How was that not a TD?

#101
#101
American Pig said:
Your picture proves my point. His hand is on ball at goal. He even changed direction past goal. The ball never left his possession until past pylon - much less before pylon.

Facts matter.
Click to expand...

A player has to have control of the ball to have possession. It takes more than just touching it. Do you disagree with this rule?
 
#102
#102
He was reaching for the goal line, hard to tell when he actually lost control of it. All you have to do is break the plane of the goal line for it to be a TD. Replay officials must have decided it was coming out before the goal line, but it sure looked like a TD to me.
 
#103
#103
The picture on this page appears to be a fumble to me.

Looking at the laces and how the ball is angled, I just don't think there's anyway to believe he was holding it at that moment. It was loose and just laying on his fingertips. His thumb would have been on the very tip of the football. Ball was loose.

But, after seeing it 100 times, I still think it's hard to overturn the call on the field. Oh well.
 
Last edited:
#104
#104
I don't think that's the laces on the ball you see, its the stripe that covers half the ball.
 
#106
#106
Exactly, so in my opinion the call on the field should have stood. Not enough indisputable evidence.
 
#107
#107
Doesn't matter anymore. Doesn't matter if he dribbled the ball into the endzone and took a jumpshot over the goalposts. The refs called it a fumble and nothing we say now can change it.

Proud of the team's effort, disgusted with Pig's carelessness.
 
#108
#108
Agreed. We played well today but we also faced a really banged up football team missing a lot of weapons. Still, had a blast watching it and we almost did it.
 
#109
#109
Did anyone see the Vereen penalty? There was no replay. Did anyone see the pass interference penalty in the end zone? No. They didn't happen. Game never should have gone to OT. Refs screwed Tennessee.
 
#110
#110
Volsfan4243 said:
Did anyone see the Vereen penalty? There was no replay. Did anyone see the pass interference penalty in the end zone? No. They didn't happen. Game never should have gone to OT. Refs screwed Tennessee.
Click to expand...

Totally agree, should have never even gone to OT, no one is even talking about it- the refs knew what was about to happen and were looking for anything to help ease GA into the end zone. Pass interference was total BS. That is what kills me, not the OT, but what the refs did at the end of regulation in the red Zone. Pitiful
 
#111
#111
volinbama256 said:
Totally agree, should have never even gone to OT, no one is even talking about it- the refs knew what was about to happen and were looking for anything to help ease GA into the end zone. Pass interference was total BS. That is what kills me, not the OT, but what the refs did at the end of regulation in the red Zone. Pitiful
Click to expand...

Hope you put your tinfoil hat back on.
 
#112
#112
Insunseri said:
The nose of the ball broke the plane before Pig lost possession. And since it was ruled a TD, how the heck did they deem that there was conclusive evidence based on the video? I just don't get it. Everyone at the stadium felt the same way. Go Vols.
Click to expand...

You Drunk bro?
 
#113
#113
We all know OJ murdered Nicole. He was found not guilty due to lack of evidence. We all know Pig fumbled before the goalline...
 
#114
#114
Some of you people are just homers..it's sad you think every break that doesn't go your way is a screw job
 
#116
#116
JohnnyBall said:
Some of you people are just homers..it's sad you think every break that doesn't go your way is a screw job
Click to expand...

Absolutely not. That video does not show conclusively that Pig lost the ball before it broke the plane. We all conjecture that it must have been that way, but the video doesn't show it that way. Not orange tinted glasses. Just an understanding of what "inconclusive" and "burden of proof" mean. I honestly can't see how that is overturned.
 
#117
#117
American Pig said:
The ball was still on the tips of his fingers as he scored. Being 'on it's way out' at the time of the score seems irrelevant. He was still in contact with the football and had not lost possession. I don't see how that becomes indisputable evidence to overturn a score.
Click to expand...

This is exactly what I was thinking too. Anything that happened after the tip of the ball touched the front of the goal line is irrelevant and completely inadmissable in reversing that call. Remember they are required to have indisputable video evidence to overturn.

#1 at 1YL Pig has a two hand grip on the ball

#2 Between the 1YL and the goal line Pig NEVER had that ball separate from his hand. It was in both hands and then still touching one hand when the ball touched the G/L.

