There was no way the officials, replay booth or God himself was going to end that game on a reply call. I can hear the conversations on the headphones now.
Umpire, "Gee whiz guys, I'm not ending this game on a judgement call."
Reply Booth, "You don't expect me to over turn the spot, do you?"
Umpire to his crew, "This is a wild ending, we can't take this away from FIU, hook and ladder, pretty cool."
Replay Booth, "I'm not making that call, hey is there any pizza left?"
Umpire, "what are you guys doing after the game?"
Replay Booth, " We're heading to greek town, hey Charlie pass the beer nuts."
Umpire, "This will look good on sports center tonight, FIU - 1st down!"

(01-05-2011 05:12 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  I don't think anyone is conclusively arguing that the call was correct. I certainly don't think it was and therefore am not.

But bottom line, it was a split-second judgement call with no full-proof video evidence to overturn it. If he had been ruled short that would not have changed under review either.

Time to let it go or enroll in a 12-step program.

Yes there was evidence. They had two camera angles to look at and both of them are on the ESPN broadcast. The first shows that the ball was parallel to and even slightly behind his torso body when his right foot last touched in bounds one yard short of the first down. The foot was extended out about 1-2 feet in front of his body as he struggled to get that foot to cross over enough to get it inbound. The other angle that shows the right foot landing inbounds (or close enough to allow it) shows that the ball is clearly beyond the sideline and not in the field of play.

What I'm curious about is why are you even here arguing and admonishing Toledo fans about letting it go? It's clear you wanted Toledo to lose the game and you refuse to acknowledge the video evidence available or the rules that govern how the play should have been called. Since you don't actually have a dog in this fight, why don't you go over to the FIU board and get into an agreement discussion with them as to how he was clearly in-bounds. I'm pretty sure they are in the same frame of mind about how the call was made and that there is no evidence to the contrary.