VaTech still upset over Sugar Bowl, calls for 2nd replay official

Submitted by wisecrakker on January 26th, 2012 at 11:01 AM,0,6461802.story

I want to make sure we’re not taking anything away from the University of Michigan,” Weaver said. “That’s not the intent. The intent is to get the best use of replay that we can. …

“I totally realize that had the call been upheld, that does not guarantee Virginia Tech wins the game because Michigan had to have its offensive series. But at least it would have recognized a legitimate touchdown.



January 26th, 2012 at 12:19 PM ^

The ball twisted as it hit the ground. And my impression as soon as I saw it live was there's no way that was a catch in bounds with control.

The misconception is that because there's an argument over the indisputability (wow, this is actually a word!) of the play that the default action should be call-it-as-stands. Reality is that one person's definition of indisputible is different from anothers. The rulebook is fairly ho-hum and unclear about what a catch really is. What really needs to change is how a catch is interpreted. I say, personally, that they should change it to if the ball hits the ground its no removes any and all uncertainty, and players would know ahead of time that to make a good catch they have to get their hands/arms under the ball. Instead of the nebulous "did he really 100% possess the ball before it hits the ground?" which does nothing but leaves room for open arguments that can never be solved even in the face of video evidence that (to me, again) looks very conclusive.


January 26th, 2012 at 3:44 PM ^

I disagree that instant replay is designed to correct only glaring errors. Glaring errors may have been the biggest impetus for its creation, but I think instant replay is designed to make the correct call as often as possible.

There have been many plays that are very close, but with careful examination, it's possible to determine what happened conclusively. From all appearances, the VaTech touchdown was one of those plays. I don't see any abuse of the replay system that it was called correctly.


January 26th, 2012 at 4:11 PM ^

I'm certainly not the everyone you describe. It may work best to correct glaring mistakes, but it would be dumb to ignore the close calls or not even give them the proper time of analysis just because it was close.

True, some things you really cannot tell by looking at super ultra slow-mo replay. But by that same token, the human eye cannot see everything at game speed either, despite being even only a few feet away. Why not take the time to analyze every camera angle you have? So long as there are not differing interpretations of each angle (like, the Fitz TD where one angle looked in and the other he looked out), then use the evidence you have. Officials are good, but not perfect. And if a close call costs a team 6 points, I'd rather they take the time to be absolutely sure than to look at it for a few seconds and simply give up and say "inconclusive". 

The end goal isn't just to correct some mistakes. The end goal is to correct everything insofar as it is possible via cameras. Indisputable doesn't have anything to do with the length of time it takes to determine whether it is indisputable or not.


January 26th, 2012 at 11:15 AM ^

the replay system, and the complete absence of consistent and uniform application of both the procedural rules for review and the standard used to uphold/reverse calls need to be addressed.  I think that they are pretty clear that they are not crying foul and I think that instant replay is getting out of control right now.


January 26th, 2012 at 11:11 AM ^

why don't they get an entire platoon of fucking replay officials, or a congress.  this is some of the most stupid shit i've seen.  now i have to troll that article's comments

Wolverine 73

January 26th, 2012 at 11:12 AM ^

What happens if the two disagree?  But maybe we should have five to make sure there isn't an outlier who exerts undue influence on a second guy in a three man crew to tip the call to 2-1 the wrong way.  Yeah, five should be enough.


January 26th, 2012 at 12:42 PM ^

“Well, the bee-watcher-watcher watched the bee-watcher. He didn't watch well so another Hawtch-Hawtcher had to come in as a watch-watcher-watcher! And now all the Hawtchers who live in Hawtch-Hawtch are watching on watch watcher watchering watch, watch watching the watcher who's watching that bee. You're not a Hawtch-Watcher you're lucky you see!”

We will call this the Dr. Seuss solution.


January 26th, 2012 at 11:14 AM ^

  If you've got two replay officials, and they don't agree, then what happens?  How would it be any different that having one?


  I vote for a triumvirate.  And they also need to get a 2/3 approval from the crowd.

Space Coyote

January 26th, 2012 at 11:29 AM ^

Because of the whole indisputable clause.  

However, it seems crazy to have more than one official in the box when he himself gets all the angles and can see everything.  The only reason there are multiple on the field so to get every angle and see the whole field, adding more would just add to the confusion.  The system would be over-constrained per se.  More officials in the box doesn't make the system better in my opinion, it just increases the cost (however marginally) of hosting a college football game.


January 26th, 2012 at 11:18 AM ^

All the time, and it is just part of football.  Whether a missed holding call, or out of bounds call, or even a replay that is not definitive to me but is to you.  1 replay official is enough.....


January 26th, 2012 at 11:49 AM ^

I agree.  Officials/Refs have always been part of the game whether people want to admit it or not.  In basketball it's how they call fouls, in baseball it's how they call balls & strikes.  In football it's how they call holding or interfence.  The subjectiveness of officials has always been part of the game and will continue to be.  My coach always told us we had to adapt to the way the refs were calling the game.