Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I will concede that was a fumble when OSU fans concede their title over Miami was fraudulent. Clemson would not have lost based on that one call if goes OSU's way. OSU would have lost without that 4th down PI call against poor Miami.
and don't even get me started on that mysterious spot in the overtime game with Michigan a few years ago.
I will concede that was a fumble when OSU fans concede their title over Miami was fraudulent. Clemson would not have lost based on that one call if goes OSU's way. OSU would have lost without that 4th down PI call against poor Miami.
and don't even get me started on that mysterious spot in the overtime game with Michigan a few years ago.
Deflection time...so let's bring up Michigan 2016 and OSU Miami 2003.
I had UM friends sending me camera angles from slightly behind the line to gain. Then I had few sending me photos of the run from a goal line camera and showing shadow of JTs hand in relation to the ball. Any photo at all to distort the angle. LOL. Can you show me a few of those again?
I'm not saying anything is fraudulent then or now. The Catch Fumble call and then overturn on replay was IMO a play that should not have been overturned and it resulted in 6 points off the board for OSU. I'm not even saying OSU would have won had the call stood. It would assume game plans wouldn't have changed, the sense of urgency wouldn't have changed and execution may have been different and our kicker would have needed to make the extra point.
Last edited by eastcoastbias; 12-31-2019 at 11:42 AM..
this is the perfect time for deflection since people want to take Clemson's win from them
you've described that play as the OSU player stripping the ball but it looks like the ball is already loose and falling to the ground by the time OSU contacts Ross on the hands.
Watching the play in real time, it looks like a standard incomplete pass.
i'm open minded on fumble but not strip fumble. my hot take is that if there is any doubt at all, it should be ruled incomplete. the rules expert on the gamecast said he thought it was incomplete pass.
this is the perfect time for deflection since people want to take Clemson's win from them
you've described that play as the OSU player stripping the ball but it looks like the ball is already loose and falling to the ground by the time OSU contacts Ross on the hands.
Watching the play in real time, it looks like a standard incomplete pass.
i'm open minded on fumble but not strip fumble. my hot take is that if there is any doubt at all, it should be ruled incomplete. the rules expert on the gamecast said he thought it was incomplete pass.
Well your hot take is your own rule. And if you somehow pass your hot take off as a rule. The play may still be a catch fumble
And Okudah brings his hand inside the arm and body of Ross and swipes down at the ball knocking it out after Ross takes 4 steps- Ross even starts to turn his hips up field.
Pushing him backward???? Where was that? And this is a fresh take- probably because your changing the facts of what happened.
Do me a favor- google the play and see all the reports and articles from respected football minds. Again....you have most saying catch and fumble but a few saying incomplete BUT THAT IS NOT THE ISSUE....the issue is the call on the field should stand (the SJ making the fumble call and throwing his bag down right away) unless you have indisputable evidence in favor of overturning the play.
No, it's not. Why would that be the issue?
The issue is whether the call matches what happened on the field. And what happened on the filed was a receiver being pushed backward as he tried to secure the ball. If he had the metaphysical possession that game/replay officials are taught to look for, the correct call would be to spot the ball where possession was gained.
ARTICLE 3. A live ball becomes dead and an official shall sound his whistle or declare it dead:
a. When it goes out of bounds other than a kick that scores a field goal after
touching the uprights or crossbar, when a ball carrier is out of bounds,
or when a ball carrier is so held that his forward progress is stopped.
When in question, the ball is dead (A.R. 4-2-1-II).
If Ross gained possession, the ball was dead as soon as that happened. That means no fumble even if it was a catch.
The issue is whether the call matches what happened on the field. And what happened on the filed was a receiver being pushed backward as he tried to secure the ball. If he had the metaphysical possession that game/replay officials are taught to look for, the correct call would be to spot the ball where possession was gained.
If indisputable evidence doesn’t exist to overturn a call - the call remains. That is the general rule for replay. This is really the only point that should be argued. Even though many outsiders believe it was a catch and then a fumble. That would only be relevant and an actual discussion point if the call was ruled an incomplete pass initially on the field.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
