Fumble Review in Mizz Game Question

#1
DrDave

DrDave

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
352
Likes
54
#1
The on field call was no fumble by the runner. Which means the official ruled the runner was down before the ball came out.

The review changed the call which means the review official decided because of irrefutable video evidence that the runner was not down.

In the TV broadcast, we did not see anything that showed the runner was not down. --- He was in a pile of players. And PROBABLY was on top of someone. But we didn't see IRREFUTABLE PROOF.

How could that overrule be made?
 
#3
#3
We all know the SEC officiating crew leaves a lot to be desired. It doesn't matter now. Let's move on and try to come out the next 2 weeks with a win!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#5
#5
Doesn't matter. When your head coach is afraid to go for it on 3rd down with 40 secs left and 2 timeouts, you are doomed anyways.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 7 people
#6
#6
He was not down, he was still moving in the process of being tackled, he fumbled the ball before hitting the ground, Mizzou recovered it. The officials view of the fumble was blocked by the surrounding players. The replay official clearly saw it as did most of us that are willing to admit the truth. End of story.

They lost this game on D in the second half. Let it go.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#8
#8
Better yet, how in the world did they reverse the call on the 4th down when the Vols held? You could see on the video that the guys hand with the ball in it was at the 1st. down marker after he stretched his arm forward...but how does the replay official know when the play was blown dead?
 
#10
#10
volswin08 said:
Better yet, how in the world did they reverse the call on the 4th down when the Vols held? You could see on the video that the guys hand with the ball in it was at the 1st. down marker after he stretched his arm forward...but how does the replay official know when the play was blown dead?
Click to expand...

This is the better question. The only way this call could have been overturned was for the replay officials to "make assumptions". No doubt the runner stretched his hand/ball across the first down marker, but there was no way of knowing if the ball was dead prior to him stretching out his arm.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#11
#11
IBlvNTmWrk said:
This is the better question. The only way this call could have been overturned was for the replay officials to "make assumptions". No doubt the runner stretched his hand/ball across the first down marker, but there was no way of knowing if the ball was dead prior to him stretching out his arm.
Click to expand...

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.
 
#12
#12
bamawriter said:
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.
Click to expand...

Two questions:
1. Why do refs have whistles?
2. Why assume that the whistle blew a split second before...vs. several split seconds before?
 
#14
#14
volswin08 said:
Two questions:
1. Why do refs have whistles?
2. Why assume that the whistle blew a split second before...vs. several split seconds before?
Click to expand...

1.) For protection on those lonely late night walks to their cars
2.) When the Germans discovered keeping time they stipulated that a split second would always occur before several split seconds. :salute:
 
#15
#15
Drink as much CrownRoyal as you can over the holidays to forget the last 3 years.

When you wake up, we should have a new coach and be back to winning.

GBO
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#16
#16
No question it was a fumble and anyone with a pulse could watch the replay and determine that.
 
#17
#17
IBlvNTmWrk said:
This is the better question. The only way this call could have been overturned was for the replay officials to "make assumptions". No doubt the runner stretched his hand/ball across the first down marker, but there was no way of knowing if the ball was dead prior to him stretching out his arm.
Click to expand...

I am certain we can do this next week when we try to find reasons to blame the refs for Vandy beating us. Look no further than our coach!
 
#18
#18
bamawriter said:
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.
Click to expand...

My comment isn't based solely on when the whistle was blown. Rather, from the review there was no way of knowing if any other part of the runner's body (knee, hip, etc.) had already touched the ground before the runner stretched out his arm. What is clear is that the runner was stopped, was horizontal and no longer moving his legs, the pile was stationary, and then a second or two later the runner stretches out his arm. If the runner was already down by contact (not whistle) then the ball should have been marked where it was prior to him stretching out his arm.

If the officials on the field would have originally given the runner a first down spot, and then it went to the booth for a review, then that call should have remained as well. Point being... there was nothing in the film review that indicated when the runner was down. The replay officials seemed to have "made an assumption" that the runner was not yet down (even though everyone was laying on the ground) and simply based their decision that he stretched out his arm to advance the ball another 6 inches.
 
#20
#20
volswin08 said:
Two questions:
1. Why do refs have whistles?
2. Why assume that the whistle blew a split second before...vs. several split seconds before?
Click to expand...

Why assume that the ref blew his whistle at all? Either the players were still playing or they weren't. Determining the precise moment of the whistle during a review is near impossible.
 
#21
#21
IBlvNTmWrk said:
My comment isn't based solely on when the whistle was blown. Rather, from the review there was no way of knowing if any other part of the runner's body (knee, hip, etc.) had already touched the ground before the runner stretched out his arm. What is clear is that the runner was stopped, was horizontal and no longer moving his legs, the pile was stationary, and then a second or two later the runner stretches out his arm. If the runner was already down by contact (not whistle) then the ball should have been marked where it was prior to him stretching out his arm.

If the officials on the field would have originally given the runner a first down spot, and then it went to the booth for a review, then that call should have remained as well. Point being... there was nothing in the film review that indicated when the runner was down. The replay officials seemed to have "made an assumption" that the runner was not yet down (even though everyone was laying on the ground) and simply based their decision that he stretched out his arm to advance the ball another 6 inches.
Click to expand...

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.
 
#22
#22
bamawriter said:
Why assume that the ref blew his whistle at all? Either the players were still playing or they weren't. Determining the precise moment of the whistle during a review is near impossible.
Click to expand...

That my dear friend is the entire point...it can't be determined, so, there can be NO IRREFUTABLE EVIDENCE to overturn the original call.....And your feeble attempt to prove that you actually saw, or know something different is BS...take that back to bama, write about it, roll it up, and then smoke it. :)
 
Last edited:
#23
#23
DrDave said:
The on field call was no fumble by the runner. Which means the official ruled the runner was down before the ball came out.

The review changed the call which means the review official decided because of irrefutable video evidence that the runner was not down.

In the TV broadcast, we did not see anything that showed the runner was not down. --- He was in a pile of players. And PROBABLY was on top of someone. But we didn't see IRREFUTABLE PROOF.

How could that overrule be made?
Click to expand...
SEC refs are morons
 
#24
#24
volswin08 said:
That my dear friend is the entire point...it can't be determined, so, there can be NO IRREFUTABLE EVIDENCE to overturn the original call.....And your feeble attempt to prove that you actually saw, or know something different is BS :)
Click to expand...

So, if you can't determine the exact moment the whistle blew, you can't overturn the ruling on the field? That's incredibly stupid.
 
#25
#25
bamawriter said:
So, if you can't determine the exact moment the whistle blew, you can't overturn the ruling on the field? That's incredibly stupid.
Click to expand...

Definition: Stupid-slow in apprehension or understanding.

Defination: Irrefutable-Can Not be disproved. The original call can not be disproved.
Simple as that, and any name calling that you want to do...does not increase you credibility.
Definition: Credibilty-offering grounds for belief.

Now, maybe you can become a more credible, irrefutable, and not so stupid bamawriter.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement



Back
Top