Fjoinkay
Starter
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2011
- Messages
- 1,421
- Like
- 752
Please correct me if I am wrong.
For about 140 years college football was played without instant replay (this is generalization here because I do not want to research the precise date when college football instituted instant replay for use in-games). Without instant replay the officials made every single decision or call in real time based on the live action that they observed in real speed.
Over time going back many years now television broadcasting companies developed instant replay technology which they began to use during broadcasts of games and also during sports shows and news broadcasts about games. The nice thing about instant replay was that it was an accurate representation of what actually happened during the live action on the field or court of play, AND crucially, the instant replay could be slowed down to get a better look at the live action. On top of that the slowed down version of what actually happened could be viewed from as many different angles or perspectives as there are cameras being used to record the live action. So, you could have a slowed down version of the reality on the field from as many angles as you decide you want by simply installing additional cameras.
The development and use of instant replay during live broadcasts, sports shows and the news eventually made it abundantly clear that some calls in most sports are just ridiculously difficult to make in real time at live speed. In real time the live action is sometimes too quick and officials using just the naked eye and two human legs scrambling to get into position are simply in some situations truly up against it, and from time to time they will and do make mistakes through no fault of their own. Sometimes officials see it wrong because the action is too fast. Sometimes they just can't get into proper position because the live action changes course so quickly that they cannot adjust in a split second to be in the best position to observe the live play. Sometimes their view is obstructed. The point is that eventually some sports recognized that they could improve the quality of the game by introducing instant replay into officiating live sports events. Those sports decided to utilize instant replay to correct missed calls on the field that upon review are obvious mistakes because some live action is so fast in real time that a second look, A SLOWED DOWN look, will make up for the natural human shortcomings that arise due to the speed of the live action and play.
Instant replay is currently used during college football games to slow down the live action and to review the ruling on the field UNDER THE FUNDAMENTAL ASSUMPTION THAT THE RULING ON THE FIELD IS CORRECT. In order to reverse an on-filed ruling THE REPLAY OFFICIAL MUST BE CONVINCED BEYOND ALL DOUBT BY INDISPUTABLE EVIDENCE through one or more video replays provided to the monitor that the on-field call was incorrect. The main point here is that the ruling of the field is correct unless or until the replay official determines through video evidence that the on-field ruling is actually INCORRECT BEYOND ANY DOUBT and indisputably.
The beyond ALL doubt standard is the ultimate standard. Jurys during a criminal trial actually use a slightly lesser standard. Jurors are instructed to use the beyond A REASONABLE doubt standard, not beyond ALL doubt. I can understand why the reasonable doubt standard is not used in sports, but at the same time if you use the beyond ALL doubt standard in sports then you give the fundamental assumption that the on-field ruling is correct tremendous force. To overturn the on-field call the replay official has to believe that NO ONE COULD DOUBT the on-field call whether reasonably or not. The video evidence must be indisputable. Obvious. In short, the beyond all doubt standard makes it very, very difficult to reverse.
As far as I can tell there is nothing in the rules that says the replay official should consider how the play appeared in full speed and compare it to how it shows up on video in slowed down speed. The replay officials must rely on the VIDEO EVIDENCE that is INDISPUTABLE. And the main reason that they are using video evidence is because it is an accurate representation of the live action that can be slowed down. Slowing it down and viewing the replay several times often from different angels is the crucial element that allows the replay officials to sometimes find that the on-field call was BEYOND ALL DOUBT WRONG. Or in other words, the on-field official made a really dumb and obvious mistake with his or her on-field ruling.
Last night I had no problem with the targeting call during the second quarter. It was unfortunate for the Ohio State player especially because I saw no intent by him to commit targeting and during live action it didn't feel like targeting. However, under the rule I think it did amount to targeting even though the Clemson QB appeared to lean into or even contribute himself to the impact that was under rule a targeting impact. It certainly didn't seem like targeting in real time or while watching the play at live speed, but when you slow it down it fit targeting under the rule.
The call later in the game during the 3rd quarter is a different animal. During this play the on-field official ruled that the Clemson player received the pass and after the reception he fumbled the ball and then then Ohio State player successfully recovered the fumble and returned it for a TD. After watching the replays on ESPN and then the reversal of the call on the field all I can say is that I am glad that I am not a life-long fan of the Buckeyes or an Ohio State Alumnus, especially one who spent money to go see the game last night in Glendale, AZ.
Looking at the replay views that ESPN aired I could see that the on-field official viewed the play unobstructed. So, not only am I supposed to fundamentally assume that the on-field official made the correct call, I can see with my own eyes that he had a great look, and he didn't flinch either. He threw the bean bag down at the spot of the fumble, he kept his eyes on the live action that followed, and most importantly he never blew his whistle to stop the play.
