Ameer A. turnover

[HUSKER 37]

I'm sorry!!

 

That pony boy made me cry once

[lionsfan93]

I didn't think it hit him, but the replays weren't conclusive (enough) to overturn the call on the field..At least that's how I tried to splain it to my son as he was freaking out.

From the one angle you didn't have conclusive evidence...but from the other angle it was clear that it didn't even come all that close.

[HUSKER 37]

I didn't think it hit him, but the replays weren't conclusive (enough) to overturn the call on the field..At least that's how I tried to splain it to my son as he was freaking out.

From the one angle you didn't have conclusive evidence...but from the other angle it was clear that it didn't even come all that close.

 

That one angle you're talking about is why I don't think it touched him..But when they showd it yet again..I was concentrating more on how the ball was spinning (And somehow thinking I was expert enough to predict the rebound spin against a flat surface versus the end of a shoe covering a toenail that needed to be trimmed last week)..I still need another look.

[huskerfan711]

Does anyone have a clip? I was at the game so I couldn't see a replay... But from where i was it looked like it was a good 6 inches to the right of his foot.

 

 

If you can see ESPN 3, you can see it here: http://espn.go.com/watchespn/player/_/source/espn3/id/560213/

 

Happens at the 02:18:15 mark

 

I'd capture just the bit and splitscreen the views and youtube it for everyone... but for some reason my flash capture stuff only wants to download the entire game as I stream it, not just the parts I'm actually watching. And unfortunately I don't want to wait 2 hours for that lol

[huskerfan711]

I didn't think it hit him, but the replays weren't conclusive (enough) to overturn the call on the field..At least that's how I tried to splain it to my son as he was freaking out.

From the one angle you didn't have conclusive evidence...but from the other angle it was clear that it didn't even come all that close.

 

That one angle you're talking about is why I don't think it touched him..But when they showd it yet again..I was concentrating more on how the ball was spinning (And somehow thinking I was expert enough to predict the rebound spin against a flat surface versus the end of a shoe covering a toenail that needed to be trimmed last week)..I still need another look.

 

If you watch the angles again...

 

the first view ( from behind Ameer ) you see the ball questionably hitting his RIGHT foot and a foot or so from his LEFT heel. ( possibly hits right, completely misses left)

 

the second view ( slightly infront ) you see the ball possibly hitting his LEFT heel and nowhere close to his RIGHT foot. ( possibly hits left heel, completely misses right foot )

 

So... combining the factual evidence from the two views, you can conclusively say that the ball never hit Ameer on that play.

 

Mr Zebra and his cohorts apparently lack the deductive reasoning to combine to bits of video and see that what they thought was the football hittting Ameer was actually just two separate perspective illusions which are both 100% invalidated by the other video

[bball_backer]

That was unbelievable, simply unbelievable. The ref's call was understandable, but not the broadcasters or the replay official.

 

It was bad enough that Galloway and the broad didn't have enough sense to realize if it looks like it hit his foot from one angle, but the other angle shows it missed his foot then you can disregard whatever you thought the first angle looked like; but then for Beth to say it could have hit his arm... holy sh*t! If you split screened the two angles the moment she thought the ball was hitting his arm, she would have seen the ball is AT LEAST 5 yards away from Abdullah, probably more. Those two showed a complete lack of common sense during those couple minutes. Blew. My. Mind.

[HUSKER 37]

I didn't think it hit him, but the replays weren't conclusive (enough) to overturn the call on the field..At least that's how I tried to splain it to my son as he was freaking out.

From the one angle you didn't have conclusive evidence...but from the other angle it was clear that it didn't even come all that close.

 

That one angle you're talking about is why I don't think it touched him..But when they showd it yet again..I was concentrating more on how the ball was spinning (And somehow thinking I was expert enough to predict the rebound spin against a flat surface versus the end of a shoe covering a toenail that needed to be trimmed last week)..I still need another look.

 

If you watch the angles again...

 

the first view ( from behind Ameer ) you see the ball questionably hitting his RIGHT foot and a foot or so from his LEFT heel. ( possibly hits right, completely misses left)

 

the second view ( slightly infront ) you see the ball possibly hitting his LEFT heel and nowhere close to his RIGHT foot. ( possibly hits left heel, completely misses right foot )

 

So... combining the factual evidence from the two views, you can conclusively say that the ball never hit Ameer on that play.

 

Mr Zebra and his cohorts apparently lack the deductive reasoning to combine to bits of video and see that what they thought was the football hittting Ameer was actually just two separate perspective illusions which are both 100% invalidated by the other video

 

 

Yeah!

 

That's what I meant to say!

[Mavric]

I know in the NFL the refs are able to "combine" two views to make a determination. I would assume the same would be true in NCAA but I'm not sure. If it's not - and thus you have to have one conclusive view - I could see them copping out and letting the play stand. However, to me it was pretty obvious that it didn't hit him.

[scarletNcream]

I'm glad this turned into a civil discussion, I was concerned for the OP, but the question did deserve a pony.

[icedavis]

Here is the clip that I posted:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3wTd2WlaDcA&feature=share&list=UU0lLwLZkEYhelhE0TXsmX0g

[deedsker]

[onlyHskrfaninIL]

Horsesh!t call. Inexcusable. Speaking of horses...are they not calling the horsecollar thing this year? Bad weekend for refs everywhere from what I saw.

[STL Husker]

I also don't see how they could overturn the Ark. St. fumble earlier in the game. They showed a still shot of the runner's knee down and the ball in his midsection, but you have no idea whether the ball is loose or not by a still frame shot. When I watched it in slow mo, it looked to me like the ball came loose before his knee came down, but at worst it was inconclusive and should not have been overturned.

 

Did anyone else watch the Tenn.-Florida game and the fumble by the UT player. The runner was clearly down, but the ball came out and the referees blew the whistle and stopped the play before anyone recovered the ball. The ref literally picked the ball up off the ground himself. After they got together they gave the ball to Florida. The replay showed that the runner was down, but how can you give the ball to the other team when no one recovered it?

[huskrplaya]

Did anyone else notice that the ark st. players didn't even react either?? If it was obvious that he touched it, they would have jumped and pointed but they acted like nothing happened...apparently the ref thought a little bit differently

 

And to the announcers..terrible when he says "you can't read shadows"..what? when? apparenlty science has been wrong all along.

 

Lastly i gotta say why are there only 2 views? technological fail!

[EbylHusker]

There may have been more views, but they may not have bothered to show them if they were blocked by other players or too far away (or showed nothing new compared to the two they showed). Also, refs don't make judgements based on player reactions, so that is irrelvant regading how the ref called it.