If the ball came out before it crossed the goal line plane, which I clearly think it did, and UC declines the block in the back penalty, would not UC have had the ball on the 20 yard line?

(12-28-2014 08:05 PM)Cataclysmo Wrote:  

(12-28-2014 08:04 PM)Racinejake Wrote:  

(12-28-2014 08:02 PM)Cataclysmo Wrote:  They showed a few replays that made it seem close. However, of all the replays they did show, not one would have provided conclusive evidence to overturn the call. My guess is that they lacked a good angle

Really? All the ones I saw on TV looked conclusive that the ball was out on about the half yard line.

I disagree. It looked close. But in no way could I honestly say that the ball was out before the goal line. Quite frankly, I think a goal line shot would have been the only thing to suffice in that situation

They showed two angles on television. I could not tell by either angle for sure. You could see his feet were not in the endzone, but I was unsure about the ball.

(12-28-2014 08:29 PM)chatcat Wrote:  If the ball came out before it crossed the goal line plane, which I clearly think it did, and UC declines the block in the back penalty, would not UC have had the ball on the 20 yard line?

If they overturned the call on the field, yes. I think it was mishandled. It was not all or nothing. They could have challenged without first declining.

wouldn't have made that much of a difference. With Gunner out of the game and no Munchie to back up, the 3rd choice just didn't have the experience for this season. Maybe next year, he'll be more of a factor. UC needs to find a way to keep Kiel healthy. Amazing the stats he put up and only playing 1/2 a game sometimes.

(12-28-2014 08:32 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  

(12-28-2014 08:29 PM)chatcat Wrote:  If the ball came out before it crossed the goal line plane, which I clearly think it did, and UC declines the block in the back penalty, would not UC have had the ball on the 20 yard line?

If they overturned the call on the field, yes. I think it was mishandled. It was not all or nothing. They could have challenged without first declining.

Right. In the end I think it was just a complicated situation that those bush league officials didn't want to deal with.

(12-28-2014 08:28 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  So you made the trip superfan?

There was a replay. Our HC said he did not see it It was close enough that that needed to be looked at. It wasn't.

Marvin Lewis even thinks this discussion about challenging is silly.

There was no goal line replay on TV, nothing close to it.

Who effing said there was?

(12-28-2014 08:55 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  Who effing said there was?

How can you overturn a call without conclusive evidence? There is none. Post it if you got it along with your new head coach and assistants.

At that point in the game you have to challenge that play. No matter the perfect angle. The ball clearly came out and it looked like it did before it crossed the line. It did not bug me nearly as much until I just read our HC saying he did not see a replay. Which I reiterate is either bs or is baffling.

Remember the Pead TD against WVU at the goal line where he fumbled? there was a goal line angle.

What are you arguing, exactly? Perhaps read this thread again.

(12-28-2014 09:34 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  What are you arguing, exactly? Perhaps read this thread again.

Zero evidence to overturn the call. My lord show me the evidence.

I can't find a highlight of that play anywhere. All I know is that all 12 people at my house thought it was out before he crossed the goalline after seeing a couple of the replays. And not all of those people are UC homers like me.

The fact that reporters in the post bowl game presser were specifically asking our coach why we did not decide to challenge says all that needs to be said. It was close. I thought it came out.

It came out. The "when" is the problem. There was no way to conclusively overturn the call based on the camera angles. Build a bridge and get over it.

Jesus, some of you guys make me crave more chemo because you are so much worse to read than that ****.

(12-28-2014 10:43 PM)letharion Wrote:  It came out. The "when" is the problem. There was no way to conclusively overturn the call based on the camera angles. Build a bridge and get over it.

Jesus, some of you guys make me crave more chemo because you are so much worse to read than that ****.

How you feeling, brother?

I thought it came out before he got to the goal line, but from the replays they showed on TV, there was not an angle that would have been enough to over turn the call. Challenging it would have been a waste of a timeout.

The only travesty regarding this call was that the officials on the field did not seem to make any call. No TD, no touchback, no nothing, just a flag for a penalty a few yards back. Flag don't whistle the blow yo.

I disagree with those who are saying the officiating did not matter Saturday. Tech should have had 14 points wiped off the board (this play and the helmet to Kiel's chest should have been called). When Kiel went down the score would have only been 13-10 and I think the coaches would have called a different game the rest of the way.

That was a horrendous officiating crew, no question. Probably the worst I've seen this year. Total amateurs who were in over their heads.

I thought it was a fumble as well, but there wasn't a great camera angle on it, at least on ESPN. That said, you have to challenge in that situation IMO.