Watching the replay views that ESPN aired that were slowed down and focusing on the football action itself, I could clearly see that the Clemson receiver did establish clear control of the ball that he received. He established clear control right away. While maintaining clear control of the ball the Clemson receiver took at least 3 steps. As the Clemson receiver was in the process of taking his 4th step he swung his arms upfield in a forward motion to advance the ball. To my eye the Clemson receiver was moving the ball upfield with clear possession while taking his 4th step with clear possession. That is when the Ohio State defender made a great play to strip the Clemson receiver of the ball causing the fumble that was ruled a fumble on the filed.
I do not see how any replay official could look at the video evidence last night, especially slowed down video evidence, and reverse the call on the field because the on-field call by rule is fundamentally assumed to be correct. For the replay official to reverse the on-field call last night he needed video evidence BEYOND ALL DOUBT that NO ONE COULD DOUBT or dispute showing indisputably that the on-field call was a mistake. That did not happen. The means that under the rules after replay the replay official should have been confirmed the ruling on the field. In the worst case scenario after replay, the replay official should have said that the ruling on the field stands. A reversal on the on-field ruling must meet an incredibly high standard of evidence, higher than the standard of evidence in a criminal trial, and last night that did not happen (not even close) and the reversal was in no way appropriate.
What I saw among viewers last night was confusion. I heard people suggesting that in real speed it didn't feel like the Clemson receiver actually received the ball, or that viewing the play at full speed live during the game that it didn't seem like a catch. That is completely irrelevant. What matters by rule is simply what the on-field official ruled. By rule it is very difficult to reverse the on-field ruling. In the review process what matters is the video evidence which is almost always slowed down to get a better look. Any talk about comparing full-speed to slowed down video evidence is a distraction and really shouldn't take place especially during a live broadcast where emotions are running high with millions of viewers. It is simply: What was the ruling on the filed? That ruling is assumed correct. And then, Is there VIDEO EVIDENCE that is BEYOND ALL DOUBT, indisputable, totally obvious, that a mistake on-filed was made- for an on-field call to be beyond all doubt a mistake it has be a really bad call that everyone can see and agree is obviously mistake. And that standard if very high. Actually, there are very few things in life that are beyond all doubt. And last night the official who made the on-field call was innocent. In fact, he was fundamentally assumed innocent (or correct) by rule. Moreover, the video evidence showed that made a truly impressive call when you consider how bang-bang that play was.
All of that said, Ohio State made more costly mistakes last night than Clemson when you consider the targeting, the roughing the punter, and leaving points on the field. Clemson also stopped Ohio State's offense in the red zone 3 times. Both teams are great teams, and Clemson deserves credit for making fewer mistakes.
I felt going in to the game that Ohio State might jump out on Clemson because when you look at Clemson's schedule they just had not faced any team with even Top-40 defensive performance. There was no way for Clemson to simulate in practice what it would be like, so it would take them some time during the game to adjust. Ohio State did jump out, but they also left points on the field.
I believe Dabo knew it would take some time for them to adjust. He was prepared for that. Before the game he mentioned that it would take some time and also that he told his team to just breathe through it. I thought that was telling. And they did eventually find their way. They did breathe and stay present and aware.
Unfortunately for Ohio State, the turning point was the targeting call. That hit on Lawrence and his obvious pain or discomfort could have been Ohio State's chance to put the game further out of reach. Without the targeting OSU gets the ball back and they have momentum and a real chance to put Clemson in a big time hole. Instead, Ohio State not only doesn't get possession of the ball, but they lose a leader on defense, and Lawerence returns to the game after missing one mandatory play and starts playing like a cornered wild animal. He and his team adjusted right then and there. For Ohio State that was a really unfortunate turn of events. For Clemson it was a growth moment and they took off.
All in all is was an amazing game. Still, the reversal of the Clemson fumble was a mistake that should not have happened. Let's hope we do not see reversals like that in such a big game ever again, but truth is it should never happen in any game because the rule for reversal is simple, clear, and thought-out. The rule protects the on-field call, and the standard for reversing the on-field official's call is extremely high. One other way to put it is that the standard for reversal is that the on-field official flat out blew the on-field call and everyone can agree that he or she blew it- no one can doubt it, it is indisputable, it is obvious that the on-field official screwed up. The other situation is where the official is out of position for no reason of his or her own and could not see the play well enough. In the first situation the reversal is a complete embarrassment for an official, or should be, while in the second situation it wasn't so much the officials fault. But for clarity's sake, last night neither of those situations happened. The official was in great position, he saw the play, and he made a damn good call on a bang-bang play.
Oklahoma is now 0-4 in the college football playoff. The Sooners have scored an average of 32 points in each of the 4 games, while on defense they have allowed an average of 50 points per game.
Was Oklahoma the 4th best team? I really hope the powers that be expand the playoff to 8 teams.
