Shari it's fine that you look at that and say the ball bobbled and hit the ground. I, and many other people who were even on the other side of the bet say yes there is a change in the positioning of the ball, but it is not indisputably evident it wasn't from his body changing it's angle when hitting the ground. It is not as cut and dry as you think it is, and when there is a question the call on the field stands. We have seen it time and time again throughout the season with more evidence for an overturn.
-
Comment -
That's a lovely theory but yet again... no. Your on field ruling means piss all. Don't let the chick living down here put in the 20 seconds of effort to actually learn about the sport so many of you profess to adore.Originally posted by TheCentaur
Here's the rule:
ARTICLE 1. To reverse an on-field ruling, the replay official must be convinced beyond all doubt by indisputable video evidence through one or more video replays provided to the monitor.
And that's it. You know why? The replay officials' ruling stands. That's it. Done. No more. No nothing on the field stuff that I've seen posted. There's a reason for video replay... it doesn't get overturned or overruled. Ever. It's over. They're paid to make the ruling for a reason. Finito, Finit, Adios muchacho. Over.
Comment -
unfukkingreal catch and yes i had va. tech large...not mad was just on the wrong side this time...fwiw i was going to hammer alabama ml if this game hit...then again if my aunt was my uncle she would have a set of nuts.Comment -
INDISPUTABLE shari. yes they realize that thats what the official is suppose to do/use. they are saying he did not do have such evidence but overturned the call anyway.
nobody is saying the replay officials ruling does not stand. they are saying he was wrong to execute his authority in that fashion. but that is of course also debateable and a judgement call.Comment -
Look at the rules I posted above. And then watch the video. The ball bobbled and touched the ground. From 0:48-0:50.Originally posted by Glitch
Where everyone else is coming up with different interpretations of the rules I can only blame on shithouse announcers and maybe just not knowing what the actual rules are. They're there for everyone to see. He didn't complete that pass according to NCAAF rules. Again, here's the link: http://www.ncaapublications.com/prod...loads/FR12.pdf
People saying the ruling on the field stands? Ummm no. Those saying he was out of bounds? Didn't look like it to me but either way with the rules I posted, it'd still be incomplete. It sucks but come on now.Comment -
Shari,
These guys are delusional and lost money. Let them just bicker back and forth on why it should be. The only reason they are saying it should be is because the refs fukked up the initial call. If they had said it was incomplete at first they wouldn't be saying squat.Comment -
No, the on field ruling is crucial. Every announcer, coach, ref, rules official, and fan knows this. There have been hundreds of calls this year after booth review of "the ruling on the field stands", which means the replay official found no indisputable evidence to overturn the call. Article 1 reiterates this, so I'm not sure why you are quoting it as support of your argument. Unless I am mistaken and the ruling on the field was not a TD, the replay official was somehow convinced beyond all doubt by video evidence.Originally posted by shari91Comment -
shari- the proper angle to really be able to tell beyond any doubt is missing. yes it looks like it came very close or possibly hit there but he was under it with both of his hands/wrists as well and spinning and we cant see it properly even at 48-50
deuce- "YOU FAT FUKK!! YOU FAT FUKK!!!" just quoting a video. what ever happened to that videoComment -
haha Yeah I was only curious because I'd seen threads started about this game and then steve had posted a video. It was actually good incentive for me to be able to hunt down the official rules and bookmark it. From the other threads I saw, seems like the refs were a bit iffy this whole game so no wonder people are pissed. Crappy way to lose. But I'm just calling it like I see it and I like learning stuff like this... at least reminds me why I used to love watching college ball. Too hard to follow here regularly nowOriginally posted by Deuce
Comment -
You are exactly right deuce, if the initial ruling was incomplete I would not have a problem with it remaining so because it was so close. Now quit kissing Shari's ass it's embarassingOriginally posted by DeuceComment -
can we move on from this already please
bullshit call cost me over 4 bills
103161945-1 1/3/12 10:08pm $500.00 $434.78 $500.00 Cancelled 1/3/12 8:30pm College Football 260 Virginia Tech 2nd Half -1 -115* vs MichiganComment -
I had V Tech last night, and I was upset at the call at the time......but it was pretty obvious possession wasn't maintained.Comment -
No you misunderstood me (or I didn't make myself clear) - your claim that the on field call should stand means nothing once the video review answer comes back. It'll never hold up as soon as it goes to video review obviously. That's all I was trying to say. So unless you think the guys doing that job are dirty, then that's all you have to go on. I live and die by that sword daily in tennis as well... sometimes works in my favour and sometimes - feels like more often - it doesn't. But after that point, you're screwed as a bettor. In this case, especially after reading more college football rules than I'll probably ever read again in my lifetime, I'm 100% convinced the vid guys made the right call. But I also didn't have money on it so maybe that makes a difference?Originally posted by TheCentaurComment -
This is your argument? Any time a receiver catches a ball with his hands under it the ball is going to shift direction with his hands and arms because he hit the ground. You expect a receiver to hit the ground, his body and appendages to quickly change direction, but the ball to remain in a fluid direction?Originally posted by Regul8erComment -
What if I am already tongue deep in her shit box?Originally posted by TheCentaur
You lost a fukking bet, grab your onions and move on. Pretend like you've done this before.Comment -
Originally posted by Deuce
Comment -
i didnt lose any bet from it, not even for 1 sbr point. but yeah lets move on. if bboydan was here i would vote for a thread closing for sure.Originally posted by DeuceComment -
Fair enough.Originally posted by Glitch
Comment -
Obviously. I know the call is final once the booth makes a decisionOriginally posted by shari91
But that on the field ruling is crucial since indisputable evidence is needed to overturn it. When indisputable evidence is not found, which as has been demonstrated throughout the season is quite common, the default is the on field ruling. I am saying that while it was not clearly a catch, it was also not clearly incomplete, and the replay official should have let it stand.Comment -
Yeah thats fine, let's move on, but it bothers me to be quoted a few rules like I'm delusional and the answer is right in front of me.Originally posted by GlitchComment -
And my point was, based on the rules I posted, they obviously found indisputable evidence. Nothing you can do about it. Many people - who didn't bet them - also agree that he didn't have control of the ball. And if you believe the vid refs were being dodgy it'd seem a bit strange since I'm pretty sure I saw many people posting that the refs were being dirty in Mich's favour during the game? even though they were being outplayed??Originally posted by TheCentaurObviously. I know the call is final once the booth makes a decision
But that on the field ruling is crucial since indisputable evidence is needed to overturn it. When indisputable evidence is not found, which as has been demonstrated throughout the season is quite common, the default is the on field ruling. I am saying that while it was not clearly a catch, it was also not clearly incomplete, and the replay official should have let it stand.
