*** Official #24 Kansas State vs #18 IOWA STATE Game(Day) Thread ***

[BWRhasnoAC]

I found an article from 2003 stating the referee had 90 seconds of monitor time.

Good Lord that was my senior year in high school.

 

[2speedy1]

 

[Kinch]

Eric Heft made a great observation about 4 or 5 minutes into the official review. He said there should be a 2 minute limit on all official reviews because if you can't find conclusive evidence for overturning the call after 2 minutes of review, then the call on the field should stand.

This game took over 4 hours and the first quarter was a marathon. With a feels like temperature of 7 degrees, those fans who made it through the entire game should get half priced tickets for next season.

We were 40 minutes into the game and I looked at the clocked and it showed 10:25 left in the first.

 

[Bipolarcy]

I listened to the game with Walters call, watching replay with Fox call...Mike Pereira has no idea what he's talking about on that first fumble saying he pitches it at the 23 and it moves up a yard to the 24. It looks like it comes down almost exactly where he lets go of it. I think he might be one of those refs who didn't get into it for being gifted in spacial awareness.

This is completely wrong, IMO. The pitch definitely went forward. We got a HUGE break on that play. I thought for sure it was going to get overturned. It was pitched at the 23 and hit the player's hand at about the 23 3/4. The player was at about the 24 1/2.

 

[LarryISU]

This is completely wrong, IMO. The pitch definitely went forward. We got a HUGE break on that play. I thought for sure it was going to get overturned. It was pitched at the 23 and hit the player's hand at about the 23 3/4. The player was at about the 24 1/2.

The replay official, in order to reverse the on-field call, must be convinced beyond all doubt by indisputable video evidence. That is how the rule reads. That is how it should be applied.

In this case, the camera is looking at the back of the QB. You can't even see the ball until after it is pitched. Also, the best camera angle was from a stationary camera about 3 yards ahead of where the fumble occurred. So you don't have a true down the line view of the pitch. Replay should not guess. The video evidence is not indisputable beyond ALL doubt. That's my take.

 

[t-noah]

This game took over 4 hours and the first quarter was a marathon. With a feels like temperature of 7 degrees, those fans who made it through the entire game should get half priced tickets for next season.

That should work.

 

[t-noah]

Good Lord that was my senior year in high school.

Start makin' your retirement plans.

 

[t-noah]

I haven't listened much to Drake Toll lately. A little tired of him. People that have to talk for a living talk a lot, go figure. Drake is there. But he had some nice things to say about Iowa State and his experience. Good for him. I might listen to him some now.

Does the right side of his head weigh more than the left?

 

[Bipolarcy]

The replay official, in order to reverse the on-field call, must be convinced beyond all doubt by indisputable video evidence. That is how the rule reads. That is how it should be applied.

In this case, the camera is looking at the back of the QB. You can't even see the ball until after it is pitched. Also, the best camera angle was from a stationary camera about 3 yards ahead of where the fumble occurred. So you don't have a true down the line view of the pitch. Replay should not guess. The video evidence is not indisputable beyond ALL doubt. That's my take.

Then you need your eyes examined.

 

[Cyballz]

Then you need your eyes examined.

time for your meds

 

[Clone95]

This is completely wrong, IMO. The pitch definitely went forward. We got a HUGE break on that play. I thought for sure it was going to get overturned. It was pitched at the 23 and hit the player's hand at about the 23 3/4. The player was at about the 24 1/2.

You couldn’t see that from the camera angle. The camera wasn’t straight down the 23 yard line so it was inconclusive.

 

[Bipolarcy]

You couldn’t see that from the camera angle. The camera wasn’t straight down the 23 yard line so it was inconclusive.

You need your eyes checked as well then. It was pretty conclusive.

 

[RagingCloner]

You need your eyes checked as well then. It was pretty conclusive.

it wasnt conclusive either way, thats why the call stood...if it was a conclusive result, the call would have been confirmed or reversed. Had they called it incomplete on the field, i believe that would have stood also

 

[Bipolarcy]

it wasnt conclusive either way, thats why the call stood...if it was a conclusive result, the call would have been confirmed or reversed. Had they called it incomplete on the field, i believe that would have stood also

It wasn't conclusive only to the referees. Anyone else looking at it with objective eyes saw it was conclusive. I hear all this nonsense about camera angle. It doesn't take a good camera angle to tell if a pass is backward or forward on a field that has markers on it. You know, yard makers? You can clearly see the QB was at one yard marker and the receiver was at a yard marker several feet ahead of him, camera angle be damned. That's what the yard markers are for -- to measure distance. DUH!