Testing 1-2-3-4-5
- Thread starter Hampton Roads 6
- Start date
This should get things going.Watch the video and maybe the view shown here is what the replay official saw and ESPN would not show during the Sugar Bowl.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=PshJHnvYvoU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=PshJHnvYvoU
the key to the call was the official on the field called touchdown. according to NCAA rules, it is to be over turned only if there is indisputable evidence that call on field was wrong. every replay I have seen showed nothing to say the ref on the field got it wrong. Coale had possession of ball in end zone before going out of bounds. Touchdown. The replay ref should be disciplined and never allowed to work another game, because he cannot see the screen or read the rule book ,or both.
If you watched the video, you see the ball hit the ground and bounce into the receiver hands. Why was this replay not shown by ESPN that night and a lot of controversey would have been avoided.
Maybe the "PAC 10" doctored the video to help their cause.
The NCAA should have never used PAC 10 officials for that game. they should have used SEC officials.
The NCAA should have never used PAC 10 officials for that game. they should have used SEC officials.
Where are you seeing a bounce? He had the ball between his arms before any part of him or the ball ever touched the ground.
I've been in discussion on this play with upward of 20 officials, most of them work NCAA and some are DI. While there is dispute whether it was a catch or not, there is not one person who believes there is indisputable evidence that it should have been overturned.
Among those who also believe that was a catch -- or at least believe that the play should have stood as called -- are ACC officials' supervisor Doug Rhoads and Big 10 officials supervisor Bill Carollo.
In fact, it's widely believed that the Pac 12 would be under a lot more heat about this but for the fact that its supervisor of football officials, Tony Corrente, is battling cancer and had to start a second round of chemo Monday. Corrente is an NFL Referee who was diagnosed in October and already went through one round. He missed 3 weeks, but regained enough strength to return the final 2 weeks and had the New Orleans-Detroit game Saturday. After that game he returned to the hospital for 6 more weeks of intensive treatment.
I've been in discussion on this play with upward of 20 officials, most of them work NCAA and some are DI. While there is dispute whether it was a catch or not, there is not one person who believes there is indisputable evidence that it should have been overturned.
Among those who also believe that was a catch -- or at least believe that the play should have stood as called -- are ACC officials' supervisor Doug Rhoads and Big 10 officials supervisor Bill Carollo.
In fact, it's widely believed that the Pac 12 would be under a lot more heat about this but for the fact that its supervisor of football officials, Tony Corrente, is battling cancer and had to start a second round of chemo Monday. Corrente is an NFL Referee who was diagnosed in October and already went through one round. He missed 3 weeks, but regained enough strength to return the final 2 weeks and had the New Orleans-Detroit game Saturday. After that game he returned to the hospital for 6 more weeks of intensive treatment.
I think it's pretty obvious it's not a catch
I thought the replay proved that the night I watched the game. The one angle shows he does not have possession on the way down, the point of the ball hits the ground and it bounces up into the arms. It very much was clear and indisputable to me, and I was pulling for Tech. I guess I'm just surprised this is still an issue. The replay clearly shows the point of the ball hitting the ground and bouncing up, and he doesn't have possession until the ball hits the ground and bounces up. Look from 30 seconds thru about 35 seconds. It's clear he doesn't have control of the ball, the point hits the ground and he gains control after it bumps back up after contacting the ground. You don't need to go any further.
I thought the replay proved that the night I watched the game. The one angle shows he does not have possession on the way down, the point of the ball hits the ground and it bounces up into the arms. It very much was clear and indisputable to me, and I was pulling for Tech. I guess I'm just surprised this is still an issue. The replay clearly shows the point of the ball hitting the ground and bouncing up, and he doesn't have possession until the ball hits the ground and bounces up. Look from 30 seconds thru about 35 seconds. It's clear he doesn't have control of the ball, the point hits the ground and he gains control after it bumps back up after contacting the ground. You don't need to go any further.
Re: I think it's pretty obvious it's not a catch
The key to this entire play was "it was called a touchdown by the refs on the field". According to the NCAA's own rulebook, it can only be over ruled if there is indisputable evidence that refs on field got it wrong. There is no evidence on replay that indicated refs on field got it wrong, thus it should not have been over turned. The ACC Supervisor of Officials and the Big 10 Supervisor of Officials both say the same thing as I. Bottom line it was a very bad call by replay official, who should never be allowed to work another big game, becuas eit's evident he either does not know the rules, or has a problem with integrity
The key to this entire play was "it was called a touchdown by the refs on the field". According to the NCAA's own rulebook, it can only be over ruled if there is indisputable evidence that refs on field got it wrong. There is no evidence on replay that indicated refs on field got it wrong, thus it should not have been over turned. The ACC Supervisor of Officials and the Big 10 Supervisor of Officials both say the same thing as I. Bottom line it was a very bad call by replay official, who should never be allowed to work another big game, becuas eit's evident he either does not know the rules, or has a problem with integrity
Did you read what I wrote, HR6????
It my opinion, it was indisputable evidence on film- it clearly wasn't a catch. He clearly did not have possession before the ball hit the ground and bounced up. Not sure what your point was. If I didn't think I had clearly seen it, I wouldn't have said it. I don't think it gets any more indisputable than this. Your last sentence is just nonsense. He knows the rules, and you have no reason to question his integrity. I'm a Tech fan, and if he saw what I saw, it was indisputable evidence he did not make a catch.
It my opinion, it was indisputable evidence on film- it clearly wasn't a catch. He clearly did not have possession before the ball hit the ground and bounced up. Not sure what your point was. If I didn't think I had clearly seen it, I wouldn't have said it. I don't think it gets any more indisputable than this. Your last sentence is just nonsense. He knows the rules, and you have no reason to question his integrity. I'm a Tech fan, and if he saw what I saw, it was indisputable evidence he did not make a catch.
Re: Did you read what I wrote, HR6????
If he knew the rules, he would not have over turned the call on the field. I seen the replay, it was a TD. 99% of everyone who I have heard comment on the play say it was a TD.
If he knew the rules, he would not have over turned the call on the field. I seen the replay, it was a TD. 99% of everyone who I have heard comment on the play say it was a TD.
Unbelievable
You now say 99% of everyone says it was a catch? Homer. It clearly was not- right call- move on.
You now say 99% of everyone says it was a catch? Homer. It clearly was not- right call- move on.
Re: Unbelievable
We can argure this until hell freezes over, it was the right call by the ref on the field, it was a bad call by replay ref. Read the rule book.
We can argure this until hell freezes over, it was the right call by the ref on the field, it was a bad call by replay ref. Read the rule book.
"sigh"
The rule says it can not be overturned unless there is clear, indisputable evidence. Well, every time I look at the film, I see clear,indisputable evidence that he never had possession going down, the point of the ball hits the turf and bumps up, and he clutches the ball. That's not a catch, the replay showed it wasn't a catch clearly. So, per the rule book, the call was rightly overturned. Like I said, I was pulling for Tech. But, it was what it was.
This post was edited on 1/20 5:38 PM by GoMBKMonarchs
The rule says it can not be overturned unless there is clear, indisputable evidence. Well, every time I look at the film, I see clear,indisputable evidence that he never had possession going down, the point of the ball hits the turf and bumps up, and he clutches the ball. That's not a catch, the replay showed it wasn't a catch clearly. So, per the rule book, the call was rightly overturned. Like I said, I was pulling for Tech. But, it was what it was.
This post was edited on 1/20 5:38 PM by GoMBKMonarchs