#3 After the G/L it came out. But that has no bearing whatsoever. If a UGA player had caught a loose ball that came loose after crossing the G/L as a TD the pla would be dead and he could not return or recover it.

** My genuine question is this: Since Pig had possession and still had his hand on the end of the ball, and the ball never separated from his hand. How could you CONCLUSIVELY say that the ball was fumbled. The replay of the play should STOP and not be viewed after that ball touched the edge of the G/L. Watch that vid in slo-mo and DO NOT VIEW AFTER IT TOUCHES THE G/L. Then tell me that he conclusively (without question) lost control of that ball.

I cannot say he did on the grounds that it was ruled a TD. Were it ruled a fumble on the field, I would have NOT overturned that call either.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#118
#118
VolsSportsFan said:
Not the comparison I'd go for but ok....
Click to expand...

I'm serious though. In my mind, I have no doubt that it was a fumble before it got to the plane. However, I don't see the video proof to justify that conjecture. Play should stand based on that video footage.
 
#119
#119
I was at the game, and after the first replay I knew it was a touchback.

Should have slammed it down on the ground. Team played tough. That one stung a little.
 
#120
#120
SamRebel35 said:
Absolutely not. That video does not show conclusively that Pig lost the ball before it broke the plane. We all conjecture that it must have been that way, but the video doesn't show it that way. Not orange tinted glasses. Just an understanding of what "inconclusive" and "burden of proof" mean. I honestly can't see how that is overturned.
Click to expand...

It clearly shows he fumbled..you are ignoring it
 
#121
#121
blueblood said:
A player has to have control of the ball to have possession. It takes more than just touching it. Do you disagree with this rule?
Click to expand...

I think you've oversimplified it somewhat. If he has a 5 yard lead and lays the ball out in front of him on a flat palm as he touches the GL, they would say he had control.

But, what is more complex is that this call was OVERTURNED by "conclusive" video evidence that he lost control BEFORE touching the front of the goal line. If a big curtain blocked everything past the front of the goal line from the cameras, then I say they would NOT overturn this call. I believe they saw the results AFTER crossing the plane and ASSUMED that he lost control before the plane. When in fact, NOTHING after the plane should have any bearing whatsoever.

For example, if after the G/L the ball stuck like super glue to the tips of Pigs fingers and he got up with it still there, then they would have never even replayed it. My argument is that forbidden/tainted "evidence" was used to make a CONCLUSIVE ruling to change the on-field call.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#122
#122
JohnnyBall said:
It clearly shows he fumbled..you are ignoring it
Click to expand...

Nothing "clear" regarding that view of the play. It is an unverified assumption that he fumbled. Can you tell me the precise moment that control was lost? If not, then how can you know that control was actually lost prior to crossing the line?
 
#123
#123
livefaith said:
I think you've oversimplified it somewhat. If he has a 5 yard lead and lays the ball out in front of him on a flat palm as he touches the GL, they would say he had control.

But, what is more complex is that this call was OVERTURNED by "conclusive" video evidence that he lost control BEFORE touching the front of the goal line. If a big curtain blocked everything past the front of the goal line from the cameras, then I say they would NOT overturn this call. I believe they saw the results AFTER crossing the plane and ASSUMED that he lost control before the plane. When in fact, NOTHING after the plane should have any bearing whatsoever.

For example, if after the G/L the ball stuck like super glue to the tips of Pigs fingers and he got up with it still there, then they would have never even replayed it. My argument is that forbidden/tainted "evidence" was used to make a CONCLUSIVE ruling to change the on-field call.
Click to expand...

This
 
#124
#124
JohnnyBall said:
It clearly shows he fumbled..you are ignoring it
Click to expand...

Johnny, did it conclusively show that he fumbled IF you had seen nothing more than that play until the ball touched the front of the G/L? Everything after that is inadmissable to overturn the on-field ruling of TD.
 
#125
#125
Pig gave his all for Tennessee on that play. I will not fault him for that. Our luck sucked, but he was putting everything on the line to win that game and I love him for that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top