you guys still up watching the Wash/stanford game its a pretty good one....

El Nino · 10-06-13, 12:50 AM

Originally posted by The Giant

Oh, did you lose? You should have gotten it back with a clever in-game when Washington was +9.5 and huge + money.

Lol, no. Just fukkin' up my middle.

Vegas39 · 10-06-13, 12:50 AM

Wow

MoneyLineDawg · 10-06-13, 12:50 AM

Wow complete bullshit right there.....How do you overturn that

Ernie Mccracken · 10-06-13, 12:51 AM

Bad call

747planes · 10-06-13, 12:51 AM

lol there u go.

Darkside Magick · 10-06-13, 12:51 AM

Garbage

Ra77er · 10-06-13, 12:51 AM

I'm assuming they tapped into NASA satellites to see that

El Nino · 10-06-13, 12:52 AM

Of all the video reviews...THAT was conclusive, indisputable visual evidence???

winz · 10-06-13, 12:53 AM

these crooks do whatever they want and get away with it every time so thats that.

teaserpleaser · 10-06-13, 12:53 AM

another great day of college football.... Today was fun

ChalkyDog · 10-06-13, 12:53 AM

Rest of the country is sleeping as the best football is played.

Wilfred · 10-06-13, 12:54 AM

I think it hit the ground, but I don't see you can say that was conclusive enough to overturn the call on the field.

sneakerhead · 10-06-13, 12:54 AM

Originally posted by winz

these crooks do whatever they want and get away with it every time so thats that.

You gotta be blind or on a black and white 21" tv to not see the ball touch the ground from the angle they showed. That was enough evidence to overturn it in my opinion

El Nino · 10-06-13, 12:54 AM

Really wanted to see OT there. You could infer that it was trapped, but zero evidence proving it. Shame.

ChalkyDog · 10-06-13, 12:55 AM

Originally posted by Wilfred

I think it hit the ground, but I don't see you can say that was conclusive enough to overturn the call on the field.

It was a terrible call on the field.

MoneyLineDawg · 10-06-13, 12:55 AM

I literally can't stand replay reviews anymore.....They fukk it up half the time, overturn calls where this no "indisputable evidence", etc.....Just a disaster

I don't know what the answer is but this ain't it......

So fukkin inconsistent

BigDeem5 · 10-06-13, 12:55 AM

Wash 2h ml n spread, bang

MoneyLineDawg · 10-06-13, 12:56 AM

Originally posted by sneakerhead

You gotta be blind or on a black and white 21" tv to not see the ball touch the ground from the angle they showed. That was enough evidence to overturn it in my opinion

It hit the ground in a split second, but from what I understand, the ball can touch the ground as long as it doesn't aid the catch if that makes any sense

Call should have stood whether called incomplete or complete on the field....My issue is with overturning the call with the replays given

ChalkyDog · 10-06-13, 12:58 AM

Originally posted by MoneyLineDawg

It hit the ground in a split second, but from what I can tell, the ball can touch the ground as long as it doesn't aid the catch if that makes any sense

No idea what angles were going on in that.

However, I found it odd that the call of the game wasn't being replayed and chopped up and zoomed in on from every angle the booth had - like they do every single time with every single one of these.

Instead, they showed the play twice. A third after the official call. The rest of the time was panning on players.

No idea what it all means? Double Rainbows? But, I found it odd.

winz · 10-06-13, 12:59 AM

lol.. yea it looked like it hit the ground but im still surprised they overturned the call on the field..my point was that they could have easily left it alone with no consequences if they chose to do so.

ChalkyDog · 10-06-13, 01:02 AM

Originally posted by winz

lol.. yea it looked like it hit the ground but im still surprised they overturned the call on the field..my point was that they could have easily left it alone with no consequences if they chose to do so.

Ruling a failed catch to be good, is equally bad, except the teams celebrating switch.

Catch the fukkin' ball.

Refs got it right. What people are arguing is technicalities.

"Even though I don't think it was a catch, since it was ruled a catch, the angles we saw of the play is inconclusive, even though I don't think it was a catch - we should rule it a catch."

bubblebuttluv · 10-06-13, 01:03 AM

The ball clearly flew through his hands and was on the ground under his body. If I knew how to post gifs of shit that happened two seconds ago like some of the computer wizards on here, I could give a video breakdown. I know it can be hard to sometimes distinguish between football and black skin.