Go Cuse!!
For about 140 years college football was played without instant replay (this is generalization here because I do not want to research the precise date when college football instituted instant replay for use in-games). Without instant replay the officials made every single decision or call in real time based on the live action that they observed in real speed.
Over time going back many years now television broadcasting companies developed instant replay technology which they began to use during broadcasts of games and also during sports shows and news broadcasts about games. The nice thing about instant replay was that it was an accurate representation of what actually happened during the live action on the field or court of play, AND crucially, the instant replay could be slowed down to get a better look at the live action. On top of that the slowed down version of what actually happened could be viewed from as many different angles or perspectives as there are cameras being used to record the live action. So, you could have a slowed down version of the reality on the field from as many angles as you decide you want by simply installing additional cameras.
The development and use of instant replay during live broadcasts, sports shows and the news eventually made it abundantly clear that some calls in most sports are just ridiculously difficult to make in real time at live speed. In real time the live action is sometimes too quick and officials using just the naked eye and two human legs scrambling to get into position are simply in some situations truly up against it, and from time to time they will and do make mistakes through no fault of their own. Sometimes officials see it wrong because the action is too fast. Sometimes they just can't get into proper position because the live action changes course so quickly that they cannot adjust in a split second to be in the best position to observe the live play. Sometimes their view is obstructed. The point is that eventually some sports recognized that they could improve the quality of the game by introducing instant replay into officiating live sports events. Those sports decided to utilize instant replay to correct missed calls on the field that upon review are obvious mistakes because some live action is so fast in real time that a second look, A SLOWED DOWN look, will make up for the natural human shortcomings that arise due to the speed of the live action and play.
Instant replay is currently used during college football games to slow down the live action and to review the ruling on the field UNDER THE FUNDAMENTAL ASSUMPTION THAT THE RULING ON THE FIELD IS CORRECT. In order to reverse an on-filed ruling THE REPLAY OFFICIAL MUST BE CONVINCED BEYOND ALL DOUBT BY INDISPUTABLE EVIDENCE through one or more video replays provided to the monitor that the on-field call was incorrect. The main point here is that the ruling of the field is correct unless or until the replay official determines through video evidence that the on-field ruling is actually INCORRECT BEYOND ANY DOUBT and indisputably.
The beyond ALL doubt standard is the ultimate standard. Jurys during a criminal trial actually use a slightly lesser standard. Jurors are instructed to use the beyond A REASONABLE doubt standard, not beyond ALL doubt. I can understand why the reasonable doubt standard is not used in sports, but at the same time if you use the beyond ALL doubt standard in sports then you give the fundamental assumption that the on-field ruling is correct tremendous force. To overturn the on-field call the replay official has to believe that NO ONE COULD DOUBT the on-field call whether reasonably or not. The video evidence must be indisputable. Obvious. In short, the beyond all doubt standard makes it very, very difficult to reverse.
As far as I can tell there is nothing in the rules that says the replay official should consider how the play appeared in full speed and compare it to how it shows up on video in slowed down speed. The replay officials must rely on the VIDEO EVIDENCE that is INDISPUTABLE. And the main reason that they are using video evidence is because it is an accurate representation of the live action that can be slowed down. Slowing it down and viewing the replay several times often from different angels is the crucial element that allows the replay officials to sometimes find that the on-field call was BEYOND ALL DOUBT WRONG. Or in other words, the on-field official made a really dumb and obvious mistake with his or her on-field ruling.
Last night I had no problem with the targeting call during the second quarter. It was unfortunate for the Ohio State player especially because I saw no intent by him to commit targeting and during live action it didn't feel like targeting. However, under the rule I think it did amount to targeting even though the Clemson QB appeared to lean into or even contribute himself to the impact that was under rule a targeting impact. It certainly didn't seem like targeting in real time or while watching the play at live speed, but when you slow it down it fit targeting under the rule.
The call later in the game during the 3rd quarter is a different animal. During this play the on-field official ruled that the Clemson player received the pass and after the reception he fumbled the ball and then then Ohio State player successfully recovered the fumble and returned it for a TD. After watching the replays on ESPN and then the reversal of the call on the field all I can say is that I am glad that I am not a life-long fan of the Buckeyes or an Ohio State Alumnus, especially one who spent money to go see the game last night in Glendale, AZ.
Looking at the replay views that ESPN aired I could see that the on-field official viewed the play unobstructed. So, not only am I supposed to fundamentally assume that the on-field official made the correct call, I can see with my own eyes that he had a great look, and he didn't flinch either. He threw the bean bag down at the spot of the fumble, he kept his eyes on the live action that followed, and most importantly he never blew his whistle to stop the play.
