The fix is in...
- Thread starter ISUFan22
- Start date
469/524-1000. That's the number to the Big 12 office. Maybe if enough of us bother them the light will come on.
CycloneErik
Well-Known Member
Cyclonepride
Thought Police
The still "proof" they showed had the ball hovering about the ground. If it takes half an hour to come up with that, you don't overturn it. Oh well, let's beat their *** anyway.
They showed it. They just didn't zoom in. I thought it was the correct call right away, but didn't feel like coming here to get ridiculed.
It was a good call. It was hard to tell during the TV review because they didn't slow it down enough to tell. But they showed another still view now and the ball hit the ground.
KidSilverhair
Well-Known Member
Even so ... let's look at "indisputable evidence" and how the Big XII interprets it.
Last week in the Iowa-Indiana game, Beathard goes airborne at the goal line at the end of the first half. The ball gets knocked out of his arms by a defender's helmet, but it's called a touchdown. They review the play, of course, because it was really close as to "breaking the plane" before the ball came out. The B1G review guy looks at it for about six seconds, says, "Ehh, I can't tell either way. Call stands."
Big XII replay officials take a play that has hardly any reason to be reviewed. They look at it for twenty, thirty, fifty seconds, until they can find something to justify changing the call on the field. Not just with this call today, mind you - remember last year in Stillwater at the end of the first half? No way that ball broke the plane, but it got overturned then.
"Indisputable evidence" needs to be, you know, indisputable. If the officials blatantly miss a call on the field, change it. Otherwise, leave it the frak alone.
Last week in the Iowa-Indiana game, Beathard goes airborne at the goal line at the end of the first half. The ball gets knocked out of his arms by a defender's helmet, but it's called a touchdown. They review the play, of course, because it was really close as to "breaking the plane" before the ball came out. The B1G review guy looks at it for about six seconds, says, "Ehh, I can't tell either way. Call stands."
Big XII replay officials take a play that has hardly any reason to be reviewed. They look at it for twenty, thirty, fifty seconds, until they can find something to justify changing the call on the field. Not just with this call today, mind you - remember last year in Stillwater at the end of the first half? No way that ball broke the plane, but it got overturned then.
"Indisputable evidence" needs to be, you know, indisputable. If the officials blatantly miss a call on the field, change it. Otherwise, leave it the frak alone.
Then the b1g is doing it incorrectly. The ball hit the ground, it then moved in his arms. It was the correct call, get over it.
Cyclonepride
Thought Police
No, there wasn't. I didn't see one replay where the ball was loose before he rolled.
KidSilverhair
Well-Known Member
Baloney. In this case, the B1G is actually doing it exactly right. The reason for replay is to make sure the onfield officials don't miss anything. It's not to watch replays from six different angles for twenty minutes to see in one view that the ball moved an inch or two.
The default position needs to be go with the call on the field, unless there's OBVIOUS evidence in a replay that they got it wrong on the field. OBVIOUS as in, you see it right away. If it takes you a minute or more of watching video to change the call, THEN you're doing it wrong.
In this particular case, it looks like there was one angle where the ball could be seen as touching the ground as Ryen rolled over. Eh, okay. Opinions can vary on whether that's "obvious," but I guess I can see that. Care to defend the touchdown call in Stillwater last year? The non-fumble with Texas a couple of years ago? You see where the Big XII replay officials have exactly zero legs to stand on here?
