Screenshot of the overturned TD in OT

[Wexahu]

Interesting angle. You'd think this guy, that called it a TD had a good view.

Oddly enough, I'd say his foot looks more out of bounds there than maybe any other picture I've seen.

 

[MTfrog5]

Oddly enough, I'd say his foot looks more out of bounds there than maybe any other picture I've seen.

Have to remember his heel is off the ground so you can’t really tell for sure

 

[Dogfrog]

And, the decision isn't always made by the RO in the booth. Most large conferences have other officials in a central command center that helps collaborate to deliver the decision.

Aha! Central Command - Blowsby, Hancock, and Wexahu.

 

[Mean Purple]

Oddly enough, I'd say his foot looks more out of bounds there than maybe any other picture I've seen.

Only his ball and toe of the foot is touching there. but yes, the angle is a bad view. as were most. however, there are two views that show him in a good spot. regardless, that is why you don't overturn unless it is indisputable.

 

[Mean Purple]

The irony here is this could cost the big 12 money. If Tech and TCU each get 5 wins and don't make bowl games, those calls are going to raise expensive questions.

 

[CountryFrog]

Oddly enough, I'd say his foot looks more out of bounds there than maybe any other picture I've seen.

Just shows how different camera angles can provide vastly different views. That picture is actually his step at the 6 yard line, which is not even the step that was in dispute as every single other angle shows him to pretty clearly be in at that point.

 

[Wexahu]

The irony here is this could cost the big 12 money. If Tech and TCU each get 5 wins and don't make bowl games, those calls are going to raise expensive questions.

I highly doubt the impact on conference money that certain calls have will ever come up in officials performance reviews. Hell, we can't even seem to be able to figure out what calls "cost" money. Just last night someone was arguing that the officials were predisposed to want Baylor to win because that meant the conference would make more money. Now you're suggesting its the opposite, that costing TCU a win here might be expensive for the B12.

I think I saw something last year where the Big 10 actually made more money by not having a team in the playoffs because they had 3 NY6 teams or something like that. Bottom line is people just want to assume there are people out to get their team when a call goes against them rather than realizing that refs aren't going to call a perfect game. It would be so easy for refs to "fix" a game if they really wanted to, and if they did want to they wouldn't let it come down to the last play in a game.

 

[Wexahu]

Aha! Central Command - Blowsby, Hancock, and Wexahu.

Don't forget Alvarez.

 

[Eight]

The irony here is this could cost the big 12 money. If Tech and TCU each get 5 wins and don't make bowl games, those calls are going to raise expensive questions.

how much does the conference make off two bad bowl games versus having a participant in the cfp?

how much more important is it for the perception of the conference to have a team included that being left out as in the case of the pac?

 

[Frog-in-law1995]

Just so I know who to take seriously going forward, those of y’all who are only joking about a conspiracy to let Baylor win, please raise your hands.

 

[Wexahu]

Just shows how different camera angles can provide vastly different views. That picture is actually his step at the 6 yard line, which is not even the step that was in dispute as every single other angle shows him to pretty clearly be in at that point.

I'd say to these people that keep posting these screen shots, at least make sure it's a picture of the right step you are posting, or else it comes across as very agenda driven. This obviously isn't it because they didn't give us the ball on the 6-yard line.

For what it's worth, I've got a couple of non-TCU affiliated friends who don't really follow a certain college team that texted me when they were reviewing that play....I was at the game. Both initially said not enough to overturn, then after apparently seeing another angle they said, well, maybe it is. They thought he was barely out. I just think everyone is making way too big a deal out of it. After this play we had 1st and goal at the 1 and weren't good enough to score, that's the only reason anyone is talking about this in the first place.

 

[Mean Purple]

how much does the conference make off two bad bowl games versus having a participant in the cfp?

how much more important is it for the perception of the conference to have a team included that being left out as in the case of the pac?

I dont see an undefeated team coming out of this league. There are one loss sec and big ten teams that would go first.

