I just don't think it was as massive a screw up as everyone is saying. Am I surprised they overturned it? Yes, probably so. Do I think they should have overturned it? No, probably not. But virtually everyone I have talked to say that if we could know the absolute truth, he was probably out, and even most on here seem to even admit that. Everyone has seen the same replay....if it was so clear that he was not out of bounds, why do most people who have seen that replay think they he was probably OB? That just doesn't make sense. That to me isn't a massive screw up. Massive screw up is when it's plain as day and you still reverse the call. But if it's plain as day, nobody thinks anything other than that he was in bounds.
Screenshot of the overturned TD in OT
- Thread starter Moose Stuff
- Start date
I just don't think it was as massive a screw up as everyone is saying. Am I surprised they overturned it? Yes, probably so. Do I think they should have overturned it? No, probably not. But virtually everyone I have talked to say that if we could know the absolute truth, he was probably out, and even most on here seem to even admit that. Everyone has seen the same replay....if it was so clear that he was not out of bounds, why do most people who have seen that replay think they he was probably OB? That just doesn't make sense. That to me isn't a massive screw up. Massive screw up is when it's plain as day and you still reverse the call. But if it's plain as day, nobody thinks anything other than that he was in bounds.
Agree - could have been out, may have been out, but not enough to overturn. At the end of the day the failure is not getting it in on first and goal. Period.
CountryFrog
Active Member
You do understand that everything you keep saying in "defense" of the replay decision is actually just furthering the argument that the decision was wrong.
WhiteHispanicFrog
Curmudgeon
We're never going to agree on anything. All I'm saying is a mistake is more "massive" when it is obvious a player was in bounds than if it wasn't obvious he was in bounds. And judging by the majority of people thinking he was probably out of bounds, that's not quite as egregious as it would be had everyone seen the video and concluded that he was no doubt in bounds.
If you can't understand the difference I give up. I don't think the ref should've overturned the call, ok? But if we could 100% know the truth and my life was on line, I would bet that he was technically OB on the play. Make whatever you want of that, I don't care.
CountryFrog
Active Member
Either you're purposely being argumentative and contrarian about this or you just have no understanding at all of how replay reviews are supposed to work in football.
Interesting - I think Wex actually understands 100% about how replays work. He just admitted it shouldn't have been overturned. That being said, you can't put your life on it that his foot wasn't touching the white line; therefore, it wasn't a "massive" screw up. Not overturning Hunt's touchdown would have been a "massive" screw up because it was clear it was a touchdown.
frogs9497
Full Member
Given the circumstances at the time they reversed the call, I’d say it was “massive.”
I know how they are supposed to work. The refs didn't apply the rule right in how they are supposed to work IMO. But if 90% of the people who watch the video think he was "probably" OB that is a hell of a lot different than if nobody did.
All we are arguing here is the definition of "massive". Massive to me means it was clear and obviously a player was in bounds and they ruled him out of bounds. Massive to you means 75% doesn't equal 100%. Let's just agree to disagree.
It only became "massive" when we couldn't convert on first and goal from the 1, after they marked it at the 3 and called a penalty on BU on first down to move it to the 1.
Had we been able to punch it in virtually nobody is talking about the call.
Moose Stuff
Active Member
Irrelevant to the issue.
Understood. But people are running with the idea that it was orchestrated by the Big 12 conference, that the refs were influenced by money, etc etc etc. It's ridiculous. It's not like there haven't been any questionable overturns of a call before.
If you can't score a single TD in regulation, you don't deserve to win. We didn't deserve to win that game. Bad calls happen every possession. We shot ourselves in the foot time and time again with dropped balls. Game wouldn't have even been close if our receivers could catch as well as a quality high school player. Everyone needs to stop blaming everyone else for our suckage.
frogs9497
Full Member
I would have conceded that we suck even if the refs had gotten it right and we managed to win. Still think we got screwed though. And to have it happen against scheissing Baylor just makes it 10 times worse.
Eight
Member
Moose Stuff
Active Member
It’s not ENTIRELY ridiculous though is it??? I’m not a conspiracy theorist but I also don’t have my head to totally buried in the same either.
Purp
Active Member
Using this metric Baylor didn't deserve to win either. Since neither of us deserved to win I suppose this issue becomes relevant again.
Yeah, I think it is. My head isn't buried in the sand either. The refs had about 10 chances to put that game away for Baylor if that's what the conference preferred. Instead they gave us the ball on the 3 yard line with a 1st down, we got stuffed, they threw a penalty on Baylor to give it to us on the 1-yard line with a first down, and the rest is history.
Billy Clyde
Active Member
I have a question about this, the same one I had on Saturday: What is out of bounds in this context? What I saw, and still see from every piece of evidence, is that the sole of his shoe was NOT clearly out- In fact I'd bet it wasn't out, at all. What seemed to be pretty clearly, "out" was the outside of his foot, the part that swells out beyond the sole of the shoe, and hence isn't touching the ground.
So the question is, Is it like the goal line, where there is an invisible "ray" that extends upward from the paint to infinity and if you break the plane you are out? Or is it only "out" if there is physical contact with white paint? If the rule is the former(pretty sure it's not), then it might be an ok call. If it's the latter(pretty sure it is), looks like they got it "definitively" wrong.
So the question is, Is it like the goal line, where there is an invisible "ray" that extends upward from the paint to infinity and if you break the plane you are out? Or is it only "out" if there is physical contact with white paint? If the rule is the former(pretty sure it's not), then it might be an ok call. If it's the latter(pretty sure it is), looks like they got it "definitively" wrong.
Moose Stuff
Active Member
I think it’s naive to think all decisions like that are 100% impartial. I’m also not sure the refs had ANY other chances to “put the game away” for Baylor.
