• The KillerFrogs

Screenshot of the overturned TD in OT

Mean Purple

Active Member
Bottom line, there is nothing that shows one way or the other. When that’s the case the call on the field stands. Pretty simple
ESPN crew calling the Clemson Game (Chris Fowler) pointed out how it was a "controversial call". Kudos to him for actually pointing it out.
Folks should show up with signs in Waco that say the Refs = 2 Games.
 

Realtorfrog

Full Member
Hopefully JD has already talked with Bowlsby about several calls but this one specifically!! Everyone should print it off and send to the big 12 offices. good job Big 12
 

netty2424

Full Member
Not all Baylor, but certainly made more than a few questionable calls. However, we don’t drop two balls in the end zone or throw a pick inside the red zone there is no OT.
We got lucky on a no call PI on Baylor’s sideline as well. Don’t remember who it was, but he got there way early and put the receiver out of bounds. Just knew a flag was coming out. Pretty sure that no call stalled that BU drive as well.
 
Uhhhh, Big12 needs someone ranked to get into the CFP... Refs were all Baylor today.
They called three penalties on BU their final drive in regulation.

Ironically, had they really been “in the bag,” they would have overlooked the false start on the play we intercepted, and we would have won the game right there —they threw the flag before the ball was intercepted.
 

texasrobster1997

Active Member
I must be blind. Every single video and screen shot I’ve seen looks like he is at the line. I’ve seen no shot where the white of the line is blurred. I would argue all the shots are in favor of him being IN BOUNDS. Certainly nothing to overturn either way, but I’m perplexed by all the “probably outs.” Not trying to be a homer, I just don’t see it.
 
Last edited:

Pharm Frog

Full Member
I must be blind. Every single video and screen shot I’ve seen looks like he is at the line. I’ve seen no shot where the white of the line is blurred. I would argue all the shots are in favor of him being IN BOUNDS. Certainly nothing to overturn either way, but I’m perplexed by all the “probably outs.” Not trying to be a homer, I just don’t see it.

Because there's nothing to see....unless you just want to see something.
 

Mean Purple

Active Member
I must be blind. Every single video and screen shot I’ve seen looks like he is at the line. I’ve seen no shot where the white of the line is blurred. I would argue all the shots are in favor of him being IN BOUNDS. Certainly nothing to overturn either way, but I’m perplexed by all the “probably outs.” Not trying to be a homer, I just don’t see it.
I don't think you are being a homer at all. I think most agree there was not enough to overturn. (as I mentioned, some on ESPN have said it was controversial this evening). I think some here take what is arguably a warranted angle is that it would not have mattered had the frogs executed at other times. I agree they should have and many of us agree that Cumbie made some bad decisions on calls right after that.

I think it does matter that they made the wrong call to overturn it. Because at that point, it DID have a major impact on the outcome of the game. Which is why they messed up twice there. A. if it is not indisputable, there is not enough there to overturn. And the tv guys were all over that. B. Refs should not change the outcome. And it can be argued that they did.
 

CountryFrog

Active Member
We got lucky on a no call PI on Baylor’s sideline as well. Don’t remember who it was, but he got there way early and put the receiver out of bounds. Just knew a flag was coming out. Pretty sure that no call stalled that BU drive as well.
If it's the one I'm thinking of, a PI was called on us a couple plays later so they made up for it.
 

Purp

Active Member
As I've said, I can totally see that. I can see "it's not indisputable so let the call on the field stand". I'd put it somewhere around 80-90% sure that some part of his foot stepped out. Is that enough to overturn a call? Tough to say.
This may have been covered by now, but by definition indisputable means 100% certainty.

99.9% certain = 0.1% disputable, which means the call should stand by rule.
 
Last edited:

Horny4TCU

Active Member
3fvb9f.jpg
 

TopFrog

Lifelong Frog
I don't think it matters.

We had first and goal from inside the 5 yard line and even got an extra first down with the penalty and still could not get in.

First and goal from the 1-1/2.

But I think it does matter. There was no conclusive evidence to overturn the call that had the line judge right on top of it, leaning and looking at the foot and sideline.
 

ShreveFrog

Full Member

Have to say that if you pause the video when Max steps at that 3.5, then go forward a bit and pause it again, the cleat mark appears on the line.

Maybe review official had such a view?

Gotta punch it in from the 3.5.

*EDIT* Meant to say that it looks like Max stepped on the sideline, then the cleat mark also appears to be on the line.
 
Last edited:
Top