Question instant replay

[Percho]

Were the parameters of instant replay changed yesterday during our game.

Did the replay booth verify a call made on the field, overturn a call made on the field, or make the call, for the officials on the field of what happened on a play.

[TheRef]

Were the parameters of instant replay changed yesterday during our game.

Did the replay booth verify a call made on the field, overturn a call made on the field, or make the call, for the officials on the field of what happened on a play.

The replay booth overturned the fumble call at the goal-line and changed it to a TD for BAMA.

[Martianlander]

They made the call from replay on what they "wanted" or "assumed" or both. You could not overturn that call from what was on replay. If it had originally been called the other way I would say the same thing.

[ShotgunDawg]

They made the call from replay on what they "wanted" or "assumed" or both. You could not overturn that call from what was on replay. If it had originally been called the other way I would say the same thing.

I agree. I'm not upset about it because I genuinely believe he scored, but it does seem like what occurred was a plain override of replay protocol. IMO, this is a problem because it isn't consistent with the rule and could be a slippery slope of assumptions. I would love to hear an explanation of how those replays were conclusive.

[IMissJack]

I believe to overturn a call, the evidence has to be irrefutable, which is why officials will say "the play stands", rather than "the call is confirmed", if there is not enough evidence to be sure.

[TheRef]

I believe to overturn a call, the evidence has to be irrefutable, which is why officials will say "the play stands", rather than "the call is confirmed", if there is not enough evidence to be sure.

Correct. I don't know if there were other angles available to the replay official, but apparently they saw enough.

[maroonmania]

Correct. I don't know if there were other angles available to the replay official, but apparently they saw enough.

Well first, the replay official was Doyle Jackson, an old guard SEC referee who loves Bama so I knew what the call would be as soon as I heard who the replay official was. Now, that being said, I will say that when replay first started pretty much all replay officials stood with the call on the field unless there was 100% evidence to overturn and they were instructed to do so. Over the years though I've noticed that the replay reviewers are taking more and more latitude to make the call on what they "think" the correct call should be. It appears that the call on the field is carrying less and less weight with what the replay official comes back with. That was somewhat the case Saturday in that while no angle available provided irrefutable proof that the plane was broken the angles available were enough to make one think that he likely did and, given who was making the call, that was all it took.

[BulldogBear]

Well first, the replay official was Doyle Jackson, an old guard SEC referee who loves Bama so I knew what the call would be as soon as I heard who the replay official was. Now, that being said, I will say that when replay first started pretty much all replay officials stood with the call on the field unless there was 100% evidence to overturn and they were instructed to do so. Over the years though I've noticed that the replay reviewers are taking more and more latitude to make the call on what they "think" the correct call should be. It appears that the call on the field is carrying less and less weight with what the replay official comes back with. That was somewhat the case Saturday in that while no angle available provided irrefutable proof that the plane was broken the angles available were enough to make one think that he likely did and, given who was making the call, that was all it took.

I was always for it but in the back of my mind wondered at what point it would just become an easy way to let officiating effect the outcome of games.

[jumbo]

I think he scored, but I don't think that the replay shows 100% he scored.

[defiantdog]

They only showed the replay of the score in the stadium once, and all you could tell was his helmet crossing the goaline but the crowd went crazy as if he was dancing in the endzone with the ball

[maroonmania]

I think he scored, but I don't think that the replay shows 100% he scored.

Exactly. Putting several angles together he likely scored but that doesn't meet the threshold of what its SUPPOSE to take to overturn a call on the field. There was no single view that showed in any type of irrefutable way that he scored.

[DanDority]

We will not be hearing anything about this call. It will be forgotten and flushed from our memory, or the SEC office will hope everyone will forget. I know I want! I guess that there is a rule about a play that takes place in Bama's favor that if a play takes place and it looks like they may have done something then it happened.

[Johnson85]

There was no single view that showed in any type of irrefutable way that he scored.

Pretty sure that is not the rule. You just need irrefutable evidence. So if you have two replays synced up and you can only tell that the ball has crossed the goal but can't see if the player has possession in one, and in the other you can tell the player has possession but don't have the angle to be sure he crossed the goal, you can sync those up with the game clock and rightfully determine that it's irrefutable evidence.

