Illegal Snap Rule

[Eight]

uh, well, they scored for further out.

so you know how the game would have played out had tech been given the fumble?

yes, the officials blew the call. yes, it had an impact on the game, but to say the conference should give tech the win and that the call definitively cost tech the game when there were other plays after the botched call are wrong.

 

[Mean Purple]

so you know how the game would have played out had tech been given the fumble?

yes, the officials blew the call. yes, it had an impact on the game, but to say the conference should give tech the win and that the call definitively cost tech the game when there were other plays after the botched call are wrong.

Again, they scored when they got the ball.

 

[AroundWorldFrog]

so you know how the game would have played out had tech been given the fumble?

yes, the officials blew the call. yes, it had an impact on the game, but to say the conference should give tech the win and that the call definitively cost tech the game when there were other plays after the botched call are wrong.

Don't Baylor. Com'n, man. Probably 99% TTU wins there. They have a pretty good FG kicker that is 11/12 on the year.

 

[Eight]

Again, they scored when they got the ball.

no certainties

 

[Eight]

Don't Baylor. Com'n, man. Probably 99% TTU wins there. They have a pretty good FG kicker that is 11/12 on the year.

so does georgia, blankenship was 12 of 13 before that kick in overtime an d was 12 of 12 before his last two misses.

i understand some of you people hate baylor and hope you live your lives with this degree of certainty on the things that matter because sport continues to show us time and time again to expect the unexpected results.

 

[frog-hat]

It wasn’t a certainty that TT would have won. But I imagine the historical results are probably 80% or better when a team doesn’t score anything in OT

 

[AroundWorldFrog]

so does georgia, blankenship was 12 of 13 before that kick in overtime an d was 12 of 12 before his last two misses.

i understand some of you people hate baylor and hope you live your lives with this degree of certainty on the things that matter because sport continues to show us time and time again to expect the unexpected results.

No. It was an egregious error that changed the outcome of the game with about 99% certainly. I would hate it just as much if UT, OU, Bama, etc got that call.

 

[AroundWorldFrog]

One study showed about 79% loss rate for the first team not scoring in OT.

 

[Zubaz]

Again, they scored when they got the ball.

But you can't say for certainty that they would have under different circumstances. They probably would have, yes, but you can't say for certain that Baylor wouldn't have blocked Tech's FG from a different yardage, or that the kicker wouldn't have missed. You definitely can't overturn a game result on "probably".

This is in contrast to the CMU-Oklahoma State game from 2016, where the game clock should have expired and instead CMU was given an extra down because a rule was incorrectly applied. You can absolutely say that Oklahoma State should have won that game. That game was never overturned, so you can't possibly make the case that this one should be.

 

[Eight]

One study showed about 79% loss rate for the first team not scoring in OT.

so there was a 1 in 5 chance tech doesn't win that game if i understand the numbers which isn't exactly a lock.

 

[AroundWorldFrog]

It was a great call! Tech wouldn't have won anyway!

 

[Eight]

But you can't say for certainty that they would have under different circumstances. They probably would have, yes, but you can't say for certain that Baylor wouldn't have blocked Tech's FG from a different yardage, or that the kicker wouldn't have missed. You definitely can't overturn a game result on "probably".

This is in contrast to the CMU-Oklahoma State game from 2016, where the game clock should have expired and instead CMU was given an extra down because a rule was incorrectly applied. You can absolutely say that Oklahoma State should have won that game. That game was never overturned, so you can't possibly make the case that this one should be.

bingo, unless the mistake was made on the very last play there is no certainty.

after the play in question tech COULD have stopped baylor from scoring a touchdown, but they didn't and as result they went to the 2nd overtime.

tech COULD have scored a touchdown on their 2nd overtime offensive series, but didn't and ended up kicking a field goal.

tech knew they had to keep baylor from scoring a touchdown on baylor's final offensive series and COULD have, but did not.

 

[AroundWorldFrog]

The point is that Tech didn't get the chance to win in the first OT which they should have. And the odds are pretty damn good they would have. smh

 

[Eight]

It was a great call! Tech wouldn't have won anyway!

where did i defend the call? where did i say it was a good call?

i merely said that the idea that the conference could or should award tech a win because of the call was misguided because tech winning the game was not a certainty.

curious what you would be willing to wager if you were given an 80% chance of winning such it is such a lock.

 

[Eight]

The point is that Tech didn't get the chance to win in the first OT which they should have. And the odds are pretty damn good they would have. smh

yes, tech was given a chance.

they were given a chance to stop baylor after the fumble and they didn't do it.

the position they should have had to do it is different than the idea they weren't given a chance to win after the fumble because the idea they were denied that chance is flat wrong.

again, make the stop and keep baylor out of the endzone, but tech wasn't able to do it where they?

 

[Wexahu]

Baylor had some targeting on Iowa State that was not called.

With this admission by the big 12, the correct response is to correct the record, give Tech the win and give baylor the loss.

Surely this is a joke.

 

[AroundWorldFrog]

where did i defend the call? where did i say it was a good call?

i merely said that the idea that the conference could or should award tech a win because of the call was misguided because tech winning the game was not a certainty.

curious what you would be willing to wager if you were given an 80% chance of winning such it is such a lock.

Quite a bit. 80% is as good of a bet as you can probably find in college football. And given the two specific teams, I think it's a better chance.

No, you didn't say it was a good call. But you're saying it didn't matter when it obviously did.

 

[Eight]

Quite a bit. 80% is as good of a bet as you can probably find in college football. And given the two specific teams, I think it's a better chance.

No, you didn't say it was a good call. But you're saying it didn't matter when it obviously did.

no, i didn't say it didn't matter either.

what i have said multiple times and will for the last time is that tech had multiple chances other than the fumble to change the ending of the game and they didn't .

 

[Rabidfrog]

But you can't say for certainty that they would have under different circumstances. They probably would have, yes, but you can't say for certain that Baylor wouldn't have blocked Tech's FG from a different yardage, or that the kicker wouldn't have missed. You definitely can't overturn a game result on "probably".

This is in contrast to the CMU-Oklahoma State game from 2016, where the game clock should have expired and instead CMU was given an extra down because a rule was incorrectly applied. You can absolutely say that Oklahoma State should have won that game. That game was never overturned, so you can't possibly make the case that this one should be.

or the Nebraska UT championship game 8 or so years ago. Gave UT the chance to win after the clock had expired. Ref. put one more second on clock.

 

[TX_Krötenechse]

They can’t and shouldn’t give Tech the win, which would be unprecedented, but this was a huge call that almost certainly would have won the game for Tech.

Baylor fans are going on about a questionable non-call on intentional grounding in the end zone that would’ve been a safety, but that call, while questionable, was absolutely not on the same level as this.