ISU is not a good enough football team to overcome bad calls. The coaching staff and players laid everything on the line
The fix is in...
- Thread starter ISUFan22
- Start date
ISU is not a good enough football team to overcome bad calls. The coaching staff and players laid everything on the line
I still don't understand how the coaches all thought it was 1st down late in the game instead of 3rd and inches?
Rhoads admitted in the post game press conference that they all thought it was 1st down, not 3rd and inches.
I understand there was one official that signaled 1st down initially, but you have to pay more attention than that. They didn't move the sticks or anything. Granted, they should have at a MINIMUM brought the sticks out to measure it, and then hopefully that would have given the booth time to look at the review also. Can't Rhoads ask for a measurement or a review?
But then Rhoads, in the press conference, acted like it wasn't a big deal anyway because we still had 4th down to get the few inches we needed. Wut? I'm not sure he understands football sometimes with the things he says? John and Eric both knew we were in trouble because you now have only ONE play to get your inches instead of two, and OSU is going to put about 9 guys up there to stop this one play. On 4th, everyone in the stadium knows what is coming. Either QB sneak or a run up the middle. On 3rd and inches you have more options.
Rhoads admitted in the post game press conference that they all thought it was 1st down, not 3rd and inches.
I understand there was one official that signaled 1st down initially, but you have to pay more attention than that. They didn't move the sticks or anything. Granted, they should have at a MINIMUM brought the sticks out to measure it, and then hopefully that would have given the booth time to look at the review also. Can't Rhoads ask for a measurement or a review?
But then Rhoads, in the press conference, acted like it wasn't a big deal anyway because we still had 4th down to get the few inches we needed. Wut? I'm not sure he understands football sometimes with the things he says? John and Eric both knew we were in trouble because you now have only ONE play to get your inches instead of two, and OSU is going to put about 9 guys up there to stop this one play. On 4th, everyone in the stadium knows what is coming. Either QB sneak or a run up the middle. On 3rd and inches you have more options.
I don't care how many times you post this- you're wrong. Ryen's arm was underneath that ball the entire time. It was a catch.
My gosh. The zoomed in replay CLEARLY showed that both his elbow AND the ball hit the ground. The ball then moved in his hands (just a little, but enough to show he didn't maintain complete control). The overturn was correct.
Someone needs to link a video of this. I was at the game and the only replays they showed on the big screen looked like it was clearly a catch. I would like to see this video of the ball moving and touching the ground.
There isn't. What they are talking about is a still that the tv people came up with over a half hour after the play that doesn't even show the ball on the ground. There is no evidence of the ball moving because of the contact with the ground. I can now see how you maybe can't confirm it but I still think that it was a catch so it needs to at minimum stand as called. They are the people who like to justify getting screwed because they can't admit that maybe the officials are completely incompetent or cheating.
It is laughable they are calling it indisputable evidence to overturn it. Sounds like it is very questionable. Therefore it should not have been overturned and the ruling on the field should have stood.
Lol, unreal. I have never been a ref apologist. In fact, I complain about calls on a pretty regular basis (ask my wife). There were plenty of ball spots that went against us yesterday. A few calls that I felt we got screwed on, but this instance was not one of them. Sorry that you can't take off your blinders for this play. The replay that you can (barely) see it on starts at 27:03. Later in the game they go back to it and zoom in and it is pretty darn clear. You can go find that yourself if you are so adamant that the call was wrong.
[video=youtube;6BEsPScymi4]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BEsPScymi4[/video]
During that entire replay, and afterwards, the announcers felt that there was definitely not indisputable evidence to overturn that.
His hand remains underneath the ball the whole way, and it's impossible to tell if that ball is moving or not. If I'm holding a football in my hand securely and I rotate my wrist a fraction of an inch, the ball is going to "appear" to be moving, but I still have the ball securely in my grasp.
You cannot deduce from that replay that he indisputably did not catch it. No way. Just as if it was ruled a trap to begin with, I don't think you could overturn that either.
And sure, you might be able to prove after a half hour of having NASA scientists blow up the still image and study every pixel that the ball might have moved, but with what this replay official had to work with, there's no way you can overturn what was called on the field.
This crap ruins the games. It looks like a catch, we replay it, it still looks like a catch, but super slow mo zoomification shows that actually there's a small chance it wasn't a catch -> Indisputable evidence. This is a logical fallacy.
There is a way....because they did, I did, Andy did....it's not that hard.
And please tell us something else the announcers told us, so we can quote that as fact too.
The ball hit the ground. The ball twisted in his arm and he moved his other arm back up to secure it again. It's incomplete. I just worry about people that can't see this. It makes me think you've not got a brain.
It took ESPN an hour to find a replay view that finally showed that the ball might have hit the ground. There's no way that the replay official had that view when they made the call which tells you that they were speculating that the ball hit the ground, and that is NOT good it is supposed to be done! Get rid of replay if this is how is going to operate!
I saw the replay right away and thought it would be incomplete. You could see it from the first replays. Just because the announcers couldn't see it doesn't mean it didn't happen.
That's what I was saying. They come out a half hour later with some kind of blown up image or something, but the replay official did not have this image when he overturned the call.
Even if the replay official thinks that the ball "probably" did move, he can't overturn that. That is not indisputable.
As did I. The 3rd replay shown, which starts at 27:03 shows the ball hit the ground and it slides up his arm until he secures it with the other. I honestly can't believe how many are refusing to see this.
It's easier to blame the officials than it is to accept something bad. I hate the officials, btw. So I'm not on their side.
Look I'll give you that maybe it ended up the correct call. I disagree but for arguments sake I will give it to you. That still doesn't come anywhere close to indisputable evidence.
