(10-15-2019 01:45 PM)RekeHavoc Wrote:  I bet if the shoe were on the other foot and that call had gone against Temple, we'd all be in here defending the officiating to the death lol.

This is the best post of this thread. Well put.

The Tigers had four turnovers. The refs could have ruled in UofM's favor ... yet the Tigers STILL could have lost.

Let's put it this way: If Memphis, hypothetically, had recorded no turnovers and had the Magnifico catch been in the endzone on the last play of the game — and overturned ... my father and I would have been furious watching at home.

But it looked as it the ball hit the ground and the refs were correct to overturn. Now to be fair, I can see the argument some of you are making to let the original call stay. Regardless, and as it was ... I accept the loss like an adult and move on.

(10-15-2019 04:16 PM)RekeHavoc Wrote:  

(10-15-2019 03:58 PM)mairving Wrote:  

(10-15-2019 03:53 PM)Tiger87 Wrote:  

(10-15-2019 01:45 PM)RekeHavoc Wrote:  I bet if the shoe were on the other foot and that call had gone against Temple, we'd all be in here defending the officiating to the death lol.

No, not all of us. lol

There are obviously plenty here would be arguing the opposite. In fact it would be the same ones arguing, just from a different position.

The same ones telling us to get over it, it didn't cost us the game - would be arguing that Temple was robbed.

I think most people just want to see the same indisputable evidence that only the officials saw although they changed that story once from the refs looked at the same evidence that was on TV to the refs had another view. If there is another indisputable view that the ball hit the ground release it and the case is closed.

It's freely available if you search for it. I saw it on YouTube and Twitter also I think. It is the view from what looks like their end zone. The other angles from behind our line of scrimmage are worthless.

That shot is the last shot they showed during the broadcast. You still can't tell the if the ball hit the ground

Yo OP, thanks for trying to take the high road. However, that call absolutely decided the game. No denying it. If it's a catch we run clock until game winning FG. If ruled not a catch, Temple runs out game clock. Up until that point, you can say we were the better team but shot ourselves in the foot. We got the game back to that point (where we were in the driver's seat). That call deemed us the loser.

(10-15-2019 09:50 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(10-15-2019 01:45 PM)RekeHavoc Wrote:  I bet if the shoe were on the other foot and that call had gone against Temple, we'd all be in here defending the officiating to the death lol.

This is the best post of this thread. Well put.

The Tigers had four turnovers. The refs could have ruled in UofM's favor ... yet the Tigers STILL could have lost.

Let's put it this way: If Memphis, hypothetically, had recorded no turnovers and had the Magnifico catch been in the endzone on the last play of the game — and overturned ... my father and I would have been furious watching at home.

But it looked as it the ball hit the ground and the refs were correct to overturn. Now to be fair, I can see the argument some of you are making to let the original call stay. Regardless, and as it was ... I accept the loss like an adult and move on.

First off some of you need to get your eyes checked. There is no angle that clearly shows the ball hit the ground. It doesn't matter if it looked like it did there has to be indisputable evidence that the ball 100% hit the ground for them to overturn the call. The replay officials job is not to make a judgment call. His job is to confirm it, say call stands, or overturn by having indisputable evidence. The correct call should've been call on the field stands. If that happened to Temple I would've said they got screwed as I'm sure most people would.

Second not one person has said the turnovers didn't cost Memphis the game. What people have said is despite the turnovers Memphis had overcome them and were in position for a chance to win the game until the officials inexplicably took it away from them. That's why people are pissed and they have every right to be.

Heck you could tell that Norvell was still pissed on Monday during his press conference.

In my mind it was a catch. He had the ball going to the ground. Even if the ball hit the ground, he didn’t trap it and the ground can not cause a fumble. He never let the ball get away from him.

(10-14-2019 06:23 PM)Keeper Wrote:  No they didn't. The Tigers lost the game. Instead of 3 turnovers in the first quarter, how about two turnovers and then the Tigers score a touchdown. 13 to 7. The outcome would have been much better. Brady White is a Tiger. The Tigers turned the ball over to often, that is why the Tigers are 5 and 1.

To some extent, that's like saying the Chalmers' shot wasn't what cost Memphis the NCAA title.

