Why is replay applied this way

[Fab5Coug]

Watching PSU, tOSU and replay just upheld a call based on this "indisputable video evidence" threshold.

Call on the field was a fumble. Replay showed, IMO, pretty clearly the runner was down, but because it wasn't indisputable, the call was upheld.

I've always questioned, why are the officials on the field, that are watching this at full speed, often with players obstructing their view, given this benefit of the doubt? Why are they "innocent until proven guilty" like they're on trial for something?

The replay officials have a much greater ability to make the correct call. So, why not just send it to replay and not even indicate to the replay officials what the call was? Just let them make their best decision, without this "indisputable evidence" threshold to overcome?

 

[Glad Cougar]

Watching PSU, tOSU and replay just upheld a call based on this "indisputable video evidence" threshold.

Call on the field was a fumble. Replay showed, IMO, pretty clearly the runner was down, but because it wasn't indisputable, the call was upheld.

I've always questioned, why are the officials on the field, that are watching this at full speed, often with players obstructing their view, given this benefit of the doubt? Why are they "innocent until proven guilty" like they're on trial for something?

The replay officials have a much greater ability to make the correct call. So, why not just send it to replay and not even indicate to the replay officials what the call was? Just let them make their best decision, without this "indisputable evidence" threshold to overcome?

Shades of Rod Fisher vs. UCLA. Seemed pretty clear to me, with the benefit of TV replay, that Fields' knee was down before that ball came out.

Glad Cougar

 

[Coug90]

Shades of Rod Fisher vs. UCLA. Seemed pretty clear to me, with the benefit of TV replay, that Fields' knee was down before that ball came out.

Glad Cougar

Bitch of it is they didn’t apply it consistently in UCLA. When it would have been beneficial to us it was “inconclusive” when it was beneficial to UCLA (when they ruled down on the field) they ignored their previous sentiment and overturned it even though that would be inconclusive if they called the previous one inconclusive.

It’s the inconsistency that’s maddening, and in our case when we seem to be constantly on the short end of the stick with these rulings it you can’t help but think the replay officials are encouraged to manipulate games.

 

[BleedCrimsonandGray]

Watching PSU, tOSU and replay just upheld a call based on this "indisputable video evidence" threshold.

Call on the field was a fumble. Replay showed, IMO, pretty clearly the runner was down, but because it wasn't indisputable, the call was upheld.

I've always questioned, why are the officials on the field, that are watching this at full speed, often with players obstructing their view, given this benefit of the doubt? Why are they "innocent until proven guilty" like they're on trial for something?

The replay officials have a much greater ability to make the correct call. So, why not just send it to replay and not even indicate to the replay officials what the call was? Just let them make their best decision, without this "indisputable evidence" threshold to overcome?

I think this is the right way to apply the rule, the booth was just grossly imcompetent in this case.