Different camera angle on Pig Fumble. MUST SEE!

#101
#101
TNnative said:
If you see the sideline angle, it is conclusively NOT a TD. The Ball was clearly out of his controlled grasp at 1/2 yard from the goal line. When the ball crossed into the end zone, Pig was not even touching it.

If the ball had gone out on the side line, Vols would have had it at the 1 with another chance to punch it in. In this case it was correctly ruled a touchback. It is what it is.
Click to expand...

I don't see this. He switched the ball to his left hand WITH CONTROL and then lost it. I think the ball was about half way through the line when it began coming out of his hand.
 
#102
#102
pig.jpg

I think this is where many people say Pig lost the ball. My whole point in posting the original video was to show he actually did have possession with his left hand (where the sideline view and this video still) make it look like he didn't.

I've heard over and over again, he lost control at the 1/2 yard line. I don't think this picture proves that (especially after seeing the other video).
 
#104
#104
I don't see why the ruling is that the ball is given to the other team. I'm trying to be as objective about this as possible. I am pleased that the referees made the CORRECT call, because had it been the opponent fumbling at the 1/2 yard line, I would want the correct call, too. However, I don't see why the ball should not just be placed at the 1-yard line? Perhaps even call a 10-15 yard penalty from the foul? Is that even a foul? Could that rule change be taken advantage of?
 
#105
#105
Stop with the silly video conspiracy theories. He lost the ball, and lost it well before the goal line--at about the half yard line. That's it. He lost it, and we lost.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#106
#106
armchair said:
Stop with the silly video conspiracy theories. He lost the ball, and lost it well before the goal line--at about the half yard line. That's it. He lost it, and we lost.
Click to expand...

Ok move along people. Nothing to see here. No one's opinion has any merit since the almighty one has spoken.
 
#107
#107
It is imminently possible to palm a football from many angles, including its trailing point.
 
#109
#109
VolsRule said:
does he have possession at that point in the picture?
Click to expand...

It is my belief that he did especially once you look at the other video. Obviously many folks have a different opinion, but I don't think it is indisputable which is the only thing that has to be proven.

On a side note, just because many of us like to analyze the play doesn't make us sore losers or bad fans. If you aren't interested in the discussion please feel free to go to another thread.

EDIT: the second part wasn't directed at you VolsRule.
 
#110
#110
volmaniac5674 said:
The fact that this is disputable means this should not have been overturned. Right?
Click to expand...

No, it just means that a lot of us understandably are seeing what we want to see. The reality is, it was ruled a fumble and we lost the game. As much as we'd like to believe that we were robbed, these calls happen in almost every game and it's only because this one was so important that we're even talking about it. Let's focus on the positives from this game - the effort, the aggressive play calling, the fact that for the first time in a long time we were in a meaningful game at the end and actually could have, some would say should have, won it. I'm not calling this a moral victory, but I am saying that in a weird way it feels good to be pissed off that we let one get away rather than just disgusted that we got stomped again.
 
#112
#112
Im_Vol_In said:
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.
Click to expand...

At this point, it's obvious nothing anyone says is going to sway you, and it's 100% because it happened to the Vols.

I don't know how much clearer to make it for you; you're going to believe it was the wrong call no matter what anyone says or points out to you, because you're going to cling like mad to some silly legalistic viewpoint of "You have to prove he was fumbling". The fact is he was losing the ball before it hit the goal line. Choose to believe that or not, but in the end what your opinion is doesn't matter at all.

It wasn't a touchdown.
 
#114
#114
allvol said:
Agreed, once the nose of the ball crossed the line, it's a TD no matter what happens afterward. If Gaffney's catch was a TD years ago, then Pig's should have held up. The lack of definitive evidence was obvious when they froze the video on the jumbotron, ball touching the plain of the goal line, and pig's hand still on the ball.
Click to expand...

