i actually don't have a huge problem with the replay call

[jsireland]

let me also preface this by saying that i watched the game online, on my laptop, so i'll defer to literally all of your replays of the play.

but to me, the problem wasn't really so much with the replay call as with the rules the sec seems to be operating under. #1, the call on the field is assumed to be correct. #2, the standard for overturning the call is 100% certainty.

#1, why are we assuming that officials, who have one angle on a fast-moving play and must make a split-second decision are correct? why don't we assume that the slow motion, multiple camera angle, time-synched replays are correct?

and #2, i think 100% certainty is ridiculous. i think it was a pick, y'all saw it better than me. but can you really say with 100% certainty that it was? that his toe was 100% inbounds? sure, you saw a divot, but maybe the divot was made by a spike while the toe was out. and it sure looked like he had possession. but MAYBE he didn't and only secured it when he tucked the ball. the thing is, i can't be 100% sure.

so yes, i think it was a pick, but i'm not 100% convinced, especially after i assume that it was incomplete. and even with all the times state fans have been screwed by replay officials this year, it doesn't appear that this board is 100% convinced either. so, going by the sec rules, the replay call was correct.

and THAT is the problem.

 

[jsireland]

let me also preface this by saying that i watched the game online, on my laptop, so i'll defer to literally all of your replays of the play.

but to me, the problem wasn't really so much with the replay call as with the rules the sec seems to be operating under. #1, the call on the field is assumed to be correct. #2, the standard for overturning the call is 100% certainty.

#1, why are we assuming that officials, who have one angle on a fast-moving play and must make a split-second decision are correct? why don't we assume that the slow motion, multiple camera angle, time-synched replays are correct?

and #2, i think 100% certainty is ridiculous. i think it was a pick, y'all saw it better than me. but can you really say with 100% certainty that it was? that his toe was 100% inbounds? sure, you saw a divot, but maybe the divot was made by a spike while the toe was out. and it sure looked like he had possession. but MAYBE he didn't and only secured it when he tucked the ball. the thing is, i can't be 100% sure.

so yes, i think it was a pick, but i'm not 100% convinced, especially after i assume that it was incomplete. and even with all the times state fans have been screwed by replay officials this year, it doesn't appear that this board is 100% convinced either. so, going by the sec rules, the replay call was correct.

and THAT is the problem.

 

[Dawgpile]

A ref watching live action from one angle, making a decision in a tenth or one hundredth of a second, can make a judgement call on the play...But a replay official watching multiple angles, repeatedly, in slow motion CAN'T make a judgment call?

Asinine.

 

[Faustdog]

under the current rules, that call should not have been overturned.

 

[bendog]

the problem there wasn't that the replay official got it wrong. I don't think there was indisputable evidence that the call on the field should've been overturned. I think his right toe was PROBABLY in bounds, but the replay angle wasn't definitive.

The problem, though, is how the call on the field was arrived at. I can't claim to know what was said between the officials, but it sure looked to me like neither of them had seen the play well enough to know what to call. Then they just pulled the incomplete call out of their asses, because, well, they had to call SOMETHING.

Certainly we should prefer that the replay official be able to make the call there, using his best judgment, instead of assume that the call on the field is correct when the officials clearly just flipped a coin when making the call.

 

[Agentdog]

I agree. The standard to overturn a call is just to high. Even in a court of law, a judge will instruct the jury that beyond a REASONABLE doubt does not mean beyond ALL doubt.

The rule needs to be tweaked. It should be when a play goes to replay. The call on the field is eliminated. Then the replay official has to make a call based on the replay.

 

[alwaysbama]

For what it's worth I think yall are right on the money. I believe that he was probably in but the video did not show that with 100% certainty. They got it right based on the rules provided.

 

[Uncle Leo]

I don't think there was indisputable evidence that the call on the field should've been overturned. I think his right toe was PROBABLY in bounds, but the replay angle wasn't definitive.

What WAS definitive was that his left foot was in bounds when he caught the ball. There was absolutely no sign that the ball bobbled as he tucked it away, so you must say he had possession from the beginning, with his left foot still on the ground in bounds.

 

[FlabLoser]

The catch was clean. Left foot was in bounds. INT. End of story.

