I'm with you, Passion. Clearly not enough to overturn it. A grainy shitty photo. IF his right hand was under the ball, that would be a catch. Since you can't tell from ANY angle, then there is not enough evidence to overturn. The fact they can not see the underside of the ball and where the hand position is PROVES there is not enough evidence to overturn because they DO NOT KNOW whether the hand was there or not. Given the ruling on the field was a catch, they must see evidence that it was not and the footage does not prove this.The video has to PROVE that the ball hit the ground without his hand underneath it. SIMPLE FACT.
Bullshit. Your photo shows nothing, and frankly is awful. His left arm does not end at the elbow (as it seems to in your photo). And look at the right side of the football on the ground. That appears to be a glove underneath the ball. Third, the ball isn't even on the ground yet in your photo.
The referees on the ground had a much better vantage point than the idiots up in the booth who, at best, had this grainy photo to look at that proves nothing.
Lastly, I'll take the word of the former head of pac-12 referees over a guy that wants to say anything that "pleases" oregon fans. Just go to autzen and start sucking dicks for free.
That picture just before it hits the ground. Trust me, it gets there. I just don't have a picture THAT good of it.
Which former head of Pac-12 refs was it? Cutaia? He was the fucktard referee in charge on the field for the Oklahoma-Oregon fiasco. That guy is the former head of officiating for a reason.
The catch call the rule on reviews is it has to be conclusive.
Had they called it incomplete you guys would be correct. However, the call on the field was a completion. It wasn't conclusive evidence to over turn it.
Now did that cost UW the game? No it didn't. Would UW had won had they made that coach? Who really knows? It's not like the Huskies have Folk as their kicker so you still had a good 25 yards to go if not more to feel comfortable with the kick.
It is okay to say the call was wrong to overturn it AND point out that UW fucked themselves way before that call so it shouldn't have came down to that.
For the 781st time, there is conclusive evidence of the football on the ground. That's conclusive evidence to overturn in this case.
For the 781st time, you fail to acknowledge the standard of review. The ruling was a catch, so unless you can indisputably prove 1. where his right hand was, and 2. that he did not have control of the ball as the ball touched the ground -- you have no ground to stand on. None. I know your schtick on here is to be the raging sexually frustrated negative nancy, but you come across stupid here dude. Sorry.
The side view angle shows the ball between his arms. You add up the two angles and you can clearly conclude that Smith did not have control of the ball before hitting the ground. When you go to the ground in the act of completing a catch, you MUST keep the ball off the ground.
I know officiating a lot better than you ever will. At this risk of going full Fleenor, I worked at least half a dozen games and two Pac-12 scrimmages with the line judge from this game when I was a football official. He made the best call he could in real time. I certainly don't blame him for that call.
The replay system is there to ensure the right outcome. It worked correctly in this case, which the Pac-12 confirmed this afternoon.
I know it's fun to use officiating as an excuse when your team loses. Coogs like LanceUppercut have been doing it for a decade and Seattle fans are still bitter about Super Bowl XL. In this case, you idiots are just plain wrong.
For the 781st time, you fail to acknowledge the standard of review. The ruling was a catch, so unless you can indisputably prove 1. where his right hand was, and 2. that he did not have control of the ball as the ball touched the ground -- you have no ground to stand on. None. I know your schtick on here is to be the raging sexually frustrated negative nancy, but you come across stupid here dude. Sorry.
For the 781st time, you fail to acknowledge the standard of review. The ruling was a catch, so unless you can indisputably prove 1. where his right hand was, and 2. that he did not have control of the ball as the ball touched the ground -- you have no ground to stand on. None. I know your schtick on here is to be the raging sexually frustrated negative nancy, but you come across stupid here dude. Sorry.
And bingo was his. Name. Oh.
I don't have to prove where his right hand was. He went to the ground without keeping the ball off the ground.
Rule 2-4-3-a: a. To catch a ball means that a player: 1. Secures control of a live ball in flight with his hands or arms before the ball touches the ground
The side view shows the ball is not secure and the rear view angle shows the ball touching the ground.
Not enough evidence to overrule. Since you're a former referee maybe you can give us some perspective. Do refs get off trying to decide the fate of the game or just jackass pac-12 refs?
The catch call the rule on reviews is it has to be conclusive.
Had they called it incomplete you guys would be correct. However, the call on the field was a completion. It wasn't conclusive evidence to over turn it.
Now did that cost UW the game? No it didn't. Would UW had won had they made that coach? Who really knows? It's not like the Huskies have Folk as their kicker so you still had a good 25 yards to go if not more to feel comfortable with the kick.
It is okay to say the call was wrong to overturn it AND point out that UW fucked themselves way before that call so it shouldn't have came down to that.
For the 781st time, there is conclusive evidence of the football on the ground. That's conclusive evidence to overturn in this case.
For the 781st time, you fail to acknowledge the standard of review. The ruling was a catch, so unless you can indisputably prove 1. where his right hand was, and 2. that he did not have control of the ball as the ball touched the ground -- you have no ground to stand on. None. I know your schtick on here is to be the raging sexually frustrated negative nancy, but you come across stupid here dude. Sorry.
The side view angle shows the ball between his arms. You add up the two angles and you can clearly conclude that Smith did not have control of the ball before hitting the ground. When you go to the ground in the act of completing a catch, you MUST keep the ball off the ground.
I know officiating a lot better than you ever will. At this risk of going full Fleenor, I worked at least half a dozen games and two Pac-12 scrimmages with the line judge from this game when I was a football official. He made the best call he could in real time. I certainly don't blame him for that call.
The replay system is there to ensure the right outcome. It worked correctly in this case, which the Pac-12 confirmed this afternoon.
