Why wasnt nassibs other fumble reviewed?

[upperdeck]

much like the first one he was hit just about the time he was throwing. the rule doesn't say he needs to be throwing before the contact, not sure if we use the nfl rule where it doesnt even need to go forward to be called a forward pass. but it should at least be looked at. the nfl has the rule all scores and TO's are reviewed , not sure why college which supposedly looks at all plays doesnt take the time to review those, no way it got looked at that fast. his arm was cocked, he got hit, then he threw it whether by reflex or force of hit.

 

[Chip]

Because it was an obvious fumble. The games are taking long enough with all of these replays. Another 15 minutes to have them confirm that completely obvious call doesn't solve anything.

The bigger question on that play was why wasn't the blitzer picked up? That's what SU should be focusing on.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[Alsacs]

The 3rd quarter fumble was obvious. Its joke though that every judgment call that had to be reviewed was on the field called in favor of Cincinnati.

 

[Chip]

The 3rd quarter fumble was obvious. Its joke though that every judgment call that had to be reviewed was on the field called in favor of Cincinnati.

Except the overturn of the early incomplete pass. That was a closer call than the fumble miss. And since it was called a fumble on the field, I was surprised a crooked crew reversed it.

I also thought the unsportsmanlike call on Cincy in the first half was junk. Should have been on both or neither. Spruill threw him to the ground long enough after the whistle to be flagged. Turn that one around and this board is going nuts.

We could have, and should have, won that game in spite of the refs. SU hurt itself much more than the refs did.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[Capt. Tuttle]

much like the first one he was hit just about the time he was throwing. the rule doesn't say he needs to be throwing before the contact, not sure if we use the nfl rule where it doesnt even need to go forward to be called a forward pass. but it should at least be looked at. the nfl has the rule all scores and TO's are reviewed , not sure why college which supposedly looks at all plays doesnt take the time to review those, no way it got looked at that fast. his arm was cocked, he got hit, then he threw it whether by reflex or force of hit.

all close plays, turnovers are reviwed. If one needs a closer look, they buzz down to delay the game.

Sent from my Vortex using Tapatalk 2

 

[Alsacs]

Except the overturn of the early incomplete pass. That was a closer call than the fumble miss. And since it was called a fumble on the field, I was surprised a crooked crew reversed it.

I also thought the unsportsmanlike call on Cincy in the first half was junk. Should have been on both or neither. Spruill threw him to the ground long enough after the whistle to be flagged. Turn that one around and this board is going nuts.

We could have, and should have, won that game in spite of the refs. SU hurt itself much more than the refs did.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

The on the field call was a fumble recovered by Cincinnati. Every review call on the field was in favor of Cincinnati the booth reviewed overturned the call Nassib on the field in the first quarter. Its a joke the refs on the field called everything in favor of Cincinnati. The TD call was overturned and the fumble was overturned.

 

[upperdeck]

Because it was an obvious fumble. The games are taking long enough with all of these replays. Another 15 minutes to have them confirm that completely obvious call doesn't solve anything.

The bigger question on that play was why wasn't the blitzer picked up? That's what SU should be focusing on.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

its not obvious if you actually watch the play in slow mo and follow the rules.

 

[Chip]

its not obvious if you actually watch the play in slow mo and follow the rules.

I didn't hear you wondering if UConn's fumble against us after the Eskeridge blitz should have been reviewed. It was the same thing.

There's a reason why you are the only person who has asked the question.

 

[upperdeck]

yes it was. and they did the same thing reviewed one and not the other. I still believe that the replay guys who are supposed to reviewing every play are not doing so. they didnt review the rutgers fumble into the endzone either and SU came up with that one. there was no time to see if it happened before the goal line. so was it reviewed? just because people dont see it doesnt mean it didnt happen.

the rule is that did the contact move his arm or did the contact cause the direction to be changed.. you cant tell that in a few seconds and the ball came out much faster on the 2nd one than the first.

 

[ImperialOrange]

The way Cinci ran out to run a play so quickly means they thought it should've been reviewed.

Nassib got hit pre pass but the ball came out with his arm moving forward. Not sure the outcome but it shouldve been reviewed.

 

[upperdeck]

much like the Pitt/giants game.. Ben got hit before the throw started, it was ruled a fumble be cause he lost control before the arm started forward. Nassib got hi before he started throwing , but the arm was cocked and he clearly threw the ball somewhere. the only wrong call was not reviewing it.. a total game changer

 

[TheCusian]

Thought it should have been reviewed too. It's the kind of call that is rarely ever clear.

It was probably not worth reviewing based on the bias already proven to exist in the booth, however.