forums

Need assistance with Pics of Miami getting screwed

Keep in mind, they spotted this at the 1.

1701123534423.png
 
Advertisement
1.png3.png4.png5.png6.png7.png8.png
Someone 'shopped the pic in the post above.
Pic 2 is when he's first touched.
Even if you argue the tackle started a split-second before, there's no arguing the fact that he lost control of the ball (Pic 4 and 5).
 

Attachments

  • 2.png
    2.png
    262.1 KB · Views: 0
  • 2.png
    2.png
    262.1 KB · Views: 0
  • 1.png
    1.png
    244.2 KB · Views: 0
Last edited:
Yoyo82 said:
We won the Clemson game.

The fsu safety may have made a difference but we lost that game by 7.
Click to expand...
Yea, but you get that two and the ball back. Probably decent field position. Say you get a FG so that’s five. Then that changes the last drive’s complexion with TVD in there. You need three as opposed to a TD. Not saying the outcome changes at all but it matters in the grand scheme of things.
 
Advertisement
NJshoreCane said:
View attachment 268033View attachment 268026View attachment 268028View attachment 268029View attachment 268030View attachment 268031View attachment 268032
Someone shopped the pic in the post above.
Pic 2 is when he's first touched.
Pic 4 and 5 shows him losing control of the ball.
Click to expand...



Yes. Absolutely.

And, again, I'd point out that the SemenHoles are going to try to make the "first touch" appear as early as possible.

But the reality is that Wesley first swipes at the ball (Photo 2) and then brings his arm down (Photo 3) onto Travis's arm to make the actual tackle.
 
aelmiami said:
Pretty sure the same happened with Clemson too.
Click to expand...


Certainly with North Carolina it did.

And, again, I'm trying to focus on games where the NON-call of a safety began to change the scoring and strategy immediately thereafter.

We beat Clemson. While I'd like to have 2 additional points, I'd also note that the North Carolina and F$U non-calls impacted the points OF THE LOSING TEAM.

Against North Carolina, with 2 additional points, we are driving for the TYING TOUCHDOWN (assuming a successful 2-point conversion).

Against F$U, with 2 additional points, we are driving for the WINNING TOUCHDOWN.

We did not get blown out all year. If we lose to UNC and F$U by 20 or more points, I'm not going to be as worried about a safety no-call.

But that's not what happened.

And I'd like to see us get ALL the safeties we earned, but I'm less worried about the Clemson one.
 
TheOriginalCane said:
You took the exact picture that F$U fans are circulating for the false claim of "forward progress", at a point where Wes has not even touched Travis yet. Is it about to happen? Yes.

But, again, WATCH THE VIDEO. Wesley swipes at the ball and then gets Travis's arm instead, which is when the tackle begins.

The ball is not down when the first pinky contacts the first hair follicle. It's when the tackle begins. At that point, the further tackling motion cannot push the player and/or the ball any deeper into the end zone.

It's still a safety.
Click to expand...
Sometimes it's difficult to have a conversation with you because you make everything so personal.. I'm just trying to be objective.

I watched the video from this page

And I took a screenshot where I thought initial contact happened. I assumed the tackle began as soon as contact was made. Is that not right? Seems like it can be extremely subjective otherwise.

Watching the video again, it's hard to tell exactly where initial contact happened but now that I'm watching it with your interpretation, I see what you mean and agree that he didn't make contact until his hand was coming down on the ball.

Still think that would be hard to overturn though.

I think the clearer bias was that it wasn't called a safety to begin with.

Edited to add that he lost control of the ball so forward progress resets there anyways so should have been a safety regardless.
 
Didn’t the head official of the GT game who reviewed the fumble have GT tackling a miami
Player on his social media too?
 
Advertisement
Yoyo82 said:
Sometimes it's difficult to have a conversation with you because you make everything so personal.. I'm just trying to be objective.

I watched the video from this page

And I took a screenshot where I thought initial contact happened. I assumed the tackle began as soon as contact was made. Is that not right? Seems like it can be extremely subjective otherwise.

Watching the video again, it's hard to tell exactly where initial contact happened but now that I'm watching it with your interpretation, I see what you mean and agree that he didn't make contact until his hand was coming down on the ball.

Still think that would be hard to overturn though.

I think the clearer bias was that it wasn't called a safety to begin with.

Edited to add that he lost control of the ball so forward progress resets there anyways so should have been a safety regardless.
Click to expand...

Sometimes, it's better to just scroll past, bud. You won't win here. Your options are either agree no matter what or be a dumb clueless troll. (Sans about 763 words or so)
 
Yoyo82 said:
Sometimes it's difficult to have a conversation with you because you make everything so personal.. I'm just trying to be objective.

I watched the video from this page

And I took a screenshot where I thought initial contact happened. I assumed the tackle began as soon as contact was made. Is that not right? Seems like it can be extremely subjective otherwise.

Watching the video again, it's hard to tell exactly where initial contact happened but now that I'm watching it with your interpretation, I see what you mean and agree that he didn't make contact until his hand was coming down on the ball.

Still think that would be hard to overturn though.

I think the clearer bias was that it wasn't called a safety to begin with.
Click to expand...