 

[Mean Purple]

I highly doubt the impact on conference money that certain calls have will ever come up in officials performance reviews. Hell, we can't even seem to be able to figure out what calls "cost" money. Just last night someone was arguing that the officials were predisposed to want Baylor to win because that meant the conference would make more money. Now you're suggesting its the opposite, that costing TCU a win here might be expensive for the B12.

I think I saw something last year where the Big 10 actually made more money by not having a team in the playoffs because they had 3 NY6 teams or something like that. Bottom line is people just want to assume there are people out to get their team when a call goes against them rather than realizing that refs aren't going to call a perfect game. It would be so easy for refs to "fix" a game if they really wanted to, and if they did want to they wouldn't let it come down to the last play in a game.

If you have someone Tech were to only get 5, you can count on people raising a stink. To miss a bowl and know a really bad call had impact on how a loss happened, yeah, folks will be upset.

 

[Mean Purple]

I'd say to these people that keep posting these screen shots, at least make sure it's a picture of the right step you are posting, or else it comes across as very agenda driven. This obviously isn't it because they didn't give us the ball on the 6-yard line.

For what it's worth, I've got a couple of non-TCU affiliated friends who don't really follow a certain college team that texted me when they were reviewing that play....I was at the game. Both initially said not enough to overturn, then after apparently seeing another angle they said, well, maybe it is. They thought he was barely out. I just think everyone is making way too big a deal out of it. After this play we had 1st and goal at the 1 and weren't good enough to score, that's the only reason anyone is talking about this in the first place.

A "maybe" ain't the benchmark to overturn. It was a bad call. Regardless of what happened after, it was a controversial call that took points off the board. It impacts the outcome.

 

[AroundWorldFrog]

Just shows how different camera angles can provide vastly different views. That picture is actually his step at the 6 yard line, which is not even the step that was in dispute as every single other angle shows him to pretty clearly be in at that point.

I think the point of that tweet was that there was a side judge looking right down the scheissing line and ruled him in. The ref didn't move in 0.5 seconds.

 

[MTfrog5]

Do I think he stepped out? Yes. Have I seen anything that shows he 100% sure stepped out? No

 

[AroundWorldFrog]

Just so I know who to take seriously going forward, those of y’all who are only joking about a conspiracy to let Baylor win, please raise your hands.

 

[AroundWorldFrog]

Do I think he stepped out? Yes. Have I seen anything that shows he 100% sure stepped out? No

Kind of in the same boat. There was zero incontrovertible evidence to overturn the call.

 

[CountryFrog]

I think the point of that tweet was that there was a side judge looking right down the scheissing line and ruled him in. The ref didn't move in 0.5 seconds.

Yes, I understand that. My post was simply a response to the post I was replying to that was talking about how his foot looks to be out in that picture. The point of the original tweet is clear and I'm not debating that.

 

[CountryFrog]

I'd say to these people that keep posting these screen shots, at least make sure it's a picture of the right step you are posting, or else it comes across as very agenda driven. This obviously isn't it because they didn't give us the ball on the 6-yard line.

For what it's worth, I've got a couple of non-TCU affiliated friends who don't really follow a certain college team that texted me when they were reviewing that play....I was at the game. Both initially said not enough to overturn, then after apparently seeing another angle they said, well, maybe it is. They thought he was barely out. I just think everyone is making way too big a deal out of it. After this play we had 1st and goal at the 1 and weren't good enough to score, that's the only reason anyone is talking about this in the first place.

I really don't understand people who think that it's not a big deal for the officials to wrongly take a TD off the board simply because our offense isn't very good. It's not an either/or scenario. Our offense screwed up massively, not just there but throughout the game. The officials also screwed this up massively. Neither of those things being true make the other ok.

Of course the giant difference is that the officials have the benefit of watching one replay after another after another in super slow motion as many times as they need and STILL screwed it up. Unfortunately the job of the players on the field is slightly more difficult.