The ESPN announcers were douchebags. They wanted SO BAD for Stanford to lose since they suck Oregon's dick SO hard (Oregon will beat Stanford anyways though, this won't be like last year).

The refs absolutely got it right and ESPN people were just being the typical biased, idiotic ESPN people.

MoneyLineDawg · 10-06-13, 01:04 AM

Originally posted by ChalkyDog

No idea what angles were going on in that.

However, I found it odd that the call of the game wasn't being replayed and chopped up and zoomed in on from every angle the booth had - like they do every single time with every single one of these.

Instead, they showed the play twice. A third after the official call. The rest of the time was panning on players.

No idea what it all means? Double Rainbows? But, I found it odd.

I agree it was weird.....That review decided the game and even the announcers were kinda just acting like it was a standard play with little consequence

I think the rule on catches like that is that the ball can touch the ground as long as the receiver has control when it comes in contact with the ground.....Now maybe for a split second the WR did not have control when it hit the ground, but how the fukk you overturning that in that spot with those replays that we saw?

bubblebuttluv · 10-06-13, 01:06 AM

Originally posted by sneakerhead

You gotta be blind or on a black and white 21" tv to not see the ball touch the ground from the angle they showed. That was enough evidence to overturn it in my opinion

This.

It CLEARLY hit the ground.

bubblebuttluv · 10-06-13, 01:07 AM

We will reference this thread again when the play comes on youtube or some shit.

The point is Stanford could have been robbed from some bullshit.

MoneyLineDawg · 10-06-13, 01:10 AM

I just went back on DVR.....I think the ball went through his hands and hit the ground and popped back up, all in less than a second......The problem was the replays given gave terrible angles it's hard to see even in slow motion

Just so you guys know though, the ball is allowed to touch the ground IF the player has control when the ball comes in contact with the ground......This play here wasn't the case, but for the future, Ground doesn't always = incomplete

Ra77er · 10-06-13, 01:13 AM

My RCA with tin foil rabbit ears didn't see shit. They showed the replay from behind like 2 or 3 times and I couldn't see the ball very clearly. Looked like a trap but they ruled a catch so I assumed it had to be solid evidence to overturn. Maybe I should upgrade my TV.

MoneyLineDawg · 10-06-13, 01:16 AM

Originally posted by Ra77er

My RCA with tin foil rabbit ears didn't see shit. They showed the replay from behind like 2 or 3 times and I couldn't see the ball very clearly. Looked like a trap but they ruled a catch so I assumed it had to be solid evidence to overturn. Maybe I should upgrade my TV.

You can't see the ball clearly on any of the replays, I'm watching them all right now on a brand new 70 inch HD......ball looks like it goes through his hands and pops up to his arms, but his right arm is underneath the ball, just hard to say he had control when the ball initially went through his arms and "probably" hit the ground

Alright I need to quit this shit, I'm high as fukk and rambling about shit that doesn't matter

bubblebuttluv · 10-06-13, 01:19 AM

Originally posted by MoneyLineDawg

I just went back on DVR.....I think the ball went through his hands and hit the ground and popped back up, all in less than a second......The problem was the replays given gave terrible angles it's hard to see even in slow motion

Just so you guys know though, the ball is allowed to touch the ground IF the player has control when the ball comes in contact with the ground......This play here wasn't the case, but for the future, Ground doesn't always = incomplete

I'm glad you saw it to, bruh.

You good pples.

For everyone else, when the receiver dove down to the ground the ball flew through the space in between his hands and his chest. The ball landed under his body when the receiver hit the ground, and was trapped there. At best for the receiver, the end of the ball touched the guys fukking wrists after it was already trapped on the ground. clearly not a complete pass. Now of course being a receiver, he snatched that shit up real quick off the ground to try and fool the refs.

Like I said, it would have been a robbery if they called it complete.

ChalkyDog · 10-06-13, 01:23 AM

Originally posted by Ra77er

My RCA with tin foil rabbit ears didn't see shit. They showed the replay from behind like 2 or 3 times and I couldn't see the ball very clearly. Looked like a trap but they ruled a catch so I assumed it had to be solid evidence to overturn. Maybe I should upgrade my TV.

Always.

New tvs are real nice.

65 is the new 50