MU/OSU Final INT

[Pitt Gorilla]

I thought it might get lost in the game thread. OSU was still the better team, but it would have been nice to see the game played to the end.

[mikeyis4dcats.]

you can't see his hands anywhere, for all anyone knows he caught the ball.

[luv]

Originally Posted by mikeyis4dcats.

you can't see his hands anywhere, for all anyone knows he caught the ball.

The ball is on the ground. And you're right. You don't see his hands...including on the ball.

[mikeyis4dcats.]

Originally Posted by luv

The ball is on the ground.

so? you can't see his hands prior to or during that moment. He may very well have caught the ball and then lost it when he hit. he may have a hand on the far side pinning the ball to his stomach.

there is no indisputable proof.

[irishjayhawk]

Originally Posted by mikeyis4dcats.

so? you can't see his hands prior to or during that moment. He may very well have caught the ball and then lost it when he hit. he may have a hand on the far side pinning the ball to his stomach.

there is no indisputable proof.

IIRC, that means it's incomplete. You have to maintain control. Trapping cannot occur.

[Gravedigger]

Originally Posted by mikeyis4dcats.

so? you can't see his hands prior to or during that moment. He may very well have caught the ball and then lost it when he hit. he may have a hand on the far side pinning the ball to his stomach.

there is no indisputable proof.

If the ball touches the ground AT ALL it's an incomplete pass, I'm pretty sure we all know that around here. Doesn't matter if he had possession for one or two seconds it hit the ground and its and incomplete pass. I'm not standing up for Mizzou, I could care less, but its common football knowledge that when the ball touches the ground on a reception, its ruled and incomplete pass. That alone is indisputable proof, NOW last night there was no indisputable proof and thats what had it go through, but this picture proves otherwise.

[mikeyis4dcats.]

Originally Posted by luv

The ball is on the ground. And you're right. You don't see his hands...including on the ball.

it was ruled a pick on the field, they need INDISPUTABLE video evidence to overturn it.

get over it.

[irishjayhawk]

Originally Posted by mikeyis4dcats.

it was ruled a pick on the field, they need INDISPUTABLE video evidence to overturn it.

get over it.

That looks pretty indisputable.

Though, I'd like an animated one, if possible.

[mikeyis4dcats.]

Originally Posted by irishjayhawk

That looks pretty indisputable.

Though, I'd like an animated one, if possible.

can you say with certainty he doesn't have a hand pinning the ball to his stomach?

can you say he didn't have hands on it, then the ground popped it out?

[DeezNutz]

Originally Posted by mikeyis4dcats.

it was ruled a pick on the field, they need INDISPUTABLE video evidence to overturn it.

get over it.

Like a picture of the ball on the ground?

[Skip Towne]

It's the goddamn refs.

[petegz28]

Originally Posted by mikeyis4dcats.

it was ruled a pick on the field, they need INDISPUTABLE video evidence to overturn it.

get over it.

Unlike the earlier fumble that was ruled incomplete.

[Reaper16]

Originally Posted by petegz28

Unlike the earlier fumble that was ruled incomplete.

Unfortunately, that's the difference maker in the game, too.

[smittysbar]

Originally Posted by petegz28

Unlike the earlier fumble that was ruled incomplete.

This was the play that pissed me off. He clearly caught it tucked and turned. Definitely a fumble.

I still think We should have went for it on 4th and inches on the first drive.

[irishjayhawk]

Originally Posted by mikeyis4dcats.

you can't see his hands anywhere, for all anyone knows he caught the ball.

What do you mean? Looks pretty clear to me.