Watching the replay views that ESPN aired that were slowed down and focusing on the football action itself, I could clearly see that the Clemson receiver did establish clear control of the ball that he received. He established clear control right away. While maintaining clear control of the ball the Clemson receiver took at least 3 steps. As the Clemson receiver was in the process of taking his 4th step he swung his arms upfield in a forward motion to advance the ball. To my eye the Clemson receiver was moving the ball upfield with clear possession while taking his 4th step with clear possession. That is when the Ohio State defender made a great play to strip the Clemson receiver of the ball causing the fumble that was ruled a fumble on the filed.
I do not see how any replay official could look at the video evidence last night, especially slowed down video evidence, and reverse the call on the field because the on-field call by rule is fundamentally assumed to be correct. For the replay official to reverse the on-field call last night he needed video evidence BEYOND ALL DOUBT that NO ONE COULD DOUBT or dispute showing indisputably that the on-field call was a mistake. That did not happen. The means that under the rules after replay the replay official should have been confirmed the ruling on the field. In the worst case scenario after replay, the replay official should have said that the ruling on the field stands. A reversal on the on-field ruling must meet an incredibly high standard of evidence, higher than the standard of evidence in a criminal trial, and last night that did not happen (not even close) and the reversal was in no way appropriate.
What I saw among viewers last night was confusion. I heard people suggesting that in real speed it didn't feel like the Clemson receiver actually received the ball, or that viewing the play at full speed live during the game that it didn't seem like a catch. That is completely irrelevant. What matters by rule is simply what the on-field official ruled. By rule it is very difficult to reverse the on-field ruling. In the review process what matters is the video evidence which is almost always slowed down to get a better look. Any talk about comparing full-speed to slowed down video evidence is a distraction and really shouldn't take place especially during a live broadcast where emotions are running high with millions of viewers. It is simply: What was the ruling on the filed? That ruling is assumed correct. And then, Is there VIDEO EVIDENCE that is BEYOND ALL DOUBT, indisputable, totally obvious, that a mistake on-filed was made- for an on-field call to be beyond all doubt a mistake it has be a really bad call that everyone can see and agree is obviously mistake. And that standard if very high. Actually, there are very few things in life that are beyond all doubt. And last night the official who made the on-field call was innocent. In fact, he was fundamentally assumed innocent (or correct) by rule. Moreover, the video evidence showed that made a truly impressive call when you consider how bang-bang that play was.
All of that said, Ohio State made more costly mistakes last night than Clemson when you consider the targeting, the roughing the punter, and leaving points on the field. Clemson also stopped Ohio State's offense in the red zone 3 times. Both teams are great teams, and Clemson deserves credit for making fewer mistakes.
I felt going in to the game that Ohio State might jump out on Clemson because when you look at Clemson's schedule they just had not faced any team with even Top-40 defensive performance. There was no way for Clemson to simulate in practice what it would be like, so it would take them some time during the game to adjust. Ohio State did jump out, but they also left points on the field.
I believe Dabo knew it would take some time for them to adjust. He was prepared for that. Before the game he mentioned that it would take some time and also that he told his team to just breathe through it. I thought that was telling. And they did eventually find their way. They did breathe and stay present and aware.
Unfortunately for Ohio State, the turning point was the targeting call. That hit on Lawrence and his obvious pain or discomfort could have been Ohio State's chance to put the game further out of reach. Without the targeting OSU gets the ball back and they have momentum and a real chance to put Clemson in a big time hole. Instead, Ohio State not only doesn't get possession of the ball, but they lose a leader on defense, and Lawerence returns to the game after missing one mandatory play and starts playing like a cornered wild animal. He and his team adjusted right then and there. For Ohio State that was a really unfortunate turn of events. For Clemson it was a growth moment and they took off.
All in all is was an amazing game. Still, the reversal of the Clemson fumble was a mistake that should not have happened. Let's hope we do not see reversals like that in such a big game ever again, but truth is it should never happen in any game because the rule for reversal is simple, clear, and thought-out. The rule protects the on-field call, and the standard for reversing the on-field official's call is extremely high. One other way to put it is that the standard for reversal is that the on-field official flat out blew the on-field call and everyone can agree that he or she blew it- no one can doubt it, it is indisputable, it is obvious that the on-field official screwed up. The other situation is where the official is out of position for no reason of his or her own and could not see the play well enough. In the first situation the reversal is a complete embarrassment for an official, or should be, while in the second situation it wasn't so much the officials fault. But for clarity's sake, last night neither of those situations happened. The official was in great position, he saw the play, and he made a damn good call on a bang-bang play.
Oklahoma is now 0-4 in the college football playoff. The Sooners have scored an average of 32 points in each of the 4 games, while on defense they have allowed an average of 50 points per game.
Was Oklahoma the 4th best team? I really hope the powers that be expand the playoff to 8 teams.
Go Cuse!!
Last edited:
