• The KillerFrogs

Screenshot of the overturned TD in OT

Zubaz

Zubaz

Member
Moose Stuff said:
My position is that it’s isn’t indisputable and nothing you’ve posted has changed that at all. I’m assuming you know what indisputable means.
Click to expand...
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.

I'm also 100% sure that if the roles were reversed and that was a Baylor foot that was upheld for a touchdown, the exact same pic would have been posted as "undisputed" proof that we got hosed.
 
M

Mean Purple

Active Member
Frog Wild said:
My biggest problem with the call/non-call is that there was an official standing right there, looking at Duggan's foot and he didn't make the out-of-bounds call.
I'm in the upper deck, I thought he was out, but the guy standing right there didn't make the call.
Click to expand...
Just like 2014. They committed PI (which you can see on KF.c facebook earlier this week) and the refs refused to call it. They did not have enough to overturn the td today. Welcome to the CFP. Thanks to the conf refs from proving me right.
 
gohornedfrogs

gohornedfrogs

Tier 1
tcumaniac said:
College football has lost control of instant relay and it’s ruining the game.

Instant replay was designed to correct blatantly incorrect calls. Not to give a replay official sitting in a booth the freedom to over turn a call based on a hunch when something is a toss up.

There’s a reason “indisputable evidence” is such a big deal and a tie is supposed to go to the original call on the field.

Overturning a play like that is absolutely disgraceful and misses the entire point of instant replay.

If a replay requires more than looking at it for 5 seconds, go with the call on the field. Spending 10 minutes freezing the frame, zooming in, and trying to decide if a white blade of grass touched his foot or not is downright ridiculous.
Click to expand...
FWIW, without instant replay, the Tevailance Hunt TD never happens.
 
M

Moose Stuff

Active Member
Todd D. said:
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.

I'm also 100% sure that if the roles were reversed and that was a Baylor foot that was upheld for a touchdown, the exact same pic would have been posted as "undisputed" proof that we got hosed.
Click to expand...

Indisputable means 100%, not 80-90%. So that pretty much ends the discussion and puts us in agreement. You’re right that people would be saying we got screwed in the alternate scenario but I wouldn’t be one of them. Also, that only further proves that it wasn’t indisputable.
 
M

Moose Stuff

Active Member
netty2424 said:
Just because you’ve done something once doesn’t guarantee it EVERY TIME!
Click to expand...

I don’t know what the hell you’re talking about. I’m not trying to say it was guaranteed that we’d score. I’m saying it wasn’t guaranteed that we wouldn’t. You used the word INSURMOUNTABLE. Do you know what that means??? And since you point out that doing it once doesn’t guarantee that it will happen again...... there’s absolutely no guarantee we lose in a 4th OT if we don’t get the 2 point conversion in the 3rd. So STILL not insurmountable.
 
netty2424

netty2424

Full Member
Moose Stuff said:
I don’t know what the hell you’re talking about. I’m not trying to say it was guaranteed that we’d score. I’m saying it wasn’t guaranteed that we wouldn’t. You used the word INSURMOUNTABLE. Do you know what that means??? And since you point out that doing it once doesn’t guarantee that it will happen again...... there’s absolutely no guarantee we lose in a 4th OT if we don’t get the 2 point conversion in the 3rd. So STILL not insurmountable.
Click to expand...
Move on man. You’re gonna have a stroke.
 

Latest posts

Top