 

[Requiem For A Dawg]

definitive when you see a 17n divot fly up in bounds... It is safe to say that he was in bounds

 

[RebelBruiser]

My problem is that it changes week to week depending on the team. If Bama needs the indisputable evidence rule bent for them, it gets bent. If the officials have an idea that the call may have been wrong, and it would benefit Bama, they will flip the call.

It's sad because it's to the point now where fans know what the call will be before the review based on who is playing in the game.

I'm not usually a black helicopter guy, but this year has been a joke, and Bama and Florida have been the beneficiaries. Had Terrance Cody not blocked the FG against UT, they'd have called holding to protect Bama.

 

[dawgatUSM]

you've got a divot that is 8 inches in play and he obviously had possession with the first foot even though he didn't have it tucked away. The ball wasn't moving and he had both hands on it.. It was a catch and he was in bounds

 

[bendog]

It was certainly clear as can be that the left foot was in...but it wasn't obvious to me that the right foot was in. It was very close.

If he only needs one foot in bounds, then I would agree that there is nothing to be discussed.

 

[Chesusdog]

College is one foot. And there is indisputable evidence that he had one foot in bounds with the ball secure in his hands. The SEC wants an undefeated Florida facing an undefeated Alabama.

 

[GBryne4Heisman]

"replay booth" to the college game is a good idea. That way the ref has a view instead of just the replay official.

 

[Requiem For A Dawg]

nm

 

[drunkernhelldawg]

On one hand, a strong preponderance of evidence suggested an interception. On the other hand, there was not "indisputable visual evidence." I think the safer call for the officials would have been to award the int, but they went with a strict interpetation of the rule instead. It's a shame, because it basically ended a good ballgame.

I don't agree with the many conspiracy theorists about these calls. I think they just out and out screw up sometimes.

 

[Eureka Dog]

and his right foot was down after he caught it. He never juggled it.

This year, the replay refs are performing at a lower level than the "on the field" refs.. and that's saying a lot

 

[o_rexxx]

it was obviously an int. LSU got screwed just like every team that plays Bama and Florida this year and dares to try to screw up the party by trying to beat those teams. The SEC if obviously trying to get those two teams undefeated. It is a joke.

 

[maroonmania]

while the left foot was still on the ground regardless of whether the toe was in on the right foot or not.

 

[LR1400]

I am told, according to ESPN his left foot can be seen out of bounds BEFORE he catches the ball. This means incomplete and the replay guys made the correct call.

Not even as close to as big a call as the UF MSU touchdown call.

Bama would have won regardless.

The call on the field was incomplete. The replay guys made the right call in not overturning because it is not clear that his left foot did not come down first out of bounds. Too close to overturn. Correct call.

 

[therightway]

If they are going to call this one incomplete I want to see what they call a catch. Hell the CBS guy were breaking it down by turf flying in the air. He was in. It was close but this has to stop.</p>

 

[LR1400]

If they are going to call this one incomplete I want to see what they call a catch. Hell the CBS guy were breaking it down by turf flying in the air. He was in. It was close but this has to stop.</p>

Watch it again and remember the on field call, in accordance with the speed and play of the game, was incomplete. Watch his left foot and you cannot definitively say that it was in bounds. It looks like it could very possibly OB, so with it looking like it might have been OB you don't overrule your on field ref.

 

[Uncle Leo]

Watch it again and remember the on field call, in accordance with the speed and play of the game, was incomplete. Watch his left foot and you cannot definitively say that it was in bounds. It looks like it could very possibly OB, so with it looking like it might have been OB you don't overrule your on field ref.

UpTheMiddlex3Punt posted this video earlier. Pay special attention to the angle from behind the action. It's the first replay angle they show. It's clear his left foot is in bounds. Then couple that with another angle showing he has possession with his left foot down. He never bobbled it as he tucked it to his side. It's an interception.

 

[LR1400]

Watch it again and remember the on field call, in accordance with the speed and play of the game, was incomplete. Watch his left foot and you cannot definitively say that it was in bounds. It looks like it could very possibly OB, so with it looking like it might have been OB you don't overrule your on field ref.

UpTheMiddlex3Punt posted this video earlier. Pay special attention to the angle from behind the action. It's the first replay angle they show. It's clear his left foot is in bounds. Then couple that with another angle showing he has possession with his left foot down. He never bobbled it as he tucked it to his side. It's an interception.

