Was that punt in the Endzone?

[3TrueFans]

I don't see how you can look at that screenshot and NOT think the ball breaks the plane. There's no doubt.

Which pixel is the ball?

[MIClone]

I think they were looking at whether it touched the line, rather than whether it broke the plane. From the angles I saw, I didn't think there was any question that one side of the football broke the plan of the goal line.

[theshadow]

The punt spot evened out the call that allowed Givens' long INT return to stand. It appeared that part of his foot was OB back near the spot of the pick.

[jrios545]

Touching the green in the endzone? There is absolutely NO way that poster isn't full of ****. I didn't see a replay but the fact that people are making the argument it's inconclusive tells me that there is absolutely no way that the ball was even CLOSE to the green on the endzone.

Really? If you're going to say I'm full ****, fine, that's just what I saw. I said I'd have to look at the replay, didn't I? I gotta ask though, were you at the game? It just sounds to me like you watched it on TV.

Of course, being Cyclone fans, we're going to be biased, but everybody around me in the student section agreed that should have been a touchback. I think if you were standing where I was you'd be singing a different tune.

[CYme]

HFCS, if the imaginary plane created by the edge of the chalk were in place, that ball would have taken a severely strange bounce. I agree that they must have been looking to see whether the ball hit the chalk, not broke the plane. If the question was "did the ball hit the chalk" I don't think I would have been able to overturn it. However, that shouldn't have been the question. The question should have been "did the ball break the vertical plane created by the innermost edge of the chalk". The answer to that question is yes.