I don't know and I don't really care. I do appreciate how everyone kept it clean in here and just had a proper sports conversation instead of attacking each other... regardless of who won or lost what, this has been a pretty informative thread for me to read. So thank you all.
Comment -
i had va tech also and it is pretty obvious that the ball hits the groundComment -
Originally posted by shari91
Unreal, huh?Comment -
Originally posted by Darkside Magick
The ref on the field says the receiver did not maintain control of the ball throughout the play. He says nothing about the ball hitting the ground. He repeats what the replay official's explanation is, so the reason it was overturned was not because it hit the ground. I'm thinking you just read the thread title and then posted without reading the content, so no big deal.Comment -
Are we still talking about this??? I'm trying to heal my war wounds now. Shari... my point is... there were 2 other catches in this game that were let go... and to me... the ground seemed to have aided the player in catching the pass. BOTH WERE RULED COMPLETED. Nothing on Video to OVERTURN the call. Same applies for what Glitch posted. This kid makes an amazing catch... his elbow is in bounds... knee is in bounds... yes the ball shifts a tad... but his ass is 10 feet out of bounds... still holding onto the ball. Even if I didn't have money on the game... it still is a remarkable catch by this kid.
You can only assume the video replay official was being a referee on the field... and not a "video replay official" There is nothing conclusive that shows the player was:
1. Out of bounds.
2. Player lost control of the ball.
3. Didn't maintain full possession.
The kid is lying dead over in the corner of the end zone/sidelines... and the football is still attached to him. What more did you want the kid to do???
Just when you watch the play at regular speed... you are saying to yourself no effing way he was in bounds... show me any evidence that you can overturn that officials call. That old man is right there... patiently waiting to give the TD signal. He could of said no catch??? But he didn't.
I can't stand these video replay officials... acting as on-field referees. It totally destroys the game.Comment -
Didnt bet the game but you have to stick with call on the field here imo.Comment -
Had michigan and I thought it was a catch. I think what is crazy is when they interviewed the michigan coach after the game he said he thought it was a catch.Comment -
If the evidence is so irrefutable then why is everyone arguing about it? Everyone should agree if it was so cut-and-dry...Comment -
Exactly. Its really very clear.
It was not irrefutable, hence the arguments.
Not irrefutable = not enough cause to overturn
=bullshitComment -
LMAO. Thats like saying calls made on the field mean virtually nothing. Why even have the rule "it must be undisputible evidence to overturn" if calls on the field mean "piss?" according to you. Using your logic refs dont even need to be on the field to make calls because ALL calls will always be decided by some guy watching replays in a booth. Using your logic baseball should eliminate umpires, football should eliminate refs, thus eliminating refs all together. Why not just change the American tradition of having refs in sports all together? HilariousOriginally posted by shari91That's a lovely theory but yet again... no. Your on field ruling means piss all. Don't let the chick living down here put in the 20 seconds of effort to actually learn about the sport so many of you profess to adore.
Here's the rule:
ARTICLE 1. To reverse an on-field ruling, the replay official must be convinced beyond all doubt by indisputable video evidence through one or more video replays provided to the monitor.
And that's it. You know why? The replay officials' ruling stands. That's it. Done. No more. No nothing on the field stuff that I've seen posted. There's a reason for video replay... it doesn't get overturned or overruled. Ever. It's over. They're paid to make the ruling for a reason. Finito, Finit, Adios muchacho. Over.Comment -
For the record when I seen the play replayed over and over again, it kinda looked like the nose of the ball hit the ground. It also looked like a badass diving catch that the receiver had control of before his elbow hit the ground. The only problem is it was called a TD on the field.Comment -
Did you bet the game? Did you post a play before the game started? If you did neither of the two, you would be a monday morning quarterback so to speak. Everyone is the best handicapper after the game goes final. I dont think Ive ever seen you post a pick before. Are you just sucking up to a mod for a cookie today?Originally posted by DeuceComment -
play was called a catch on the field, and their definitely wasn't any evidence to overturn it, should of stayed with the call on the field no doubtComment -
Walker paid me to not post plays. Also, I would have taken Tech of I had wagered. You don't know who I am or what you're getting into, Ace.Originally posted by Walter AbramsComment -
Maybe one day your lifelong dream of being a mod will be real. Sucking up to other mods is a step in the right direction though.Originally posted by DeuceComment