I hadn't seen that angle. I don't believe there is a conspiracy to get Bama and UF into the SEC champ by the replay officials. It just has to be 100% in their eyes and that is playing by the rules. You can see that there could be some doubt on our call versus Florida. On this call it looks like they may have been reasoning that he hadn't gotten full possession until he tucked the ball and then his right foot was OB.

Calls in games go both ways and usually 99% of the time even out. There should have been some pass interference calls versus LSU that stopped Bama receivers from catching the ball and taking it all the way and on and on

 

[NewTweederEndzoneDance]

Watch it again and remember the on field call, in accordance with the speed and play of the game, was incomplete. Watch his left foot and you cannot definitively say that it was in bounds. It looks like it could very possibly OB, so with it looking like it might have been OB you don't overrule your on field ref.

UpTheMiddlex3Punt posted this video earlier. Pay special attention to the angle from behind the action. It's the first replay angle they show. It's clear his left foot is in bounds. Then couple that with another angle showing he has possession with his left foot down. He never bobbled it as he tucked it to his side. It's an interception.

I hadn't seen that angle. I don't believe there is a conspiracy to get Bama and UF into the SEC champ by the replay officials. It just has to be 100% in their eyes and that is playing by the rules. You can see that there could be some doubt on our call versus Florida. On this call it looks like they may have been reasoning that he hadn't gotten full possession until he tucked the ball and then his right foot was OB.

Calls in games go both ways and usually 99% of the time even out. There should have been some pass interference calls versus LSU that stopped Bama receivers from catching the ball and taking it all the way and on and on

He gets to watch the play in slow motion from every angle available. Don't compare that to an official missing a holding or pass interference call. There is no excuse for them to be completely screwing up the number of calls that they are this year. Its astounding to think that a person can come to the conclusions that they have been coming to over and over this year after reviewing the play. Its not like they are making split second decisions in real time. Well, I take it back. When there is a bias in play it becomes completely conceivable that they can miss these calls over and over again.

And since when was there a "tuck rule" for establishing possession of the ball? Its not a rule that you can't catch a ball unless you tuck it. So what if he had never tucked it and had instead held it above his head as he finally stepped out of bounds? You think that would have changed their call? I can answer that for you. There's not a chance in hell it would have. Once again, don't let facts get in your way...

 

[JohnDawg]

but you do know that the green area (or blue Boise St.) is inbounds and the white area is out of bounds right??? If you can't see that his left foot was inbounds with possession of the ball, you're clearly blinder than Crooms. And by the way, you don't have to have the ball tucked to have possession. dubmass

 

[dawgoneyall]

100% certain it was an interception.

 

[FlabLoser]

On one hand, a strong preponderance of evidence suggested an interception. On the other hand, there was not "<span style="font-weight: bold;">indisputable visual evidence</span>." I think the safer call for the officials would have been to award the int, but they went with a strict interpetation of the rule instead. It's a shame, because it basically ended a good ballgame.

I don't agree with the many conspiracy theorists about these calls. I think they just out and out screw up <span style="font-weight: bold;">sometimes</span>.

Indisputable to who? I have yet to hear from anybody who thought it wasn't intercepted. Zero. Nobody.

Sometimes = every week in favor of Bama, Florida, or both. Seriously, its been weekly for at least 4 weeks in a row now.

 

[FlabLoser]

I am told, according to ESPN his left foot can be seen out of bounds BEFORE he catches the ball. This means incomplete and the replay guys made the correct call.

Watch it yourself. His foot is in bounds.

For those keeping score at home, we've now got 98 out of 100 idiots in agreement with having an interception. And since 100 out of 100 idiots don't agree, it was clearly right not to overturn the call. /sarcasm

 

[AROB44]

What the hell does that mean? So, since everyone thinks we will lose to Bummer, I guess we don't need to play the game. I am sick of hearing crap like " xxx would have won anyway so the f**k up by the officials did not matter". BS !!!

 

[LR1400]

Watch it again and remember the on field call, in accordance with the speed and play of the game, was incomplete. Watch his left foot and you cannot definitively say that it was in bounds. It looks like it could very possibly OB, so with it looking like it might have been OB you don't overrule your on field ref.

