indisputable that the ball broke the plane before he lost it if you watch the replays. Some people are just saying its pretty close and assume if its close it isnt possible to overturn. Yea its close but so is barely getting 1 toe down.
jimbo
11-15-2009, 02:46 PM
Yea its pretty indisputable that the ball broke the plane before he lost it if you watch the replays.
Once again, the angle at which the camera is located makes where the ball is in the frame disputable.
Once again, the angle at which the camera is located makes where the ball is in the frame disputable.
One photo doesnt make a case :dunno:
I'm not talking about the photo but still even in that one there is a pretty strong case it crossed, but yes based on that photo you couldnt turn it over just because its a bad angle.
LoganBuck
11-15-2009, 05:14 PM
So the hand broke the plane but the ball didnt :laugh:
What is so hard to understand about that? The ball is on the opposite side of the hand. Once again this thread is about conferences using the replay to push teams into bowl games, in pursuit of the all mighty dollar.
Being a UC homer, doesn't make that call indisputable. The Big East took the opportunity to give UC a tangible advantage, at the expense of the integrity of the rules of the game.
The call on the field was no touchdown, and a fumble, the video and photographic evidence that a touchdown occurred is hazy at best. To turn over the decision on the field, the video evidence must be definitive.
You are going to tell me you can see so clearly that the hand did break it but the ball clearly didn't? Come on. How thick is a finger 1/3rd of an inch? You are willing to say the hand broke it but they stopped him 1/3rd of an inch. Come on we are really searching here I think.
Ball crossing the plane is pretty definitive. Only way its not is if you just want to say its not.
WebScorpion
11-15-2009, 08:20 PM
It looked pretty definitive to me. Sounds like someone has an axe to grind. I hope the NFL goes to a similar system someday...the current system of limited number of protests, the hokie red flag, the sacrifice of timeouts for being incorrect...now that is ridiculous.
LoganBuck
11-15-2009, 10:03 PM
Ok so if it was Mark Ingham having the same situation occur in the Auburn Alabama game, you would have the same reaction? I know I would, I have been upset at the instant replay manipulation all year.
Big Ten, SEC, PAC10, and Big East I am looking at you. I can honestly say I haven't seen enough Big Twelve, and ACC games to comment on them.
I hate cheaters, and these conferences are cheating.
Ok so if it was Mark Ingham having the same situation occur in the Auburn Alabama game, you would have the same reaction? I know I would, I have been upset at the instant replay manipulation all year.
Big Ten, SEC, PAC10, and Big East I am looking at you. I can honestly say I haven't seen enough Big Twelve, and ACC games to comment on them.
I hate cheaters, and these conferences are cheating.
So you are now accusing the big east refs of purposely calling it a fumble just so they could use replay to overturn it? Time to roll back the conspiracy theory because thats pretty crazy.
I cant believe you want to believe that the refs have something so deep down inside that instead of hiding some blown calls like holding they would go and make it blatant on a play they reviewed and said they got wrong.
LoganBuck
11-15-2009, 11:26 PM
So you are now accusing the big east refs of purposely calling it a fumble just so they could use replay to overturn it? Time to roll back the conspiracy theory because thats pretty crazy.
I cant believe you want to believe that the refs have something so deep down inside that instead of hiding some blown calls like holding they would go and make it blatant on a play they reviewed and said they got wrong.
No, did you read what I wrote?
The replay officials are going to rule in the interest of the conference. The officials on the field had it right, or near right. Replay manipulation creates the opportunity for conferences to cheat.
No, did you read what I wrote?
The replay officials are going to rule in the interest of the conference. The officials on the field had it right, or near right. Replay manipulation creates the opportunity for conferences to cheat.
I think you are searching too hard for something. At least pick a play where the call on the field was right instead of just saying it was right so you can go off on some conspiracy story. I didnt know we were dealing with BCS truthers around here or what ever we are going to end up calling this group.
I hope every play that is "near right" gets over turned because I'm pretty sure that is just another way of saying "wrong"
LoganBuck
11-16-2009, 07:22 AM
I think you are searching too hard for something. At least pick a play where the call on the field was right instead of just saying it was right so you can go off on some conspiracy story. I didnt know we were dealing with BCS truthers around here or what ever we are going to end up calling this group.
I hope every play that is "near right" gets over turned because I'm pretty sure that is just another way of saying "wrong"
So you think that play was indisputable, and the Big East has no interest in insuring that UC goes undefeated? OK................
Roy Tucker
11-16-2009, 10:39 AM
I thought the whole UC-WVU game was poorly officiated. I don't think there was any grassy knoll stuff happening. I thought the refs were just bad.
SeeinRed
11-16-2009, 10:56 AM
So you think that play was indisputable, and the Big East has no interest in insuring that UC goes undefeated? OK................
I may be able to believe the Big East has an interest in UC being undefeated although that is debatable. I do not however believe the refs have any interest in the Bearcats being undefeated. Its not like bad calls are only made in favor of who the league has interest in winning. That IMO is just drawing conclusions off of a very selective series of events. In no way was that call influenced by the BE's interest to have an undefeated team.
So you think that play was indisputable, and the Big East has no interest in insuring that UC goes undefeated? OK................
Yes that play was indisputable
and yes the big east wants UC to go undefeated but to suggest that they would go about trying to fix games and do it the way you are trying to say they do it is beyond reasoning.
jimbo
11-16-2009, 12:53 PM
Yes that play was indisputable
You keep ignoring and not addressing the evidence that I keep throwing out there. The photo in this thread is the best angle available, and it cannot give you an accurate 100% viewpoint of where the ball is in reference to the goal line.
It is clearly not indisputable. Would your opinion would be the same if they had ruled touchdown on the field and overturned it? I'm sure I know what your answer is going to be after the fact, but I'm confident that UC fans would have been furious if if it had been called a touchdown on the field and overturned, as they should have been.
Ive seen the replays and I've seen the screen caps. I dont know how you dont say thats a TD.
jimbo
11-16-2009, 05:33 PM
Ive seen the replays and I've seen the screen caps. I dont know how you dont say thats a TD.
I've explained it about 5 times in this thread.
I've explained it about 5 times in this thread.
denial more than anything
jimbo
11-16-2009, 08:20 PM
denial more than anything
Denial? Naw, I have no dog in this fight. I'm a fan of neither, but I do like seeing Ohio teams do well so I'm glad UC won. My opinion is based on my own experience and the interpretation of the rules. Nothing more, nothing less.
SunDeck
11-17-2009, 12:17 PM
I thought he made it when I saw it live.
At the same time, what a terrible decision on first down, a completely unnecessary risk to stick the ball out there when you have three more downs to move the ball less than 1/2 a yard. He rightly got an ear full from Kelly on the sideline.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.