I don't know if it would have made a difference, but that was BS.
You could not see it enough to overturn it.
Printable View
I don't know if it would have made a difference, but that was BS.
You could not see it enough to overturn it.
The overhead view clearly showed that it was a TD. His waist was at the goal line.
No, it didn't. While I personally think he got it, there wasn't "indisputable video evidence", which is the required standard, needed to overturn the play. 1) You couldn't see the ball clearly and 2) the overhead camera was at an angle, not right over the goal line. However it was called on the field should have stood. If they'd ruled a TD, that should've stood. But there wasn't enough from any angle to clearly overturn the call.Quote:
Originally Posted by TXDawg
of the body tells you the ball had to be over the goal line but the video doesn't support it, therefore, it's NOT a TD. That was huge. That and the false start before half killed us. Difference in the game. Well, that and the interception Dak threw in the endzone.
It was a touchdown plain and simple
Yes we all saw it but by rule they couldnt tell itQuote:
Originally Posted by civildawg
Yes, but could you see that the ball had crossed the plane or are you just assuming that it did? Am I wrong to assume that you must have 100% video evidence to over turn a call on the field?Quote:
Originally Posted by TXDawg
It was a tough one. I think to any reasonable human being, you know he was in. However, it wasn't conclusive evidence and the rule says there has to be.
That being said, I'm not upset about it because I know he scored.
It was definitely a TD, but according to the rule book, they really didn't have evidence to overturn it. It's hard for me to ask for a favor from the refs on a clear TD. I knew they would never give us that call in Tuscaloosa
This is what I was trying to say, but Shotgun said it betterQuote:
Originally Posted by ShotgunDawg
That was bull shit. The overhead view was at an angle and was not a straight up view. The ball is what has to cross the goal line not the RB. It should have not been overturned based on indisputable evidence. Gary also is an idiot and should have never really said anything. The straight on view that was at the goal line showed that the refs had it right and he did not get in. Based off of that is should has been a fumble.Quote:
Originally Posted by TXDawg
Neither of Dak's first two picks hurt us that bad. The first one was on 3rd down on a long pass that they caught at their own 20. It amounted to a short punt. The second one was bad at the time, but we got a 3 and out and got the ball back a minute and a half later in the same spot where we turned it over. The third pick was a killer though...cost us valuable clock time late in the 4th and ended up being the nail in the coffin.Quote:
Originally Posted by Saltydog
I think you said it pretty well. However, there should be something said about it or just change the rule to, "If it looks like it might have happened then it's o.k. to change the call"Quote:
Originally Posted by CadaverDawg
This x 1000Quote:
Originally Posted by CadaverDawg
It was a TD. If it had been us, I don't believe it would've been overturned. In terms of plays I wish we could redo, that one doesn't register.
It looked like he probably scored. But I never saw a shot of indisputable video evidence. It was more like "here he was on this view, and here he was on this view, so the ball had to cross the goaline...right?"
I've seen much more clear evidence not be over turned. But when you have 3 turnovers and your opponent has zero it's hard to win.
come on guys, it was a TD. We lost this game due to our inability to get off the field on 3rd downs. Mullen's horseshit playcalling in the first half. Dak's horrible picks. Jameon's drop. Malone's false start. And our shitty ass punting. We are a good fcking team that played like sheeet.Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnnyQuid
Im more bitter about that play now than I was when it happened. When it happened my opinion was : You cant put yourself in positions where calls like this matter at bama, cos you know what happens; and considering how shitty we were playing atm, meh.Quote:
Originally Posted by turkish
exactly... im not mad about that play.Quote:
Originally Posted by ShotgunDawg
the tackle of wilson in the first half..was pretty bad though.
I agree with everything, but by "le rules" you cant overturn that play on what u see. Gary D. has bamas johnson halfway down his throat the entire game and he barely was able to insist this shoulda been a TD.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoopsDawg
I'm not saying we lost because of it, but its worth noting.
We lost mainly because Sims killed us running on 3rd down.
Should have not been overturned. Wasn't a TD but we will just agree to disagree. You can't base it on the overhead angle because physics makes your eyes play tricks with where the ball is. The straight up view was inconclusive and that is what you should base your decision on. It was inconclusive and therefore should not have been overturned.
Yup.Quote:
Originally Posted by MarketingBully01
Well, Gary thought it was a TD, so thats all that matters.
Actually, they can time synch multiple views and use evidence from both views to make the call.Quote:
Originally Posted by shoeless joe
At the end of the day, it was a TD and that call didn't lose the game for us. Our tight play in the 1st half and our questionable play calling did. D played a hell of a game and Dak came back strong in the second half. The tipped INT was bad luck (would've been a TD if completed) and the multiple drops cost us big.
Glad we fought hard and made it respectable, but we should've won that game.