forums

Frame by Frame - Mark Walton

futurecane

futurecane

Redshirt Freshman
Joined
Nov 5, 2011
Messages
440
I don't understand why any network hasn't done this yet. Laughably easy, and shows the ball is coming out BEFORE he touches the ground. See frame 3, how his knee is off the ground, the ball is in sharp focus. Frame 4, the ball has already moved and his knee is on the ground (i.e. the same shot as the photographer, but showing that the ball has moved)

image.png

image.png

image.png

image.png

image.png
 
Advertisement
Are these pics showing up for anyone else, or is it just me with the Ray Charles browser?
 
If this were a fumble being reviewed they would say that he did not have control of the ball when his knee touched the ground. By the same logic they can't say he was down here.
 
Who cares?

Embrace the hate rather than acting like a scared bytch.

You come off as a weakling trying to defend our win in your second thread of the day.
 
Advertisement
Cane Dynasty said:
If this were a fumble being reviewed they would say that he did not have control of the ball when his knee touched the ground. By the same logic they can't say he was down here.
Click to expand...
Bingo. I've been telling everyone who will listen that exact same thing.
 
Cane Dynasty said:
If this were a fumble being reviewed they would say that he did not have control of the ball when his knee touched the ground. By the same logic they can't say he was down here.
Click to expand...

This...all day long. I don't even know why it's legitimately questioned.
 
McGahee2TheHouse said:
Who cares?

Embrace the hate rather than acting like a scared bytch.

You come off as a weakling trying to defend our win in your second thread of the day.
Click to expand...


**** that. 2nd gen UM Alum, I know all about hate. Fight fire with fire, and keep piling on.

Want me to curl up in a ball and play dead?
 
I seems to me that every picture I see that there is a unbroken shadow under Marks's knee. If it was on the ground there would not be one at the point of contact. Is it just by old eyes or do you guys see the same thing.
 
Advertisement
futurecane said:
McGahee2TheHouse said:
Who cares?

Embrace the hate rather than acting like a scared bytch.

You come off as a weakling trying to defend our win in your second thread of the day.
Click to expand...


**** that. 2nd gen UM Alum, I know all about hate. Fight fire with fire, and keep piling on.

Want me to curl up in a ball and play dead?
Click to expand...

No. I want you to laugh hysterically in the face of anyone who doubts the play, rather than whining on here as to why media networks won't break the play down frame by frame and be our best friends.

You say you know all about the UM hate, but you start your OP off with "I don't understand why any network hasn't done this yet"
 
The real outrage ensued when a photograph -- that was not available to the review official -- surfaced that appeared to show the knee down from the angle of the photo. Based on the replay angles and footage available to the refs, a reasonable person absolutely could conclude that there was not irrefutable evidence to reverse the call on the field. And OP's post shows why.
 
The Ref is 5 yds away looking straight at Walton. There must have been some air between his knee and the ground when he released the ball.
If not that ref has no business refereeing any sport again.
 
Advertisement
dycane said:
The real outrage ensued when a photograph -- that was not available to the review official -- surfaced that appeared to show the knee down from the angle of the photo. Based on the replay angles and footage available to the refs, a reasonable person absolutely could conclude that there was not irrefutable evidence to reverse the call on the field. And OP's post shows why.
Click to expand...

And THIS ^^ is what the ACC should have said. Admitted to one missed legitimate block in the back call and been done with it. Instead the Tobacco Road clownshow went overboard in trying to assuage Dook and just made themselves look even more inept. It's all moot on our end though. Embrace the hate. It's like nourishment for our program.
 
Last edited:
First of some of this happened in milliseconds . There is the issue of full possession of the ball when his knee hit the ground. So that photo doesnt show the ball moving in his hand prior to flicking it. Not as straightforward as the one photo would suggest.
 
Advertisement
rubycane said:
The Ref is 5 yds away looking straight at Walton. There must have been some air between his knee and the ground when he released the ball.
If not that ref has no business refereeing any sport again.
Click to expand...
Here's the nuanced part...his knee can be down as he's "releasing" the ball. It was a fumble backwards...not a pass. If this were a QB throwing a ball, and it was still touching his hand as his knee was touching...then yes--down at the spot.

Walton was a runner. He was losing possession of the football via fumble (albeit in a planned/controlled way) before his knee touched. When his knee touched, he was already in the process of fumbling. If he's in the process of fumbling, and doesn't have full possession, BY RULE, he cannot be marked down.

It boils down to you cannot be marked down if you don't have full possession of the football.
 
Advertisement
Back
Top