The catch call the rule on reviews is it has to be conclusive.
Had they called it incomplete you guys would be correct. However, the call on the field was a completion. It wasn't conclusive evidence to over turn it.
Now did that cost UW the game? No it didn't. Would UW had won had they made that coach? Who really knows? It's not like the Huskies have Folk as their kicker so you still had a good 25 yards to go if not more to feel comfortable with the kick.
It is okay to say the call was wrong to overturn it AND point out that UW fucked themselves way before that call so it shouldn't have came down to that.
For the 781st time, there is conclusive evidence of the football on the ground. That's conclusive evidence to overturn in this case.
For the 781st time, you fail to acknowledge the standard of review. The ruling was a catch, so unless you can indisputably prove 1. where his right hand was, and 2. that he did not have control of the ball as the ball touched the ground -- you have no ground to stand on. None. I know your schtick on here is to be the raging sexually frustrated negative nancy, but you come across stupid here dude. Sorry.
The side view angle shows the ball between his arms. You add up the two angles and you can clearly conclude that Smith did not have control of the ball before hitting the ground. When you go to the ground in the act of completing a catch, you MUST keep the ball off the ground.
I know officiating a lot better than you ever will. At this risk of going full Fleenor, I worked at least half a dozen games and two Pac-12 scrimmages with the line judge from this game when I was a football official. He made the best call he could in real time. I certainly don't blame him for that call.
The replay system is there to ensure the right outcome. It worked correctly in this case, which the Pac-12 confirmed this afternoon.
I know it's fun to use officiating as an excuse when your team loses. Coogs like LanceUppercut have been doing it for a decade and Seattle fans are still bitter about Super Bowl XL. In this case, you idiots are just plain wrong.
Standard
of
review
I don't know how I can make this any more clear.
It met the standard of review. The ball indisputably hit the ground. No one here has offered evidence to the contrary because no such evidence exists.
Doogs.
holy shit lol
you're still talking about the ball hitting the ground
Comments
you're still talking about the ball hitting the ground
is this a troll or