I believe they made sure replay officials had this capability after Florida fumbled in Starkville before entering the end zone. They let the call on the field stand because they didn't have the equipment set up to easily sync up the feeds, so even though the announcers could sync it up and tell it was just barely a fumble, the replay officials looked at one feed at a time and didn't/couldn't use simple logic to get the call right.

[Percho]

Correct. I don't know if there were other angles available to the replay official, but apparently they saw enough.

True, the imagination is a wonderful thing.

My question remains, were the parameters of instant replay changed Saturday?

[Percho]

Exactly. Putting several angles together he likely scored but that doesn't meet the threshold of what its SUPPOSE to take to overturn a call on the field. There was no single view that showed in any type of irrefutable way that he scored.

There were no multiple views of irrefutable evidence that he scored.

[dawgpound]

From the replays shown it was obvious he scored, I had no doubt they would overturn the fumble call and award a touchdown to Bama. I don't know how anyone here can say that he didn't score with a straight face. The view from the top showed that only his legs did not cross into the endzone.

[EAVdog]

It was the right call. Just hurts because you know ala MSU v LSU in 2009 we don't get that call.

That's the real rub.

[maroonmania]

Pretty sure that is not the rule. You just need irrefutable evidence. So if you have two replays synced up and you can only tell that the ball has crossed the goal but can't see if the player has possession in one, and in the other you can tell the player has possession but don't have the angle to be sure he crossed the goal, you can sync those up with the game clock and rightfully determine that it's irrefutable evidence.

I believe they made sure replay officials had this capability after Florida fumbled in Starkville before entering the end zone. They let the call on the field stand because they didn't have the equipment set up to easily sync up the feeds, so even though the announcers could sync it up and tell it was just barely a fumble, the replay officials looked at one feed at a time and didn't/couldn't use simple logic to get the call right.

OK, didn't realize everything would be picked apart here. Will modify to say that there was no single view OR MULTIPLE VIEWS SYNCED that showed in any type of irrefutable way that he scored. Is that better? I mean the multiple views may help the case that he likely scored but are in no way clear cut.

[maroonmania]

It was the right call. Just hurts because you know ala MSU v LSU in 2009 we don't get that call.

That's the real rub.

It may have been the right call but its ironic that the BEST view on the play was from the ref that actually called it a fumble. He was looking right down the goal line with no other players blocking his view. That is the view you don't get with any of the replay angles.

[thf24]

It is valid for the officials to use multiple angles together to make a ruling. It's not limited to just a single angle. I believe that it was conclusive when using the skycam and the reverse end zone views together.

[drunkernhelldawg]

I agree. I'm not upset about it because I genuinely believe he scored, but it does seem like what occurred was a plain override of replay protocol. IMO, this is a problem because it isn't consistent with the rule and could be a slippery slope of assumptions. I would love to hear an explanation of how those replays were conclusive.

We didn't get good replays from CBS during the call. I wonder if the issue of whether the ball was already moving before the crossed he goal line (if he did) was addressed. I never heard mention of this issue, but on the one replay where I could see the ball, it was never held still in one place by his body. Looked like it might have been shifting around. Really, a black moment for SEC officials to overturn without proper "indisputable" evidence. I hope the league provides an explanation. I generally disagree with the conspiracy theories; I believe, have to believe, that the officials are trying to call the game correctly, but they definitely seem to have messed this one up. I wonder if they were able to see angles that weren't provided to the public, but CBS didn't show shit to justify the reversal. Danielson has to go, so busy giving his idiotic opinion that they missed the opportunity to give a better presentation of the available replays to the tv audience.

[maroonmania]

It is valid for the officials to use multiple angles together to make a ruling. It's not limited to just a single angle. I believe that it was conclusive when using the skycam and the reverse end zone views together.

How so since neither showed specifically where the ball was in relation to the goal line or if the ball was already coming loose? As I said, the very best view of the play was actually from the ref that made the fumble call as he had an unobstructed view right down the goal line. Doesn't mean he was right but he had a better view of things than we got on replay.

[mparkerfd20]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gr4zcoZMFMo

Since no one actually linked the clearly reversed fumble video, I thought I would. Remember the ball is in his LEFT hand. Right hand crosses, left never does before ball is popped out, IMO.

[Percho]

Freeze that at the 37/38 second and see where the ball is. It has come out gone to the right hit a man and is started back to the left. Beniquez came under him just short of the goal turned him with ball coming out on the hit. Looks like his left shoulder knocked the ball out and to the right.