(10-16-2019 09:38 AM)salukiblue Wrote:  

(10-14-2019 06:23 PM)Keeper Wrote:  No they didn't. The Tigers lost the game. Instead of 3 turnovers in the first quarter, how about two turnovers and then the Tigers score a touchdown. 13 to 7. The outcome would have been much better. Brady White is a Tiger. The Tigers turned the ball over to often, that is why the Tigers are 5 and 1.

To some extent, that's like saying the Chalmers' shot wasn't what cost Memphis the NCAA title.

Bingo

(10-16-2019 09:38 AM)salukiblue Wrote:  

(10-14-2019 06:23 PM)Keeper Wrote:  No they didn't. The Tigers lost the game. Instead of 3 turnovers in the first quarter, how about two turnovers and then the Tigers score a touchdown. 13 to 7. The outcome would have been much better. Brady White is a Tiger. The Tigers turned the ball over to often, that is why the Tigers are 5 and 1.

To some extent, that's like saying the Chalmers' shot wasn't what cost Memphis the NCAA title.

Yeah, I'm not sure why everyone always focuses on Chalmers' shot. There was a sequence in the first half where Taggart missed a 3 & KU scored 2, and then Rose missed a 2 & KU scored 2 more. That obviously cost us the game. They don't miss those shots, we win.

(10-16-2019 09:38 AM)salukiblue Wrote:  

(10-14-2019 06:23 PM)Keeper Wrote:  No they didn't. The Tigers lost the game. Instead of 3 turnovers in the first quarter, how about two turnovers and then the Tigers score a touchdown. 13 to 7. The outcome would have been much better. Brady White is a Tiger. The Tigers turned the ball over to often, that is why the Tigers are 5 and 1.

To some extent, that's like saying the Chalmers' shot wasn't what cost Memphis the NCAA title.

the reason this pos Referee's call is so wrong is that he had all the time in the world to make the call, had replays and made a bogus call. Anyone could make a bad call. It take a special kind of incompetent(or corrupt) azzhole to OVERTURN a call without clear and incontrovertible evidence. (like the rule says)

(10-16-2019 10:21 AM)BinghamptonNed Wrote:  

(10-16-2019 09:38 AM)salukiblue Wrote:  

(10-14-2019 06:23 PM)Keeper Wrote:  No they didn't. The Tigers lost the game. Instead of 3 turnovers in the first quarter, how about two turnovers and then the Tigers score a touchdown. 13 to 7. The outcome would have been much better. Brady White is a Tiger. The Tigers turned the ball over to often, that is why the Tigers are 5 and 1.

To some extent, that's like saying the Chalmers' shot wasn't what cost Memphis the NCAA title.

the reason this pos Referee's call is so wrong is that he had all the time in the world to make the call, had replays and made a bogus call. Anyone could make a bad call. It take a special kind of incompetent(or corrupt) azzhole to OVERTURN a call without clear and incontrovertible evidence. (like the rule says)

I agree and was disputing the notion that that call "wasn't what cost Memphis the game."

In the end, it's the end that matters.

(10-15-2019 10:06 AM)EarthBoundMisfit Wrote:  

(10-15-2019 07:55 AM)uskjtc02 Wrote:  Silly argument. All things led to the loss. The turnovers (for sure) and the overturned call at the end (for sure).

yeah...you cannot turn the ball over 4 times in a game against a good opponent and expect to win.
We had 4 turnovers against Navy last year and lost 22-21.

I can expect to win if we have 4 turnovers. Especially if the other team has 2 turnovers of their own.

Turnovers change the flow of the game at the moment of the turnover, but at the time of the call, the Tigers were marching down the field to score and take the lead -- even after those 4 turnovers.

Had the pass been batted down or thrown grossly short or over then we failed to execute.

However, we did execute and the ruling on the field agreed with that -- we did execute.

A judgement call -- as admitted by the league -- was used to overturn a call on the field. Not indisputable evidence, but a judgement call. In this sense, regardless of whether or not it was a completion, the refs violated replay policy.

(10-15-2019 03:58 PM)mairving Wrote:  

(10-15-2019 03:53 PM)Tiger87 Wrote:  

(10-15-2019 01:45 PM)RekeHavoc Wrote:  I bet if the shoe were on the other foot and that call had gone against Temple, we'd all be in here defending the officiating to the death lol.

No, not all of us. lol

There are obviously plenty here would be arguing the opposite. In fact it would be the same ones arguing, just from a different position.

