Different camera angle on Pig Fumble. MUST SEE!

[chieftn15]

Thanks for the subtle personal attack, but can you dispute the facts I presented in any way that might lead to a meaningful conversation?

I'm not attacking u I am agreeing with u read my posts before and u will see I stand behind u 100%

 

[VolsNSkinsFan]

if ga wins out, beats alabama for the sec title, they will be playing for the crystal

Nope. Not with all the undefeated teams out there
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[bigorange247]

Fumble

 

[triad280]

touching the tip of the ball with tips of your fingers doesn't constitute control...
unfortunately it was a fumble,plain,simple and indisputable...

 

[Im_Vol_In]

touching the tip of the ball with tips of your fingers doesn't constitute control...
unfortunately it was a fumble,plain,simple and indisputable...

Does having the tip of the ball in you palm and touching it with four fingers and not having the ball move within your hand constitute control?

 

[BigOrangeHog]

Awesome effort, but he fumbled.

 

[Im_Vol_In]

touching the tip of the ball with tips of your fingers doesn't constitute control...
unfortunately it was a fumble,plain,simple and indisputable...

And in this case it isn't possession that must be proved. It must be proved that he did not have possession.

 

[volunteernation16]

fumble or not, its makes me sick to know that we lost on something that close

 

[TheDeeble]

Ball was coming out before the goal line. Didn't see it till the replay. I knew what the call would be after the replay.

 

[VolsSportsFan]

It was a fumble.

You need to stop this silliness.

 

[NMVol]

It was a fumble.

You need to stop this silliness.

Grasshopper, you have the power. :closedeyes:

 

[Im_Vol_In]

It was a fumble.

You need to stop this silliness.

Prove it.

 

[VolsSportsFan]

Prove it.

Prove it wasn't.

 

[Im_Vol_In]

Prove it wasn't.

Call on the field was touchdown. You say that call should have been overturned. You must prove that it was not a touchdown

 

[NMVol]

Prove it wasn't.

Ain't gonna stop nothin' that way.

 

[TrueOrange]

where's Abraham Zapruder when you need him?

What's our grassy knoll?

 

[VolsSportsFan]

Call on the field was touchdown. You say that call should have been overturned. You must prove that it was not a touchdown

The replay officials did; in case you didn't know, that's their job, and their ruling is final.

There, proved it.

 

[VolsSportsFan]

And in this case it isn't possession that must be proved. It must be proved that he did not have possession.

And to the replay official, they saw enough evidence that he didn't have possession.

 

[Im_Vol_In]

The replay officials did; in case you didn't know, that's their job, and their ruling is final.

There, proved it.

I would love to hear what compelled the replay official to overturn the call. Unfortunately, to my knowledge, he doesn't post on Vol Nation.

I was asking you, as someone who agrees with the replay official, to perhaps offer some reasons behind your opinion that there is definitive proof that it was not a touchdown.

 

[VolsSportsFan]

I would love to hear what compelled the replay official to overturn the call. Unfortunately, to my knowledge, he doesn't post on Vol Nation.

I was asking you, as someone who agrees with the replay official, to perhaps offer some reasons behind your opinion that there is definitive proof that it was not a touchdown.

Because the replay I've seen a thousand times now clearly shows that he lost possession before the ball broke the goal line.

It's really that simple.

 

[Im_Vol_In]

Because the replay I've seen a thousand times now clearly shows that he lost possession before the ball broke the goal line.

It's really that simple.

If it was so clear, why did you have to watch it a thousand times?

 

[VolsSportsFan]

If it was so clear, why did you have to watch it a thousand times?

Is that a serious question?

I mean I guess you think a replay official should only watch the replay one time.

 

[Im_Vol_In]

Is that a serious question?

I mean I guess you think a replay official should only watch the replay one time.

I myself watched it a thousand times. I would think we could both agree that if we both watched it a thousand times, then there is something very unclear about whether or not it was a touchdown, and to overturn the ruling on the field, there should exist definitive evidence.

 

[VolsSportsFan]

I myself watched it a thousand times. I would think we could both agree that if we both watched it a thousand times, then there is something very unclear about whether or not it was a touchdown, and to overturn the ruling on the field, there should exist definitive evidence.

Every time I watched it, I saw a clear fumble. The replay officials obviously had the same experience; hence they saw definite evidence.

 

[Im_Vol_In]

Every time I watched it, I saw a clear fumble. The replay officials obviously had the same experience; hence they saw definite evidence.

I saw a fumble also. But at what point?

If there was definitive evidence, then one should be able to express arguments supporting that point (i.e. "the ball was spinning in his hand before he crossed the goal line" or "the ball left his hand altogether before crossing the goal line" or "the ball was only touching his index and middle finger before crossing the goal line and no one could possibly possess the ball in such a manner").

I haven't seen anyone express any arguments like that. Perhaps they exist or there is some wording in the rules that I am unaware of. In which case I will stand corrected. But to say simply, "It was a fumble" is not convincing.