Look, I said it wasn't personal. Regardless of where you pulled the picture, it's the EXACT same point in time that the F$U fans are using to claim it wasn't a safety. I'm not mad at you personally, I just take issue when the beginning point of the discussion is using a point-in-time which F$U fans are trumpeting.

So let's back up. As I've pointed out, it is NOT as simple as "first contact". As I said, the QB gets bounced around all the time in the backfield. Getting touched is not the point in time when it matters. Getting TACKLED is.

And let's take into account where the ref was. BEHIND the play. He can't even see this supposedly "favorable" angle that F$U fans are pushing.

Now let's try to synch up the two videos in our head, the one from the pylon cam (which is good for orienting the ball and the end zone line) and the one from deeper in the end zone (which is good for showing how Wesley's arm came around as a swipe and then came downward as a tackle of Travis.

If you look at all of that holistically, you can't help but conclude that the act of TACKLING Travis occured when the ball was partiallly or fully in the end zone.

And while I can UNDERSTAND this whole concept of "yes, but the call was made on the field, and you need some clear evidence to overturn it", I would argue that there was AMPLE evidence. Because unlike a review of a targeting call, when you are trying to determine whether there was intent or "striking" or "launching" from the photos and video, in the case of a SAFETY it should be strictly evidentiary, as there are enough markers and guidelines from where we can see the ball (such as the stripes and laces, etc.) and the goal line, and should be able to say DEFINITIVELY that AT LEAST PART OF THE BALL was on the end line at the time when the tackle began.

If there was NO camera angle, and there was NO evidence to overturn, then I'd never say a word. BUT THERE WAS. And, again, as you can clearly see from the synching of the two camera angles (ALLOWED on replay), Wesley's arm initially came in as a swipe of the ball, kinda-sort from the side (or a bit above the side, like a sidearm pitcher), before going straight down towards the ground in a motion that went DOWNWARD on Travis's arm in the process of tackling him, not just swiping at the ball.

And all of those factors taken together give AMPLE evidence that the ball was AT LEAST on the end zone line. This is NOT the case where thre is not enough evidence to overturn. Or uncertainty on motivation or force of a hit. It's just "did the tackle start, and where is the ball when the tackle starts". And that was CLEARLY on the end zone line. Which is why it was a safety, with no lack of clarity in the evidence.

The camera angle provided the view that the ref DID NOT HAVE when making the incorrect call THAT HE DIDN'T EVEN SEE. On that basis alone, the call on the field should not have been entitled to any deference, because it wasn't made from a clear vantage point.

It's all just so ridiculous. As if we should let bad ref calls stand WHERE THE FIELD OF VISION WAS BLOCKED, simply because a call HAS to be made at that moment, regardless of whether the ref saw anything (which he clearly did not).

**** the ACC refs. Two games with blown safety calls, you would think that they MIGHT just give us the benefit of the doubt. But, no. I mean, we should have gotten the safety at least ONE TIME out of those three, just purely on random statistical chance alone.

The fact that ALL THREE went against us on the field AND AFTER REVIEW is the evidence of bad intent.

**** me once, shame on you. **** me twice, shame on me. **** me three times, well now I detect an intentional pattern of ****ery.
 
cway313 said:
Sometimes, it's better to just scroll past, bud. You won't win here. Your options are either agree no matter what or be a dumb clueless troll. (Sans about 763 words or so)
Click to expand...


As if you give a ****.

Nope, it's another one of your passive-aggressive backdoor efforts to start more **** with me, because I've destroyed you every other time.
 
Advertisement
aelmiami said:
Does it matter though? Doesn’t change anything and I’m sure they’d defer to the call on the field.
Click to expand...
I'd still like to feel like my coach is alive and actively involved in the game, especially after one of the most boneheaded play calls in the history of football.
 
Advertisement
TheOriginalCane said:
You took the exact picture that F$U fans are circulating for the false claim of "forward progress", at a point where Wes has not even touched Travis yet. Is it about to happen? Yes.

But, again, WATCH THE VIDEO. Wesley swipes at the ball and then gets Travis's arm instead, which is when the tackle begins.

The ball is not down when the first pinky contacts the first hair follicle. It's when the tackle begins. At that point, the further tackling motion cannot push the player and/or the ball any deeper into the end zone.

It's still a safety.
Click to expand...
Plus, Travis bobbles the ball while being tackled and somehow didn’t fully fumble the ball.
 
TheOriginalCane said:
As if you give a ****.

Nope, it's another one of your passive-aggressive backdoor efforts to start more **** with me, because I've destroyed you every other time.
Click to expand...
I'm unaware of how to keep score on message boards so congrats on your victories?
 
TheOriginalCane said:
View attachment 268011



The ball is down where the tackle began.



Section 5. Safety

How Scored—ARTICLE 1

Approved Ruling 8-5-1

I. A10, after receiving the snap in his own end zone, is downed with the ball resting on his goal line, its forward point being in the field of play. RULING: Safety. A part of the dead ball is on the ball carrier’s goal line.

Any part of the dead ball on the goal line results in a safety.
Click to expand...
Not to mention Travis fumbled the ball and recovered it in the end zone! Safety
 
Advertisement
Back
Top