The same ones telling us to get over it, it didn't cost us the game - would be arguing that Temple was robbed.

I think most people just want to see the same indisputable evidence that only the officials saw although they changed that story once from the refs looked at the same evidence that was on TV to the refs had another view. If there is another indisputable view that the ball hit the ground release it and the case is closed.

There was nothing indisputable on that play to overturn the call. We were screwed. Case closed.

(10-16-2019 08:20 AM)gusrob Wrote:  Yo OP, thanks for trying to take the high road. However, that call absolutely decided the game. No denying it. If it's a catch we run clock until game winning FG. If ruled not a catch, Temple runs out game clock. Up until that point, you can say we were the better team but shot ourselves in the foot. We got the game back to that point (where we were in the driver's seat). That call deemed us the loser.

As to your "If it's a catch we run clock until game winning FG." ...

... Memphis could have shanked the kick or had it blocked. Or the holder could have fumbled. We'll never know. So to say the Tigers would have won the game had the call not been reversed ... I don't agree.

I do feel, however, Memphis would have had strong chance to win had the call stood.

(10-16-2019 03:18 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(10-16-2019 08:20 AM)gusrob Wrote:  Yo OP, thanks for trying to take the high road. However, that call absolutely decided the game. No denying it. If it's a catch we run clock until game winning FG. If ruled not a catch, Temple runs out game clock. Up until that point, you can say we were the better team but shot ourselves in the foot. We got the game back to that point (where we were in the driver's seat). That call deemed us the loser.

As to your "If it's a catch we run clock until game winning FG." ...

... Memphis could have shanked the kick or had it blocked. Or the holder could have fumbled. We'll never know. So to say the Tigers would have won the game had the call not been reversed ... I don't agree.

I do feel, however, Memphis would have had strong chance to win had the call stood.

If history is any indicator, we probably would have gotten 2 false starts and knocked ourselves out of FG range anyway lol. But I think most are arguing that they feel we should have been given the chance to win the game.

(10-16-2019 03:18 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(10-16-2019 08:20 AM)gusrob Wrote:  Yo OP, thanks for trying to take the high road. However, that call absolutely decided the game. No denying it. If it's a catch we run clock until game winning FG. If ruled not a catch, Temple runs out game clock. Up until that point, you can say we were the better team but shot ourselves in the foot. We got the game back to that point (where we were in the driver's seat). That call deemed us the loser.

As to your "If it's a catch we run clock until game winning FG." ...

... Memphis could have shanked the kick or had it blocked. Or the holder could have fumbled. We'll never know. So to say the Tigers would have won the game had the call not been reversed ... I don't agree.

I do feel, however, Memphis would have had strong chance to win had the call stood.

I think we would have run our offense and not run clock. We had momentum and would have tried for at least another first down.

We should have had the chance. Nothing was given. But it should have been decided on the field - instead of in a dark, smoky room. When they inexplicably ruled to overturn, they ended the game off the field.

(10-16-2019 04:25 PM)Tiger87 Wrote:  

(10-16-2019 03:18 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(10-16-2019 08:20 AM)gusrob Wrote:  Yo OP, thanks for trying to take the high road. However, that call absolutely decided the game. No denying it. If it's a catch we run clock until game winning FG. If ruled not a catch, Temple runs out game clock. Up until that point, you can say we were the better team but shot ourselves in the foot. We got the game back to that point (where we were in the driver's seat). That call deemed us the loser.

As to your "If it's a catch we run clock until game winning FG." ...

... Memphis could have shanked the kick or had it blocked. Or the holder could have fumbled. We'll never know. So to say the Tigers would have won the game had the call not been reversed ... I don't agree.

I do feel, however, Memphis would have had strong chance to win had the call stood.

I think we would have run our offense and not run clock. We had momentum and would have tried for at least another first down.

We should have had the chance. Nothing was given. But it should have been decided on the field - instead of in a dark, smoky room. When they inexplicably ruled to overturn, they ended the game off the field.

Maybe. I feel we should have taken care of the ball and been up 2 scores and never been in that situation to begin with. You can only control the things you can control.

(10-16-2019 04:54 PM)RekeHavoc Wrote:  

(10-16-2019 04:25 PM)Tiger87 Wrote:  

(10-16-2019 03:18 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(10-16-2019 08:20 AM)gusrob Wrote:  Yo OP, thanks for trying to take the high road. However, that call absolutely decided the game. No denying it. If it's a catch we run clock until game winning FG. If ruled not a catch, Temple runs out game clock. Up until that point, you can say we were the better team but shot ourselves in the foot. We got the game back to that point (where we were in the driver's seat). That call deemed us the loser.

