Another replay goes BYU's way

http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2012/dec/20/poinsettia-bowl-another-replay-goes-against-sdsu/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;





Diff game, same story

The controversy surrounding this play ended when SDSU fumbled their very next offensive snap.

This part of the post game was funny to listen too:



"Likely feeling as if the session was venturing into “Replaygate” territory, BYU coach Bronco Mendenhall interjected at the point, saying, “That’s probably a good enough answer right there.”



Van Noy flashed a smile. “I think I’ll stop,” he said."



I don't remember if they said confirmed or stands after the replay but I don't think that play would have be overturned by replay regardless of how the called it on the field. It was way to close to call. The ball was going forward but I'm not sure if Vanoy had already touched it when it was moving or not. We caught a break on that one for sure.

Wow. SDSU fans and media have shown themselves to be the single biggest whiners in football. WWAAAAAHHHH!!!

You got Jimmered!!!

Everyone at our table at Buffalo Wild Wings seemed to conceed that the fumble COULD be overturned, but apparently is wasn't conclusive, but I too don't remember what they said after the official replay ruling as we were too busy high-fiving one another.

Dingbat's arm was definitely moving forward. I'm not sure what the exact rule is, however. It would be interesting to read the rule. Anybody know how to find it?



My thought is that Van Noy actually jumped up and stuffed the ball with both of his hands before the ball got passed Dingwell's helmet. So, it wasn't the QB's throwing motion that caused the ball to hit the defender's hands; rather, it was the defender who stripped the ball out of the QB's hands, despite the fact that his arm was moving forward.

EM_Puma wrote:
Everyone at our table at Buffalo Wild Wings seemed to conceed that the fumble COULD be overturned, but apparently is wasn't conclusive, but I too don't remember what they said after the official replay ruling as we were too busy high-fiving one another.

The ref said the ruling on the field was "Confirmed". Meaning they agreed with the fumble call.

BYULV wrote:

Everyone at our table at Buffalo Wild Wings seemed to conceed that the fumble COULD be overturned, but apparently is wasn't conclusive, but I too don't remember what they said after the official replay ruling as we were too busy high-fiving one another.

The ref said the ruling on the field was "Confirmed". Meaning they agreed with the fumble call.

I think had they initially ruled it an incompletion it also would have been confirmed.

My favorite part:

All three replay staffers in Provo, Utah, were suspended for the botched call, and two of them were BYU alums.

which isn't true. And from another article from the same paper:

It was Di Luigi's fumble as he scored a touchdown in a 2010 win over SDSU that put a burr in the Aztecs' saddle.

And that's after just a couple of years. Just think, in ten years or so, SDSU fans will swear that J.J. ran 90 yards into the end zone without the ball, but the First Presidency botched the call in the booth.



:lol:

Stirfry wrote:
This part of the post game was funny to listen too:



"Likely feeling as if the session was venturing into “Replaygate” territory, BYU coach Bronco Mendenhall interjected at the point, saying, “That’s probably a good enough answer right there.”



Van Noy flashed a smile. “I think I’ll stop,” he said."



I don't remember if they said confirmed or stands after the replay but I don't think that play would have be overturned by replay regardless of how the called it on the field. It was way to close to call. The ball was going forward but I'm not sure if Vanoy had already touched it when it was moving or not. We caught a break on that one for sure.

The ref said the call on the field had been confirmed.

While the QB had started his throwing motion, the ball had not moved forward until Van Noy had his hands on it so the QB's forward motion did not include the ball. It was a good call and the announcers said it was a good call before the refs confirmed it. We did not get "lucky" on the call.

And the replay didn't go BYU's way. The initial call went BYU's way.

frdbtr wrote:

I don't remember if they said confirmed or stands after the replay but I don't think that play would have be overturned by replay regardless of how the called it on the field. It was way to close to call. The ball was going forward but I'm not sure if Vanoy had already touched it when it was moving or not. We caught a break on that one for sure.

The ref said the call on the field had been confirmed.

From what I can tell, it doesn't matter whether the ref says confirms or stands since they use them interchangeably. One of my pet peeves is that refs aren't very precise in their use of language--they say confirmed when all they can say is that a stands as called.



The standard of review to overturn on replays is a heightened level described as "conclusive" or "indisputable," so a call on the field is never "confirmed" by replay, but simply stands due to a lack of conclusive or indisputable evidence. If they were reviewing the play de novo with a simple preponderance standard, then they could say a call is confirmed.

YNot wrote:
Dingbat's arm was definitely moving forward. I'm not sure what the exact rule is, however. It would be interesting to read the rule. Anybody know how to find it?



My thought is that Van Noy actually jumped up and stuffed the ball with both of his hands before the ball got passed Dingwell's helmet. So, it wasn't the QB's throwing motion that caused the ball to hit the defender's hands; rather, it was the defender who stripped the ball out of the QB's hands, despite the fact that his arm was moving forward.

He must have "possession" of the ball also. Just because his arm is moving forward doesn't mean it will be considered a pass. In my opinion, what ever call was made would have been confirmed because it was possible to argue both points. His arm did start forward but the question is when did he lose possession of the ball. Van Noy made contact before he started but he did get started so when did VN cause the dis-possession?



All in all my only thought is PLEASE VAN NOY AND HOFFMAN COME BACK!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Mingjai wrote:

Stirfry wrote:
I don't remember if they said confirmed or stands after the replay but I don't think that play would have be overturned by replay regardless of how the called it on the field. It was way to close to call. The ball was going forward but I'm not sure if Vanoy had already touched it when it was moving or not. We caught a break on that one for sure.

The ref said the call on the field had been confirmed.

From what I can tell, it doesn't matter whether the ref says confirms or stands since they use them interchangeably. One of my pet peeves is that refs aren't very precise in their use of language--they say confirmed when all they can say is that a stands as called.



The standard of review to overturn on replays is a heightened level described as "conclusive" or "indisputable," so a call on the field is never "confirmed" by replay, but simply stands due to a lack of conclusive or indisputable evidence. If they were reviewing the play de novo with a simple preponderance standard, then they could say a call is confirmed.

"Stands as called" means they didn't have video evidence that the call on the field was wrong so the call "stands"

"Confirmed" means that the video evidence was conclusive that the call on the field was correct. It does make a difference what the ref says.

Ruling on the field was fumble and TD. It would have taken conclusive video evidence to overturn it. When the ref returned he said "confirmed" which means that the video replay showed evidence to support the call on the field. If he would have said "stands" that would have meant that they couldn't find any evidence to overturn. If he would have said "overturned" that would have meant that the arm was moving forward in slow-mo.

I haven't done a scientific study or anything, but usually if the play cannot be overturned, the ref says that "the play stands" as called on the field. The play is "confirmed" when the video both actually confirms that it was the right call.

I think had the play been initially called an incomplete pass and BYU challenged, the play would have been upheld. Like the SDSU QB said, it was a bang-bang play. It was awfully close and likely could have been ruled either way. But everyone in the decision making process of how to rule it, decided it was a fumble and recovery.

If the arm is moving forward, and the ball comes out backwards, wouldn't that be a lateral anyway? What happens if a QB starts to throw the ball and then the ball slips out backwards, is it not a fumble? Seems to me that the arm moving forward rule is there to determine forward passes vs forward fumbles and a ball falling backwards or laterally is an easy call.