Considering some of the spots the refs made, I can believe that the fix was in.
Indisputable video evidence . . . Game replay
- Thread starter jburke
- Start date
Considering some of the spots the refs made, I can believe that the fix was in.
They have never needed indisputable evidence when ruling against ISU. They have cost ISU at least 4 crucial games since DMAC era.
my only problem with all this is the refs looked at the video evidence for 10 minutes to make the call, meanwhile they did not even look at OSU's first TD where the receiver appeared to bobble the ball as he fell to the ground. They were just trying too hard to find something to stop ISU.
Still don't see how that over turns the call on the field....
So if we can all admit that it touched the ground, that is step 1.
Step 2, is watching the entire replay, seeing that after it hit the ground, it slid up his right arm (not in complete possession) until he secured it with his left hand.
Incomplete pass, it was correct to overturn. It sucks, but that's life.
Sorry but if we're bringing players into this I think we start by asking why Lanning didn't just hit Ryen in stride instead of throwing it at his shins.
The only time it even remotely looked like the ball was on the ground was when they showed a still frame which really cannot show flow of motion and feels very tickytacky.
Lol did you even watch the vine? In real time you can clearly see the over half the ball hit the ground and move while his hand isn't underneath it.
Again...how many times does it need to be said..the ball can hit the ground. Did he have possession as it was hitting the ground... A WR can catch the ball and with ball in one hand slam ball onto ground while standing up say and its still a catch. Replay booth said he trapped ball...that's not how I saw it.
Have you watched much football? "Indisputable evidence" is often times not 100.00%. When the point of the ball hits the ground and the ball rotates in the receivers hand, its going to be called an incomplete pass 99% of the time...no matter the call on the field.
To answer the bolded, no they would not have reversed it. Because it was not a touchdown.
Because just like the 2nd down spot later in the game, we need someone to blame (the refs) besides actually closing out a football game.
This is true but not what happened with Ryen. The point of the ball hit the ground and the ball shifted in his hands. That's not maintaining control of the catch and will be reversed 99% of the time.
I am to the position that we either do away with replay or if we use it that if during the review they see another penalty they can call it. If you watch the game replay in the third quarter at the 3:46 point when Warren is taken to the ground (and tweaks his back) one of the Oklahoma State players has his hand grasping warrens face mask. We did not a first down and had to punt but the face mask call would have given us a first down. This is the reason I feel either no more replays or allow all infractions to be called.
So you are saying that indisputable evidence is not necessary to overturn a call on the field. It can just be arbitrary evidence and the replay booth can do whatever they want.
But that is not what the RULE says. The rule says INDISPUTABLE EVIDENCE. And it must not have any doubt. The Rule is pretty clear.
And the rule clearly states that the instant replay process must operate under the assumption that the ruling on the field is correct.
Last edited:
95 per cent of the time refs mark the ball too far up the field. In our 5 per cent cases, they moved the ball back. Is there no justice? We want nice things.
Why are people arguing about indisputable evidence? By rule if the player doesn't have control of the ball and it hits the grounds it's not a complet pass. Video clearly showed this. That is indisputable evidence.
The "indisputable evidence" I'm talking about is the people in this thread saying "there is no way to know for sure if the ground caused the ball to move or if it moved when he rolled over".
The ball hit the ground, the ball moved in the receivers hands...that is indisputable evidence in football. Even though they didn't get a physics professor to determine if the ground caused the ball to move.
KidSilverhair
Well-Known Member
But that isn't what you said. "The previous comment by cycloneworld saying he was only talking about this exact play is under further review."
This may be the impression you get from watching replay as it is used in the Big XII. But it's absolutely wrong. As Stormin points out, the replay official must first assume the call on the field is correct; then they must be assured "beyond all doubt" that they see the evidence to overturn it. "INDISPUTABLE EVIDENCE," by definition, must be 100%. Anything less than 100% would be, then ... disputable.
Look, I'm pretty much over the Ryen call myself. The still shot appears to show the catch not completed before the ball touches the ground. Okay ... but there does still appear to be some dispute in this issue, does there not? Witness this thread going on five days after the fact. Admittedly, here, mostly by biased Iowa State fans, I grant you.
But the Big XII does a terrible job, week in and week out, with their replay official crews. They consistently ignore the requirements of assuming the call on the field is correct, and that they must have absolute, clear, convincing evidence to overturn that call. Big XII replay officials take inordinate amounts of time searching, searching, SEARCHING for that one shadow, that one teeny bit of disputable evidence to try to overturn the call. They're doing it exactly backwards.
THAT'S what I keep complaining about. Sure, the Ryen call looked totally bogus while watching on TV, because ESPN didn't give us the one angle that called the catch into question until after the officials had made the call. This call was probably correct - but the Big XII has done this to themselves, creating enough distrust in the fan base that it smells fishy.
