Was he down??

I think that was the only 'bang-bang' play or judgement/review call I was OK with tonight. Hard to overturn that one.

Damn Ebyl...we agree on something. ;-)

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Trying to be as unbiased as possible I would say that yes he was down, however I'm not sure it was enough to overturn the initial call.

That, however, does not compare at all to the calls made that gave missouri their field goal: First the hands to the face, the horsecollar, the obvious holding not called, and then the receiver who was out of bounds.

...Wow, the big XII should give those refs a talking to.

Missouri could have put in another 10,000 seats with all the money the boosters gave those refs.

:)

 
Last edited by a moderator:
he was down but if i was the ref i would have called it a touchdown, and after reviewing it would have been hard...

 
Unless I was mistaken it wasn't even reviewed. They reviewed the play in the booth but that was a review of the fumble, there's a rule somewhere where official reviews look for one specific thing and can't deviate even if they find another error.

 
What? No, my understanding is they review the whole play. That's how it works in the NFL, at least. I don't know if it works differently here.

And really, I doubt they were reviewing the fumble. You overturn it, it's still a touchdown.

Both reviews were very, very close, by the way. Basically, I think it would have gone whichever way it was called on the field. Not enough evidence to solidly reverse.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
not to mention that the long pass was basically up for grabs if Prince didn't fall down who knows what happens on that play. And most non- pinkel coaches would kick the field goal there.

 
IF he was down and that was called differently we would have held them to a field goal and safety... 5 points!

 
Blackshirt316 said:
Unless I was mistaken it wasn't even reviewed. They reviewed the play in the booth but that was a review of the fumble, there's a rule somewhere where official reviews look for one specific thing and can't deviate even if they find another error.
Click to expand...
I'm never 'positive' on anything....but pretty sure they were checking if his knee was down before the line. And as stated...they recovered in the endzone so that wasn't the issue.

Now...lets start the discussion on reviewing penalties!!!!

 
As long as Gabbert's body is, where he was cradling the ball would have been across t goal line when his knee went down.

With the Husker player flashing in front of the camera there was no angle that showed conclusively that the call should be overturned.

 
Blackshirt316 said:
Unless I was mistaken it wasn't even reviewed. They reviewed the play in the booth but that was a review of the fumble, there's a rule somewhere where official reviews look for one specific thing and can't deviate even if they find another error.
Click to expand...
That is only the case if a play is challenged, not if it is simply reviewed without a challenge. Keep in mind, every play is reviewed. They stop the game if it can be potentially overturned.

 
knapplc said:
there was no angle that showed conclusively that the call should be overturned.
Click to expand...
Yes there was. I just watched in on the DVR a few times in slo-mo. The knee touched when the nose of the ball was about three inches shy of the goalline. The announcers demonstrated it as well. You could see the ball right when the knee touched.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top