The NCAA rulebook is even more clear about what what "indisputable video evidence" means -- and how hard it should be to overrule a call on the field:
Purpose
ARTICLE 1. Instant replay is a process whereby video review is used to confirm, reverse or let stand certain on-field decisions (Rule 12-3) made by game officials.
Philosophy
ARTICLE 2. The instant replay process operates under the fundamental assumption that the ruling on the field is correct. The replay official may reverse a ruling if and only if the video evidence convinces him beyond all doubt that the ruling was incorrect. Without such indisputable video evidence,the replay official must allow the ruling to stand.
http://www.ncaapublications.com/productdownloads/FR15.pdf
It's clear this is supposed to be a really tough standard to meet, and that almost all calls from the field should stand. If executed correctly, instant reply is actually a really great thing that corrects blatant injustice.
The reality is, this is not the standard being applied, and it's been evident historically when watching ISU games. Specifically, if Iowa State is ever playing a Big 12 team, it appears the refs are using the following checklist:
And it's even worse if we're playing a team listed in (1) and that team is ranked. The refs aren't even using a "preponderance of the evidence" standard at step 2 -- if there's any possibility at all that the call on the field was wrong, they're going to overturn it against Iowa State.
This is more than just the one disputed TD catch in one OSU game based on two or three hyper-slowed hyper-zoomed video frames. This is a consistent pattern of questionable calls on the field almost always going against Iowa State, and instant reply almost never favoring Iowa State. That's really the discussion we should be having.
The upshot is that if you memorize this checklist, it makes it a lot easier to watch Iowa State football without developing a heart condition
SECTION 1. Purpose and Philosophy
Purpose
ARTICLE 1. Instant replay is a process whereby video review is used to confirm, reverse or let stand certain on-field decisions (Rule 12-3) made by game officials.
Philosophy
ARTICLE 2. The instant replay process operates under the fundamental assumption that the ruling on the field is correct. The replay official may reverse a ruling if and only if the video evidence convinces him beyond all doubt that the ruling was incorrect. Without such indisputable video evidence,the replay official must allow the ruling to stand.
http://www.ncaapublications.com/productdownloads/FR15.pdf
It's clear this is supposed to be a really tough standard to meet, and that almost all calls from the field should stand. If executed correctly, instant reply is actually a really great thing that corrects blatant injustice.
The reality is, this is not the standard being applied, and it's been evident historically when watching ISU games. Specifically, if Iowa State is ever playing a Big 12 team, it appears the refs are using the following checklist:
- Is Iowa State playing Texa$, OU, OSU, Balor, TCU, or (maybe) K-State?
- Did the ruling on the field come at a critical juncture and favor Iowa State?
- If (1) and (2), use a "preponderance of the evidence" standard in reviewing instant replay. If it's more likely than not that the call was incorrect, rule against Iowa State
- Did the ruling on the field come at a critical juncture and go against Iowa State?
- If (1) and (3), use the "indisputable evidence" standard. If it's at all possible to justify maintaining the ruling on the field, do so.
And it's even worse if we're playing a team listed in (1) and that team is ranked. The refs aren't even using a "preponderance of the evidence" standard at step 2 -- if there's any possibility at all that the call on the field was wrong, they're going to overturn it against Iowa State.
This is more than just the one disputed TD catch in one OSU game based on two or three hyper-slowed hyper-zoomed video frames. This is a consistent pattern of questionable calls on the field almost always going against Iowa State, and instant reply almost never favoring Iowa State. That's really the discussion we should be having.
The upshot is that if you memorize this checklist, it makes it a lot easier to watch Iowa State football without developing a heart condition
The NCAA rulebook is even more clear about what what "indisputable video evidence" means -- and how hard it should be to overrule a call on the field:
SECTION 1. Purpose and Philosophy
Purpose
ARTICLE 1. Instant replay is a process whereby video review is used to confirm, reverse or let stand certain on-field decisions (Rule 12-3) made by game officials.
Philosophy
ARTICLE 2. The instant replay process operates under the fundamental assumption that the ruling on the field is correct. The replay official may reverse a ruling if and only if the video evidence convinces him beyond all doubt that the ruling was incorrect. Without such indisputable video evidence,the replay official must allow the ruling to stand.
http://www.ncaapublications.com/productdownloads/FR15.pdf
It's clear this is supposed to be a really tough standard to meet, and that almost all calls from the field should stand. If executed correctly, instant reply is actually a really great thing that corrects blatant injustice.
The reality is, this is not the standard being applied, and it's been evident historically when watching ISU games. Specifically, if Iowa State is ever playing a Big 12 team, it appears the refs are using the following checklist:
- Is Iowa State playing Texa$, OU, OSU, Balor, TCU, or (maybe) K-State?
- Did the ruling on the field come at a critical juncture and favor Iowa State?
- If (1) and (2), use a "preponderance of the evidence" standard in reviewing instant replay. If it's more likely than not that the call was incorrect, rule against Iowa State
- Did the ruling on the field come at a critical juncture and go against Iowa State?
- If (1) and (3), use the "indisputable evidence" standard. If it's at all possible to justify maintaining the ruling on the field, do so.
And it's even worse if we're playing a team listed in (1) and that team is ranked. The refs aren't even using a "preponderance of the evidence" standard at step 2 -- if there's any possibility at all that the call on the field was wrong, they're going to overturn it against Iowa State.
This is more than just the one disputed TD catch in one OSU game based on two or three hyper-slowed hyper-zoomed video frames. This is a consistent pattern of questionable calls on the field almost always going against Iowa State, and instant reply almost never favoring Iowa State. That's really the discussion we should be having.
The upshot is that if you memorize this checklist, it makes it a lot easier to watch Iowa State football without developing a heart condition
