upon further reivew - Bumphis was freakin in bounds

[FlabLoser]

Replay is on ESPN now. The replay on the Dawgzillatron was better than what ESPN had and the Dawgzillatron says he was in bounds.

The ref says (per Mullen or per whatever article I read) white chalk flew up off his right foot. Well, the ESPN replay says his right foot stepped right on top of a has mark right when it was nearest to stepping out.

To Dawgzilla says he was in and ESPN replay explains where the chalk came from.

Bah, ****. I sense this will not get the press that the previous screw jobs got. Regardless, I hope replaygate has gotten enough national attention that something will be done.

 

[Porkchop.sixpack]

Did the ref blow the whistle? I sure didn't see any players react as if a whistle blew. But, I can't think of any other reason that play wasn't challenged. Somebody said that Bumphis told the coach he was out. Well, I don't buy that.

 

[MSUCostanza]

He was out. The ref blew the play dead anyway, so it wouldn't have mattered. And we still would've gotten the **** beat out of us even if he had scored.

 

[patdog]

nm</p>

 

[Delmar]

I saw an official throw a beanbag or something where they spotted the ball, but I never heard a whistle or saw an official stop the play. I think they actually threw the bag so that the play could be reviewed. Of course they didn't even review it.

 

[markymark.sixpack]

it didn't matter.

 

[rugbdawg]

the sudden, the game changes. The crowd would be into it. We scored a field goal next to make it 17-10. Who knows what would have happened? Maybe we would have lost 31-10. Or maybe not.

 

[Porkchop.sixpack]

nfym

 

[maroonmania]

of the original broadcast replays in slo-mo, fast-mo and every other mo:

1. Based on what I saw there is no way that I can definitively say he stayed in bounds. The replay wasn't looking directly up the sideline but on the best angle they had I couldn't see any separation between Chad's foot and the boundary so there is a decent chance that at least a sliver of the shoe was making contact with the sideline. I would still consider it at best inconclusive based on the replays shown during the game and would in no way put this call into the "blown" category we've had in so many of our other games this season.

2. The play was NOT reviewable. The ref clearly marked the ball at the 38 right after it happened and I heard him blow the whistle on the replays I watched, i.e. play dead and no review allowed. I'm sure if Mullen COULD have had the play reviewed he would have especially after getting burned by not forcing the review in the Houston game.

3. I would not complain too much anyway. Upon rewatching we had not one but TWO obvious blocks in the back on the return. One by our #46 right at the area where Bumphis supposedly stepped out of bounds and a second by our #33 at the 3 yard line right before Bumphis went into the end zone. I saw the second one live action and thought how idiotic that block was to push someone in the back when your teammate was obviously going to get in for the score. We were extremely fortunate neither was called.

 

[Agentdog]

I got to ask. Chalk? Is chalk even used to line football field now-a-days? I am pretty sure they just paint the grass. Maybe some white grass flew up from the cleats but no chalk.

 

[patdog]

2. The play was NOT reviewable. The ref clearly marked the ball at the 38 right after it happened and I heard him blow the whistle on the replays I watched, i.e. play dead and no review allowed. I'm sure if Mullen COULD have had the play reviewed he would have especially after getting burned by not forcing the review in the Houston game.

With the reveiw system in place, on close plays like that the ref should mark the ball and then not blow the whistle until the player is tackled (or in this case scores), and then mark the ball at the spot the player went out. Same thing with the fumble/player was down call. Give the teams the chance to use the review system.

As for the blocks in the back, I didn't go back and watch it but the one near where Bumphis was called out of bounds was very obvious live.

 

[Porkchop.sixpack]

Not that they are going to make a correct call on the replay anyway. But, if you have that tool available, you shouldn't blow the whistle.

 

[fishwater99]

We got our asses beat and it was no suprise to me...

 

[AssEndDawg]

<span class="post-title">Then why didn't our coach dispute the call?</span>

the ref blew the whistle. Mullen did talk to the ref trying to dispute and the ref told him there was nothing to review because the whistle blew. Out or not the play was dead right there. I watched it on the Jumbotron and on HD once I got home and I see nothing indicating he was out, it should have been a TD. But to be honest I was more upset the refs allowed Bama to hold like crazy and think that cost us more than the one run back. Regardless we weren't going to win. Bama was just the better team and the SEC refs "are just trying to do what's best for the conference."

 

[Portland Dawg]

Upon further review the clock did not stop until Bumphis scored. The clock was not reset back to the time he was ruled out of bounds. I don't know that we would have won the game but I do beleive it to the momentum away.

 

[studentdawg87]

NT</p>

 

[MississippiHeavyMetalDawg]

No part of his foot was on the white line. </p>

 

[dawgstudent]

there was no way they would overturn it. And if the call was he was in bounds, there is no way they could overturn it - without bias. It was impossible to tell. The call on the field was would have stood.

 

[DawgTeacher]

my question is would that have been the call if Bama was returning it? I honestly believe it was too close to call and the refs would have let it play out. And no it doesn't change the beat down put on us. But did anyone else see the coach/ GA on our sideline go beserk on the guy that made the call??? He went nuts and some of our players were having to hold him back...</p>

 

[ImHurtinLinda]

the referee would have to be on his belly with a magnifying glass, with Bumphis in slow motion to tell if he stepped on the line. you absolutely DO NOT call that out of bounds with it being that close - you let it play out unless you are sure (i.e. half of his foot is on the line, cleat marks, etc. - no way in hell he had that). it is ridiculous and WOULD NOT have been called out on Bama or Florida or any of the other chosen ones - it would have been played out, and challenged by the opposing coach that he was out of bounds (maybe not, because no one would have noticed it) and not overturned. i am so pissed about the officiating this year that I can't see straight - and it's not about whether we would have won or not - it's about whether you have a chance to win or not. someone needs to rent a billboard on I20 in birmingham and show the stills of the screwings that we have endured this year - I'll pitch in $1000.

 

[ImHurtinLinda]

when he made the cut, he did it on his toes and the balls of his feet - when his toes come up, they were in bounds - I don't think he was out. I can see how the official may have thought he MIGHT have stepped out, but it was way, way to close to stop a break-away for a touchdown. if he was out (and I don't think that he was based on what I saw), it couldn't have been more than 1/8" - can anyone shy of clark kent see something that close when someone is running that fast? - if it's an inch or 1/2 inch even - OK, great call, great eye, but NO ONE could see that one - NO ONE - maybe it was the six million $ man working the sideline??? - you know that Slive and Co. says that we have the best officials on the planet, I guess that human electron microscope he has working the sideline is proof.