As to your "If it's a catch we run clock until game winning FG." ...

... Memphis could have shanked the kick or had it blocked. Or the holder could have fumbled. We'll never know. So to say the Tigers would have won the game had the call not been reversed ... I don't agree.

I do feel, however, Memphis would have had strong chance to win had the call stood.

I think we would have run our offense and not run clock. We had momentum and would have tried for at least another first down.

We should have had the chance. Nothing was given. But it should have been decided on the field - instead of in a dark, smoky room. When they inexplicably ruled to overturn, they ended the game off the field.

Maybe. I feel we should have taken care of the ball and been up 2 scores and never been in that situation to begin with. You can only control the things you can control.

And I have to wonder if the scenario had been reversed: that is, Temple seemingly makes the catch (down two but having made four turnovers earlier in the game). The refs initially rule a catch and then overturn. My gut feeling is that 99 percent of us on this board (myself included) would have said, "That's the right call ref. The ball hit the ground. Plus, I don't feel sorry for Temple. They've had four turnovers."

I simply sometimes see a double-standard with fans (of all schools). I've been guilty of being hyper-partisan, too. But I try to catch myself and be honest with myself and reel it in.

Yes, it would have been nice to have had a chance to win the game. I get it. The Tigers lost. Moving on.

(10-16-2019 04:54 PM)RekeHavoc Wrote:  

(10-16-2019 04:25 PM)Tiger87 Wrote:  

(10-16-2019 03:18 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(10-16-2019 08:20 AM)gusrob Wrote:  Yo OP, thanks for trying to take the high road. However, that call absolutely decided the game. No denying it. If it's a catch we run clock until game winning FG. If ruled not a catch, Temple runs out game clock. Up until that point, you can say we were the better team but shot ourselves in the foot. We got the game back to that point (where we were in the driver's seat). That call deemed us the loser.

As to your "If it's a catch we run clock until game winning FG." ...

... Memphis could have shanked the kick or had it blocked. Or the holder could have fumbled. We'll never know. So to say the Tigers would have won the game had the call not been reversed ... I don't agree.

I do feel, however, Memphis would have had strong chance to win had the call stood.

I think we would have run our offense and not run clock. We had momentum and would have tried for at least another first down.

We should have had the chance. Nothing was given. But it should have been decided on the field - instead of in a dark, smoky room. When they inexplicably ruled to overturn, they ended the game off the field.

Maybe. I feel we should have taken care of the ball and been up 2 scores and never been in that situation to begin with. You can only control the things you can control.

That's a lame cop-out. It's fine for coaches to say - what else can they say and keep the team. It's silly for fans. All events in a football game, lead to the next event.

Sure, it's likely we would have won. You can say that on many other things. Also, had we not turned it over, Temple may have been aggressively playing from behind and scored TDs rather than kick FG's. The game is a live sequence of events. Precious Achiawa would say it's symbiotic.

Calkins had a good retort to this silly argument. A guy wakes up late for work. He rushes out the door without breakfast. He decides he has to get something to eat, so he heads to a diner across the road. He steps in front of a bus and gets killed. What killed him? Sure, if he hadn't woken late he might not have stepped in front of the bus. Or if he had waited to eat. But the ME's report will not say he was killed because he was late or hungry. It will say he was killed by getting run over by a bus.

(10-16-2019 05:17 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  And I have to wonder if the scenario had been reversed: that is, Temple seemingly makes the catch (down two but having made four turnovers earlier in the game). The refs initially rule a catch and then overturn. My gut feeling is that 99 percent of us on this board (myself included) would have said, "That's the right call ref. The ball hit the ground. Plus, I don't feel sorry for Temple. They've had four turnovers."

I simply sometimes see a double-standard with fans (of all schools). I've been guilty of being hyper-partisan, too. But I try to catch myself and be honest with myself and reel it in.

Yes, it would have been nice to have had a chance to win the game. I get it. The Tigers lost. Moving on.

That cuts both ways. Many here are "fans" who would be arguing the we stole the game from Temple. (Hint: they really aren't Memphis football fans.)

my innocence got stolen