You sure could not say the ball crossed the goal line.

[ShotgunDawg]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gr4zcoZMFMo

Since no one actually linked the clearly reversed fumble video, I thought I would. Remember the ball is in his LEFT hand. Right hand crosses, left never does before ball is popped out, IMO.

Yeah, my gut tells me that he scored, but I see no evidence close to being enough to overturn the call.

[drunkernhelldawg]

It actually looks like he doesn't score in this video. Saturday, I accepted it, but now I'm getting more pissed by the moment. As I say above, the SEC has to provide us wish some explanation of what the overturn was based on. This looks like a big mistake to me.

[ShotgunDawg]

It actually looks like he doesn't score in this video. Saturday, I accepted it, but now I'm getting more pissed by the moment. As I say above, the SEC has to provide us wish some explanation of what the overturn was based on. This looks like a big mistake to me.

I think he scored, and this is possibly what the replay official did. If you look at different angles, simultaneously, it would've been almost impossible for him to not score.

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=2fe7dec33a&view=fimg&th=149c048dc5cb1f46&attid=0.1&disp=inline&realattid=f_i2mippwy0&safe=1&attbid=ANGjdJ-zWLgdvWAlHbabXG9npeiUza0ghE6TAQ87p3kR-4LGARmIe1BCzhFe_tu-Uz6Fq6HwQbZu8WtsPL4aJ94OwbFI5df5tWdPqo9XRmFQNsISsV pfTaxz4a4JCTE&ats=1416270250754&rm=149c048dc5cb1f46&zw&sz=w1345-h558

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=2fe7dec33a&view=fimg&th=149c048dc5cb1f46&attid=0.2&disp=inline&realattid=f_i2miq1li1&safe=1&attbid=ANGjdJ9RuQ_1lE4fVoy-wVhLdA8dtcKeq7Rac7HLwiJAwXvjFKJXlKCK0TAOfaNImi-tvUCft5zb5TYzaZ_AXVDt8xbjJ3kp3lQ7Em2UWv6TBqWfSoyHJ kGdA9CgnbU&ats=1416270250754&rm=149c048dc5cb1f46&zw&sz=w1345-h558

[drunkernhelldawg]

I think he scored, and this is possibly what the replay official did. If you look at different angles, simultaneously, it would've been almost impossible for him to not score.

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=2fe7dec33a&view=fimg&th=149c048dc5cb1f46&attid=0.1&disp=inline&realattid=f_i2mippwy0&safe=1&attbid=ANGjdJ-zWLgdvWAlHbabXG9npeiUza0ghE6TAQ87p3kR-4LGARmIe1BCzhFe_tu-Uz6Fq6HwQbZu8WtsPL4aJ94OwbFI5df5tWdPqo9XRmFQNsISsV pfTaxz4a4JCTE&ats=1416270250754&rm=149c048dc5cb1f46&zw&sz=w1345-h558

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=2fe7dec33a&view=fimg&th=149c048dc5cb1f46&attid=0.2&disp=inline&realattid=f_i2miq1li1&safe=1&attbid=ANGjdJ9RuQ_1lE4fVoy-wVhLdA8dtcKeq7Rac7HLwiJAwXvjFKJXlKCK0TAOfaNImi-tvUCft5zb5TYzaZ_AXVDt8xbjJ3kp3lQ7Em2UWv6TBqWfSoyHJ kGdA9CgnbU&ats=1416270250754&rm=149c048dc5cb1f46&zw&sz=w1345-h558

But how does anybody know when the ball started coming out?

[DLGDawg]

And why, in todays world of video analysis, is there not multiple cameras on each side at the goal line. That's where it's the most important to get it right. The view from the left of the screen is the one needed to truly determine if he crossed WITH control of the ball.

The overhead shot was the closest to verifying to me. When I saw it, I was like, well he PROBABLY scored. But that's not supposed to cut it from the way I understand the rules.

Just like several others said, if they had ruled it a TD, there would not have been enough evidence to change that either.


But how does anybody know when the ball started coming out?

[Percho]

But how does anybody know when the ball started coming out?

I use Google chrome and downloaded an extension called frame scroll for youtube. At the 36 second on the above You tube you can use your arrow keys to frame by frame. The ball comes out at about the 25 frame of the 36th second. More of B's body is over the gold line than the runners.

[Percho]

I am changing my vote. If you go to 104 and do the same I believe he scored.