Started By
Message
re: What will be the first SEC East team to win the SEC championship
Posted on 6/14/15 at 10:31 pm to WorkinDawg
Posted on 6/14/15 at 10:31 pm to WorkinDawg
I think it's a fair point. Replay is in place to fix certain missed calls. The powers that be deemed that penalties should be left off that list of things replay can overturn. It's unfortunate when calls are missed at full speed. It happens. Refs are looking at certain things and sometimes miss others, no matter how blatant they are to the rest of us watching from much wider angles.
It is definitely worse to see a call missed after replay. I did not go back to see if there was a facemask missed. I do not remember seeing one any time I viewed it, but I wasn't looking at Murray's helmet in those cases. That point plays to why replay misses are worse than live-play missed calls. If the facemask was a reviewable call, the replay official should be looking for it. He WAS looking to see if Murray scored a touchdown. As such, a missed call on replay would mean that someone with the benefit of many angles of the play, even slow-motion angles, failed to see what actually happened. A missed facemask means that one, maybe two, officials missed something live in a bundle of bodies that was definitely not their first priority to see.
Note: I'm not getting into whether this one was or not, no matter my personal opinion. It's ancient history and was made null by later events in the game. I'm simply pointing out why a missed replay call is worse than a missed penalty call.
It is definitely worse to see a call missed after replay. I did not go back to see if there was a facemask missed. I do not remember seeing one any time I viewed it, but I wasn't looking at Murray's helmet in those cases. That point plays to why replay misses are worse than live-play missed calls. If the facemask was a reviewable call, the replay official should be looking for it. He WAS looking to see if Murray scored a touchdown. As such, a missed call on replay would mean that someone with the benefit of many angles of the play, even slow-motion angles, failed to see what actually happened. A missed facemask means that one, maybe two, officials missed something live in a bundle of bodies that was definitely not their first priority to see.
Note: I'm not getting into whether this one was or not, no matter my personal opinion. It's ancient history and was made null by later events in the game. I'm simply pointing out why a missed replay call is worse than a missed penalty call.
1
Posted on 6/15/15 at 1:34 am to DoreonthePlains
Your response may make some sense on a general level but It's not a good point in this specific instance:
1. Not all ref mistakes are equally bad. Depends on how obvious the infraction was obviously. A missed flag on an obvious penalty can indeed be worse than a missed replay that lacked irrefutable evidence.
2. Why was it lacked? Because instant replays are limited due to limited camera views. In no way should they expected to be perfect with such limitations, and To think otherwise is not realistic. If it's not irrefutable, it's supposed to be upheld per the powers that be, and that's exactly what happened. They followed the rule to a T. It's not like they saw irrefutable evidence, and chose to ignore it, which is a key distinction to acknowledge.
3. To whine about one mistake without accepting the other simply isn't one bit reasonable.The way these 2 calls in question are directly related is quite unique compared to your general point, and that essentially renders them "cancelled" out. Fact is, One mistake led to another. Instead of Uga td or au ball on the 1 foot line, which were both wrong, it should be have been Uga ball on the 1 foot line.
1. Not all ref mistakes are equally bad. Depends on how obvious the infraction was obviously. A missed flag on an obvious penalty can indeed be worse than a missed replay that lacked irrefutable evidence.
2. Why was it lacked? Because instant replays are limited due to limited camera views. In no way should they expected to be perfect with such limitations, and To think otherwise is not realistic. If it's not irrefutable, it's supposed to be upheld per the powers that be, and that's exactly what happened. They followed the rule to a T. It's not like they saw irrefutable evidence, and chose to ignore it, which is a key distinction to acknowledge.
3. To whine about one mistake without accepting the other simply isn't one bit reasonable.The way these 2 calls in question are directly related is quite unique compared to your general point, and that essentially renders them "cancelled" out. Fact is, One mistake led to another. Instead of Uga td or au ball on the 1 foot line, which were both wrong, it should be have been Uga ball on the 1 foot line.
This post was edited on 6/15/15 at 1:42 am
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News