How many times do we have to see the almost touchdown

[JTrain]

Video?

[SeattleHuskers]

There is this sign for sarcasm. This is the internet, we can't hear your voice.

 

Use this for future references, because we aren't mind readers.

Yeah I wasn't sure if he was being sarcastic or not when he said national news.

[DrunkOffPunch]

The refs made the right call by letting the play run its course. Looked to me like Santos' knee hit the ball at the exact time the ball touches the line and since his knee is what ends up loosening the ball you could say that the start of the fumble happens right there so the PSU player no longer has possession. Just my thoughts though.

[JTrain]

Well, sounds like it was a touchdown. Damn. The only replay at the stadium was from behind and you couldn't tell at all. Sucks to win a game that way. It would've been nice to see if we could come back and win it anyway.

[Landlord]

Well, sounds like it was a touchdown. Damn. The only replay at the stadium was from behind and you couldn't tell at all. Sucks to win a game that way. It would've been nice to see if we could come back and win it anyway.

 

 

It probably was a touchdown, but I think it was the right call not to overturn it. It looked entirely plausible that the ball was being bobbled slightly (while still maintaining the appearance of being "in his hands") before crossing the line. Obviously you can't tell, but if the ref sees that as a possibility at all you can't overturn it.

[huskerfan92]

Who cares we won

[California4Nebraska]

If it was a bad call, it took since September 25, 1982, to get a payback on the terrible calls from that Penn State game. I wouldn't argue one way or another whether it was a bad call, but if it was....

 

Never Forget!

 

[tschu]

The ball is moving in his hands, and you can't even definitively say that it was over the goal line because the camera was at a slight angle.

 

Was it a touchdown? probably, at like a 65-35% probability. But I can see how the call stands. and I can see how people can dispute the call, obviously.

[California Husker]

They said on tv it's on the line. It must be elevated to see over the ref...

They (the idiot announcers) said that the camera was on the line, but clearly it was at a slight angle from over the ref's left shoulder which doesn't give a clear view (the angle puts the ball and goal line on the same plane when it isn't clear that they are). In fact, if you combine the "goal-line" camera with the end zone camera you can see that the ball carrier is switching hands with the ball or bobling it or something right as he starts to stretch it to the end zone (the ball is CLEARLY not in both hands as Spielman kept insisting). So, since the ref on the field called it a fumble, it was the right call from the booth to let it stand as called on the field.

[beanman]

The answer to the question at hand is: 19 times. We have to see it 19 times to make sure it was the wrong call.

[beanman]

Can someone throw up a youtube link or a gif because when I watched it I didn't notice it was at an angle. I'd like to see it again

[JTrain]

 

It was a touchdown. The camera is at a very, very slight angle but the ball is well over the plane before it contacts the knee. And the ball appears to be completely secured with two hands prior to the contact. It's unfortunate. Would've liked to see if we could go down and score with the game on the line. If someone tells me of a bad call or two then went against us, I'll feel better.

 

As far as people sticking up for the replay officials, I can't really figure that one out. Show me a non-Husker fan (also not married to a Husker fan) that feels that was the proper call by the replay officials.

[knapplc]

So give them the TD in your mind and we win 32-30 instead of 32-23. Does this really matter?

 

 

There is no way that Penn State fan agonized over the McCloskey catch in 1982 the way our fans self-flagellate over these calls today. It's beyond annoying. Enough with this thread.