Former head of pac-12 refs comments on Kevin Smith's catch.
Comments
-
Only after you post links to that video in your signature. Don't make me do an image search to find it, that's so exhausting.monroecougdad said:Can we get back to discussing sexes and hos?
-
It's funny how people suddenly shut the fuck up once you demonstrate your credentials around here.
-
Everybody hates officials
-
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?
-
StandardTierbsHsotBoobs said:
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.Gladstone said:
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.TierbsHsotBoobs said:
For the 781st time, there is conclusive evidence of the football on the ground. That's conclusive evidence to overturn in this case.He_Needs_More_Time said: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.
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.
of
review
I don't know how I can make this any more clear. -
Page 111 of this 2013/2014 NCAA Football Rules and Interpretations:
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 Huskies decided this game by dropping passes, having shit special teams, and committing dumb, obvious penalties.DoogieMcDoogerson said: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 unnecessary roughness call on the punt return was garbage. Everything else was there. -
After looking at the video frame by frame, I'm convinced beyond all doubt by indisputable video evidence that the pass hit the ground.DoogieMcDoogerson said:Page 111 of this 2013/2014 NCAA Football Rules and Interpretations:
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.
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.
-
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.Gladstone said:
StandardTierbsHsotBoobs said:
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.Gladstone said:
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.TierbsHsotBoobs said:
For the 781st time, there is conclusive evidence of the football on the ground. That's conclusive evidence to overturn in this case.He_Needs_More_Time said: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.
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.
of
review
I don't know how I can make this any more clear.
Doogs.
-
Really serious fucking pressing.TierbsHsotBoobs said:
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.
Doogs. -
holy shit lolTierbsHsotBoobs said:
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.Gladstone said:
StandardTierbsHsotBoobs said:
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.Gladstone said:
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.TierbsHsotBoobs said:
For the 781st time, there is conclusive evidence of the football on the ground. That's conclusive evidence to overturn in this case.He_Needs_More_Time said: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.
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.
of
review
I don't know how I can make this any more clear.
Doogs.
you're still talking about the ball hitting the ground
is this a troll or -
Sven Periera