I know it's fun to use officiating as an excuse when your team loses. Coogs like LanceUppercut have been doing it for a decade and Seattle fans are still bitter about Super Bowl XL. In this case, you idiots are just plain wrong.
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.
HELLO. Do you see that the the official must be convinced BEYOND ALL DOUBT by INDISPUTABLE VIDEO EVIDENCE? Did that really occur here? Can you honestly say convinced beyond all doubt. SO convinced as to make a call to potentially end the game. A "Walk-off" call.
Know the fucking rules. If the former head of Pac-12 officiating is not convinced, that a pretty damn good sign that these clauses weren't met unless the ref was a complete ass clown which we know to be the case, quite honestly.
Not enough evidence to overrule. Since you're a former referee maybe you can give us some perspective. Do refs get off trying to decide the fate of the game or just jackass pac-12 refs?
The Huskies decided this game by dropping passes, having shit special teams, and committing dumb, obvious penalties.
The unnecessary roughness call on the punt return was garbage. Everything else was there.
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.
HELLO. Do you see that the the official must be convinced BEYOND ALL DOUBT by INDISPUTABLE VIDEO EVIDENCE? Did that really occur here? Can you honestly say convinced beyond all doubt. SO convinced as to make a call to potentially end the game. A "Walk-off" call.
Know the fucking rules. If the former head of Pac-12 officiating is not convinced, that a pretty damn good sign that these clauses weren't met unless the ref was a complete ass clown which we know to be the case, quite honestly.
After looking at the video frame by frame, I'm convinced beyond all doubt by indisputable video evidence that the pass hit the ground.
So was the replay official and so was the Pac-12.
The "walk-off" situation is irrelevant in football. A current conference supervisor and NFL referee told me that it is the goal to call things the same in the first minute of the preseason as the last minute of the Super Bowl.
The catch call the rule on reviews is it has to be conclusive.
Had they called it incomplete you guys would be correct. However, the call on the field was a completion. It wasn't conclusive evidence to over turn it.
Now did that cost UW the game? No it didn't. Would UW had won had they made that coach? Who really knows? It's not like the Huskies have Folk as their kicker so you still had a good 25 yards to go if not more to feel comfortable with the kick.
It is okay to say the call was wrong to overturn it AND point out that UW fucked themselves way before that call so it shouldn't have came down to that.
For the 781st time, there is conclusive evidence of the football on the ground. That's conclusive evidence to overturn in this case.
For the 781st time, you fail to acknowledge the standard of review. The ruling was a catch, so unless you can indisputably prove 1. where his right hand was, and 2. that he did not have control of the ball as the ball touched the ground -- you have no ground to stand on. None. I know your schtick on here is to be the raging sexually frustrated negative nancy, but you come across stupid here dude. Sorry.
The side view angle shows the ball between his arms. You add up the two angles and you can clearly conclude that Smith did not have control of the ball before hitting the ground. When you go to the ground in the act of completing a catch, you MUST keep the ball off the ground.
I know officiating a lot better than you ever will. At this risk of going full Fleenor, I worked at least half a dozen games and two Pac-12 scrimmages with the line judge from this game when I was a football official. He made the best call he could in real time. I certainly don't blame him for that call.
The replay system is there to ensure the right outcome. It worked correctly in this case, which the Pac-12 confirmed this afternoon.
I know it's fun to use officiating as an excuse when your team loses. Coogs like LanceUppercut have been doing it for a decade and Seattle fans are still bitter about Super Bowl XL. In this case, you idiots are just plain wrong.
Standard
of
review
I don't know how I can make this any more clear.
It met the standard of review. The ball indisputably hit the ground. No one here has offered evidence to the contrary because no such evidence exists.
Comments
Which former head of Pac-12 refs was it? Cutaia? He was the fucktard referee in charge on the field for the Oklahoma-Oregon fiasco. That guy is the former head of officiating for a reason.
I know officiating a lot better than you ever will. At this risk of going full Fleenor, I worked at least half a dozen games and two Pac-12 scrimmages with the line judge from this game when I was a football official. He made the best call he could in real time. I certainly don't blame him for that call.
The replay system is there to ensure the right outcome. It worked correctly in this case, which the Pac-12 confirmed this afternoon.
I know it's fun to use officiating as an excuse when your team loses. Coogs like LanceUppercut have been doing it for a decade and Seattle fans are still bitter about Super Bowl XL. In this case, you idiots are just plain wrong.
You're right about ASJ by the way.
Rule 2-4-3-a:
a. To catch a ball means that a player:
1. Secures control of a live ball in flight with his hands or arms before
the ball touches the ground
The side view shows the ball is not secure and the rear view angle shows the ball touching the ground.
Fuck off.
It works great for the NBA.
Nothing is great about the NBA.
of
review
I don't know how I can make this any more clear.
http://www.ncaapublications.com/productdownloads/FR14.pdf
SECTION 7. Reversing an On-Field Ruling
Criterion for Reversal
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.
HELLO. Do you see that the the official must be convinced BEYOND ALL DOUBT by INDISPUTABLE VIDEO EVIDENCE? Did that really occur here? Can you honestly say convinced beyond all doubt. SO convinced as to make a call to potentially end the game. A "Walk-off" call.
Know the fucking rules. If the former head of Pac-12 officiating is not convinced, that a pretty damn good sign that these clauses weren't met unless the ref was a complete ass clown which we know to be the case, quite honestly.
The unnecessary roughness call on the punt return was garbage. Everything else was there.
So was the replay official and so was the Pac-12.
The "walk-off" situation is irrelevant in football. A current conference supervisor and NFL referee told me that it is the goal to call things the same in the first minute of the preseason as the last minute of the Super Bowl.
Stop being a crying bitch already.
Doogs.