UpTheMiddlex3Punt posted this video earlier. Pay special attention to the angle from behind the action. It's the first replay angle they show. It's clear his left foot is in bounds. Then couple that with another angle showing he has possession with his left foot down. He never bobbled it as he tucked it to his side. It's an interception.

I hadn't seen that angle. I don't believe there is a conspiracy to get Bama and UF into the SEC champ by the replay officials. It just has to be 100% in their eyes and that is playing by the rules. You can see that there could be some doubt on our call versus Florida. On this call it looks like they may have been reasoning that he hadn't gotten full possession until he tucked the ball and then his right foot was OB.

Calls in games go both ways and usually 99% of the time even out. There should have been some pass interference calls versus LSU that stopped Bama receivers from catching the ball and taking it all the way and on and on

He gets to watch the play in slow motion from every angle available. Don't compare that to an official missing a holding or pass interference call. There is no excuse for them to be completely screwing up the number of calls that they are this year. Its astounding to think that a person can come to the conclusions that they have been coming to over and over this year after reviewing the play. Its not like they are making split second decisions in real time. Well, I take it back. When there is a bias in play it becomes completely conceivable that they can miss these calls over and over again.

And since when was there a "tuck rule" for establishing possession of the ball? Its not a rule that you can't catch a ball unless you tuck it. So what if he had never tucked it and had instead held it above his head as he finally stepped out of bounds? You think that would have changed their call? I can answer that for you. There's not a chance in hell it would have. Once again, don't let facts get in your way...

Didn't say there was a tuck rule. I know there is no "tuck" rule. I am saying according to the rule of 100% I can see how they have not overturned many calls, including ones against us. I am playing devil's advocate because I do not believe there is a ******** conspiracy among replay officials to get Bama and UF into the title game undefeated. The game would make just as much money if LSU came in with one loss.

 

[LR1400]

but you do know that the green area (or blue Boise St.) is inbounds and the white area is out of bounds right??? If you can't see that his left foot was inbounds with possession of the ball, you're clearly blinder than Crooms. And by the way, you don't have to have the ball tucked to have possession. dubmass

Didn't say there was a tuck rule dumbass. If you read the rule and look at it from the replay officials point of view you can see how they do not overturn many calls. Play devils advocate. There is no Bama UF conspiracy that's ********. If LSU is in that game with one loss it is just as biga game.

 

[8dog]

the alleged goal is to ensure that the winner of that game plays in the national championship game.

And it was indisputably an interception.

And the 100% rule seems to change by the week, which is another problem. See the Auburn fumble against ole miss last week.

 

[DawgMedic]

There is clearly a bias towards Bama and Florida when it comes to officiating. How many holding calls have been made against either team this year in close games? Not many... And for the record, that was 100% without a doubt an interception.

Two hands on the ball + foot clearly inbounds = interception...

 

[wchsdawg]

My problem with the call was why it was incomplete. Was it that he didn't have control of the ball or was it the feet or both. The refs never made it clear why it was called incomplete. They just gave each other the blank stare and gave the head ref the blank stare.

 

[BCash]

and from my lower-level seats in the endzone (LSU defense's back was to me) it was blatantly obvious that it was a interception. Then it was one of those "oh this will be overturned" moments in the stands, even amongst the Bama fans. Then Bear Bryant bony, fleshless hand raised up out of the grave and waved his magic wand and the call is upheld.

2 things are pathetic: 1) That an objective fan sitting 60 yards away is able to make a split-second decision on a play and be 100% confident when an official standing right there can't...2) Once again after a slow-motion replay, the official botches the call.

 

[wchsdawg]

But there can be a few reasons as why the play was incomplete. didn't have possesion and feet were down. Feet were not down and had possesion. or just none of the above. The officials gave the blank stare.

 

[TBONE Lee]

and from my lower-level seats in the endzone (LSU defense's back was to me) it was blatantly obvious that it was a interception. Then it was one of those "oh this will be overturned" moments in the stands, even amongst the Bama fans. Then Bear Bryant bony, fleshless hand raised up out of the grave and waved his magic wand and the call is upheld.

2 things are pathetic: 1) That an objective fan sitting 60 yards away is able to make a split-second decision on a play and be 100% confident when an official standing right there can't...2) Once again after a slow-motion replay, the official botches the call.

LOL!