Fumble Review in Mizz Game Question

[bamawriter]

Defination: Irrefutable-Can Not be disproved. The original call can not be disproved.

It can, and funny enough, it was. The runner was not down where he was originally ruled down. Disproving the incorrect spot wasn't even difficult, let alone impossible.

 

[volswin08]

It can, and funny enough, it was. The runner was not down where he was originally ruled down. Disproving the incorrect spot wasn't even difficult, let alone impossible.

Definition: Feeble-Very weak; lacking in strength; ineffective.
As in: Your's is a feeble attempt at credibility.

 

[X-Factor]

Whether or not it was a fumble, the OP reminds me of a question I have relating to Dooley's ENTIRE tenure here . . . Why (the f) do we not have a play- I would suggest a halfback dive but I don't care if it's a freaking flea-flicker, just SOME PLAY- that we have a specific signal for and we run (QUICKLY) whenever we have benefitted from a questionable call that might potentially be overturned? So for instance- your player is ruled down but may have fumbled. The coaches emphatically make this prearranged signal (much like the signal to spike the ball is used) and the players quickly line up and run a HB-dive (or flea-flicker or Statue of Liberty or double reverse or hook-and-ladder . . . anything!). At a minimum, the opposing coach is forced to quickly decide whether he wants to use his challenge. Sometimes he will and the net result will be the same. But sometimes he won't and even if the play is unsuccessful you have just traded a turnover for a wasted down. This isn't a difficult concept. Good NFL quarterbacks do this all the time. Notice sometime how quickly Peyton gets his team to the line of scrimmage after a questionable call.

Thus ends my rant.

 

[bamawriter]

Definition: Feeble-Very weak; lacking in strength; ineffective.
As in: Your's is a feeble attempt at credibility.

And yet you've offered nothing to reinforce your own opinion. I'm not worried about my "credibility" with some internet guy whose entire argument is "nuh uh!"

 

[IBlvNTmWrk]

I totally disagree with your interpretation of that play.

It wasn't "a second or two" before he stretched out the ball, and every replay I saw made it appear that he was on top of another player when he stretched his arm out.

My point exactly... they made an assumption without proof to reverse the call.

 

[bamawriter]

My point exactly... they made an assumption without proof to reverse the call.

The proof was on the screen in the replay booth. No one made an assumption. The runner didn't look down before he stretched the ball. He wasn't assumed to be live, he was seen to be live.

 

[IBlvNTmWrk]

Simple question BW... from the replays that we all saw, could you prove beyond a doubt that no part of the runners body (other than his feet) had not come in contact with the ground?

 

[volswin08]

The proof was on the screen in the replay booth. No one made an assumption. The runner didn't look down before he stretched the ball. He wasn't assumed to be live, he was seen to be live.

This is all an assumption on your part....since you were not in the replay booth. I doubt you even watched the game at all...just want to "appear" to be someone in the know, a bamawriter. And I can assure you that no one in the replay booth saw anything that everyone who watched the game did not see also. Who do you think you are kidding?

 

[bamawriter]

Simple question BW... from the replays that we all saw, could you prove beyond a doubt that no part of the runners body (other than his feet) had not come in contact with the ground?

The term is 'indisputable video evidence' and yes, the replay, particularly the one that was more head on, showed that he was on top of another player when he stretched the ball. There was no image that showed a knee, elbow, hip or anything other than a hand or foot touch the ground.

 

[bamawriter]

This is all an assumption on your part....since you were not in the replay booth. I doubt you even watched the game at all...just want to "appear" to be someone in the know, a bamawriter. And I can assure you that no one in the replay booth saw anything that everyone who watched the game did not see also. Who do you think you are kidding?

So the replay ref set out to screw Tennessee? If he didn't see anything other than what you claim, then why did he overturn it?

 

[IBlvNTmWrk]

The term is 'indisputable video evidence' and yes, the replay, particularly the one that was more head on, showed that he was on top of another player when he stretched the ball. There was no image that showed a knee, elbow, hip or anything other than a hand or foot touch the ground.

I'm not trying to be argumentative BW, but either you're not understanding where I'm coming from or you're simply choosing to ignore the point some of us are making. I asked if you could prove that no other part of the body was not touching the ground, and you respond with the bold above... which is what I've been saying. There was no video that "showed a knee, elbow, hip, or anything other than a hand or foot touch the ground" because in the video you couldn't see most of the runner's body... period. If you can't see the body, then there is no way to prove that some of it had not come in contact with the ground.

 

[VolsSportsFan]

Gracious, let it go OP.

 

[VolGee4]

By that standard, the spot of the ball shouldn't be reviewable unless the player went out of bounds.

If the players were still playing, it's really irrelevant if the whistle blew a split second before.

Huh? It is not irrelevant at all. When the whistle blows, the defenders stop. You can't allow a guy to keep reaching forward after the whistle blows. I said the same thing the day of the game. It is quite simple.

 

[bamawriter]

I'm not trying to be argumentative BW, but either you're not understanding where I'm coming from or you're simply choosing to ignore the point some of us are making. I asked if you could prove that no other part of the body was not touching the ground, and you respond with the bold above... which is what I've been saying. There was no video that "showed a knee, elbow, hip, or anything other than a hand or foot touch the ground" because in the video you couldn't see most of the runner's body... period. If you can't see the body, then there is no way to prove that some of it had not come in contact with the ground.

You're assuming that he was ruled down in that manner. If it was ruled that he was down on top of a downed player with his progress stoppped, then the replay official would not have look for a knee or hip.

I don't know what the exact call was. I do know that the video did not show anything other than a hand or foot down.

 

[IBlvNTmWrk]

You're assuming that he was ruled down in that manner. If it was ruled that he was down on top of a downed player with his progress stoppped, then the replay official would not have look for a knee or hip.

I don't know what the exact call was. I do know that the video did not show anything other than a hand or foot down.

I'm not assuming anything. The refs on the field made a call and a spot for where they deemed the ball was dead. The replay showed the runner extended his arm with the ball beyond where the refs had originally spotted it. What the replay did not show was whether or not any other part of the runner's body had already touched the ground. If there is no video evidence that shows no part of the runner's body did not touch the ground, how do you allow a forward sport? The only way to allow that spot is to "assume" the runner was not previously down by contact. And as others have already said... if the whistle had previously blown meaning that play had stopped for all players, how do you allow one player (the runner) to move the ball forward?