Gafney's TD wasn't a TD.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#117
#117
VolsSportsFan said:
At this point, it's obvious nothing anyone says is going to sway you, and it's 100% because it happened to the Vols.

I don't know how much clearer to make it for you; you're going to believe it was the wrong call no matter what anyone says or points out to you, because you're going to cling like mad to some silly legalistic viewpoint of "You have to prove he was fumbling". The fact is he was losing the ball before it hit the goal line. Choose to believe that or not, but in the end what your opinion is doesn't matter at all.

It wasn't a touchdown.
Click to expand...

Calling it a fact shows how in the wrong you are. The fact is there is NO WAY to prove that the ball was not in in his left hand when the nose of the ball crossed the goal line. The fact that the the call is disputable means the TD should have stood. Had the call on the field been ruled a touch back because of a fumble it could not have been over turned either.
 
#118
#118
Plus if you guys are going to get into ultra nitpick mode, then don't overlook the fact that Pig didn't protest after the ruling, and immediately after it happened, he stared a long time at the line judge to see what he ruled.

Was it because he knew he lost control of the ball?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#119
#119
InVOLuntary said:
Calling it a fact shows how in the wrong you are. The factbis there is NO WAY to orove that the ball was not in in his left hand when the nose of the ball crossed the goal line. The fact that the the call is disputable means the TD should have stood. Had the call on the field been ruled a touch back because of a fumble it could not have been over turned either.
Click to expand...

It would have been confirmed.

By your definition of "prove", then they might as well do away with replay because hardly anything will be able to be "proven".
 
#120
#120
VolsSportsFan said:
Plus if you guys are going to get into ultra nitpick mode, then don't overlook the fact that Pig didn't protest after the ruling, and immediately after it happened, he stared a long time at the line judge to see what he ruled.

Was it because he knew he lost control of the ball?
Click to expand...

Pig's protesting would have been unsportsmanlike. Not sure anyone expects the SEC office to overturn the call. Of course its a done deal. But as a fan its natural to want to know what truly happened. It plays into one's perception of the game. If this makes no difference to you why not just find another angle to post about?
 
#121
#121
VolsSportsFan said:
It would have been confirmed.

By your definition of "prove", then they might as well do away with replay because hardly anything will be able to be "proven".
Click to expand...

Show me one picture or video that shows air between pig howards left hand and the ball prior to cross the goal line. It doesn't matter if he fumbled or not. There has to be "Indisputable" evidence that he lost control when the ball crossed the line. I've not seen it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#122
#122
InVOLuntary said:
Show me one picture or video that shows air between pig howards left hand and the ball prior to cross the goal line. It doesn't matter if he fumbled or not. There has to be "Indisputable" evidence that he lost control when the ball crossed the line. I've not seen it.
Click to expand...

You've seen it, you refuse accept it.

Again, had this been reversed there's no way in hades you'd argue UGA should have been given a TD.
 
#123
#123
VolsSportsFan said:
You've seen it, you refuse accept it.

Again, had this been reversed there's no way in hades you'd argue UGA should have been given a TD.
Click to expand...

You've seen it and refused to accept it too. Show me a pic or a video and I'll jump right on board with you. I can howver show you several shots that make it impossible to tell so that makes it very disputable.
 
#124
#124
NMVol said:
Pig's protesting would have been unsportsmanlike. Not sure anyone expects the SEC office to overturn the call. Of course its a done deal. But as a fan its natural to want to know what truly happened. It plays into one's perception of the game. If this makes no difference to you why not just find another angle to post about?
Click to expand...

What? I'm talking about on the sideline with his team. There would be no unsportsmanlike. He would have been visibly angry and complaining to teammates and coaches.
 
#125
#125
VolsSportsFan said:
What? I'm talking about on the sideline with his team. There would be no unsportsmanlike. He would have been visibly angry and complaining to teammates and coaches.
Click to expand...


Too many variables. Not an assumption that is without question.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top