If Mullen does not call the sec office out on the non review

[chad2521]

Of Ballard's td then he has no balls.

 

[chad2521]

Of Ballard's td then he has no balls.

 

[hotdigitydog]

nt

 

[tenureplan]

if he challenges and loses, he loses his last time out. The clock was already stopped...

 

[chad2521]

Every play is reviewed in the booth and if there is evidence that a review is needed they automatically stop the game and review it.

 

[baseballnerd]

.

 

[hotdigitydog]

Nt</p>

 

[chad2521]

Learn the rules. Biotch.

 

[shsdawg]

just like every play. I thought the spot actually favored us a bit. Now the measurement was clearly given to Auburn. There isa pic that prooves it. They were an inch short. Refs didn't beat us though. Kick off coverage and lack of defense did that. We don't have any linebackers worthy of the name and we are weak on the ends.

 

[aTotal360]

You CANNOT assume that you are going to get a better shot at scoring. Youare looking at it from hindsight. If you think you scored, 17ing challenge it. You might not a better scoringopportunity.

 

[tenureplan]

for not seeing clearly in your anger. But it SHOULD have been reviewed by the booth. But risking losing your last timeout on a judgement call by the booth would be absolutely moronic.

 

[TheCosmoKramer]

You're right we played poorly, but the officiating did make a difference in a game that close. Auburn doesn't score their last TD if not for the bad call on 4th down. And, I really think Ballard scored. Where did you think he was short? It looked like his hand may have been out of bounds eventually, but the ball was already past the pylon (I think), and if not, should have been right on the goal line.

 

[clydefrazier]

Mullen screwed up not challenging the 4rth and 1 by Auburn in the 3rd. Stupid.

 

[o_riverdawg]

Since Ballard didn't actually touch the pilon, the replay ref would have to see conclusive evidence that he actually went to the inside of it. There wasn't a straight on look that showed that. Yes, I think he got in, but there wasn't 100% evidence that showed that. Regardless, we still had the ball on the 1 yard line with 18 seconds left and a timeout. No excuse for not scoring there.</p>

 

[aTotal360]

The goal extends around the world essentially.

 

[chad2521]

Had not touched out of bounds which by rule is a touchdown.

 

[JacksonTiger1]

http://texastech.scout.com/2/1097350.html

 

[PBRME]

Correct. It does not matter where we land, as long as we did not step out of bounds before we were beyond the goal line. This wasn't a punt or a kick, this was a player in motion that did not step out of bounds beyond the goal line.

 

[kired]

Without an overhead view there's absolutely no way to know if it crossed or not. Sure looked like it, but no way in hell they overturn it even if it was reviewed.

 

[TXDawg.sixpack]

The goal line is a vertical plane that extends up and out to infinity. You score a TD by simply crossing the plane. The goal line does not end at the sideline.

It was a BS call and an even bigger error that it was not over-turned by the booth. Mullen shouldn't have had to challenge it. That's the job of the replay official.

Plain and simple, we got SCREWED!

 

[Nugdawg]

If Ballard could have sprouted wings, taken off from inbounds, flown around the stadium, shot Chizik the bird as he flew by, and then crossed the plane outside of the pylon before any part of his body touched the ground out of bounds, it should have been a TD. He clearly left from in bounds and passed over the plane outside the pylon. That's a TD. We got screwed AGAIN.

Edited to add: I stand corrected after reading the new rule change. Damnit.

 

[Temple of the Dawg]

Examples: Play #1: The ball carrier dives for the corner of the end zone, leaping at the one yard line. The ball - in his possession: (a) touches the pylon; (b) goes over the top of the pylon; or (c) crosses the goal line inside the pylon. The player then first touches the ground three yards beyond the goal line out of bounds. Ruling: Touchdown in all three instances. The ball broke the plane of the goal line in the player’s possession.

I thought there was pretty clear video evidence that he the ball crossed the plane inside the pylon long before he ever hit the ground out of bounds.

 

[kired]

<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 16px; line-height: 18px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); ">Play #2:<span></span>The player heads for the right pylon of the goal line. At the two yard line he dives or is blocked into the air by an opponent. The ball – in his right hand – crosses the sideline at the one yd/line and passes outside the pylon. Then the runner while air born (a) touches the pylon with his foot or left hand; or (b) first touches the ground three yards beyond the goal line out of bounds.<span></span>Ruling:<span></span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 16px; line-height: 18px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); ">In (a), Touchdown, since the plane is extended because the player touched the pylon.In (b), the plane is NOT extended, because the player did not touch the pylon or the ground in the end zone. The ball is out of bounds at the one yd/line. No Touchdown</span><div>

</div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 18px;">
</span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 18px;">I think this is the way it was called, and there likely was not enough evidence to overturn it. They've got to be 100% sure to overturn the ruling on the field --- and with us even 100% doesn't always work.</span></div>

 

[BCash]

(a) It was pretty clearly not a touchdown and you can't risk losing your last timeout in that situation. And more importantly (b) Relf should hav dove IMO the endzone instead of trying to run through the tackler. If he dives
Like any normal player, it's a 17ing touchdown.