Teams
Forum List
Toggle sidebar

Leave no question.

What was really going through your head?

  • Thought TU would retain possession because call on the field and in the box was correct.

    Votes: 1 1.1%

  • Thought TU would retain possession because booth wouldn't overturn as there was not clear evidence.

    Votes: 11 11.8%

  • Thought ISU would be awarded the ball after the video review as there was enough evidence.

    Votes: 27 29.0%

  • Thought TU would retain possession despite there being video evidence of the fumble anyway.

    Votes: 54 58.1%
  • Total voters
    93
BKLYNCyclone

BKLYNCyclone

Well-Known Member
Sep 16, 2007
2,122
104
63
Twin Cities, MN
Leave no question.

As I was walking to work this morning I came up with what should be Iowa State's mantra the rest of the year, and into the future... It applies to all sports.

We've seen it time and time again... (Alabama field goal, Seneca vs FSU, ISU BB last year twice with KU and Ohio St.) As the underdog, ISU can't be expected to get a break. I'm assuming most of us that saw the play, and the initial call, figured it wouldn't be overturned. In my head, the guy in the booth didn't want to be the guy that got Mack Brown fired (for all the crap, he's typically a respectable guy, minus defending Davis's cheap shot).

Curious as to how many people thought the play would be reversed and the general thoughts about the play call. I personally believe that had the ball seen air/ground instead of only 52s hands, the call on the field would have been different, but that's not what happened.

Googled "Leave no question" and found this:[video=youtube_share;dscFGT31kPw]http://youtu.be/dscFGT31kPw[/video]

Would love to see the logo they used added as a sticker to the helmet, or patch, or something that the Big 12/NCAA would actually allow. It isn't so much a knock on the officials as a reminder to ISU's responsibility to themselves to "Leave no Question." It's a different ballgame if we score a TD rather than the field goal, but I do believe that the field goal was the correct call. We needed to force them to get a TD, too much time to allow them to saunter down and get a last second field goal if we don't get the TD.
 
The truth, on that fumble call, I knew it SHOULD be reversed, the video evidence was indisputable, but I was clearly HOPING that it would be reversed. I've been an ISU fan too long.
 
jdoggivjc said:
The truth, on that fumble call, I knew it SHOULD be reversed, the video evidence was indisputable, but I was clearly HOPING that it would be reversed. I've been an ISU fan too long.
Click to expand...

Pretty much exactly what I was doing... I never expected it to go any other way than it did. Would have been amazing had George been able to get the 2nd fumble.

We had our shots last night to "Leave no question," but we didn't finish them. The TD instead of the FG would have been huge. The double tipped ball, (Luke almost pulled a Jake/Iowa interception out, and I think it was Watson or SER that had the 2nd chance). The 2nd fumble recover, though who knows how that review would have went down. (Perfect time to remember Mangino's $$$$$$ rant). All difficult situations, but those are the things we have to do in order to make the next step in this program.

I for one am feeling the ISU unity, hope and perseverance right now... I went to work today all geared up in my ISU hat and sweatshirt, and I can't wait to play TT. I'll also be one to say I'm 100% behind Coach Mess. Can't call a perfect game, but I thought he did a heck of a job. The issue IMO has been the talent, and the players on the field making plays. This has been a different team in the last two games. Wimberly, bundrage, Bibbs, SER, SBR, Watson, Irving all have a chance to become revered if we turn this thing around this year. 5 games...

TT, KSU, KU, & TCU are our best bets for the first 4... UT would have made this a lot easier. Gotta get one from BU (ouch), OU (ugggh), OSU (it can obviously happen), or WV (did they actually get better, or was that just a flash in the pan and OSU failure).
 
I knew what should have happened, but I knew, with the way the night was going, that Texas would retain it, and we would lose.
 
I was on my knees praying that we would get it, stupid I know. I knew we wouldn't get the call. We never do. But my god the hope is what kills ya huh?
 
I knew it was going to stand but not because of a lack of evidence to overturn it but because it was Texas. Does anyone really believe if the role was reversed they would have called our player down by contact? No way. Texas would of had a fumble recover for a touchdown.
 
I don't know what they do if they do rule it a fumble, where does ISU get the ball?

And is down by contact/forward progress reviewable?
 
Ry4Cy said:
I knew it was going to stand but not because of a lack of evidence to overturn it but because it was Texas. Does anyone really believe if the role was reversed they would have called our player down by contact? No way. Texas would of had a fumble recover for a touchdown.
Click to expand...

I think the replay was just not adequate to overturn the down on contact as much as we all wanted it to be. If it was originally called a fumble I think they could have upheld it but that wasn't the case and we get bent over as a result.
 
By that point of the game I was waiting for the officials to spot the ball in the end zone and give them a TD without running a play.

I also thought at the time was we are going to need a "Conference letter of Apology" case to go next to our trophy case. I'm sure there is ANOTHER one of those in our future.

Now that I've slept on it we should not have been in that position. We squandered some good opportunities and the way McCoy was throwing ball we did not need to grab all those receivers.
 
CycoCyclone said:
I don't know what they do if they do rule it a fumble, where does ISU get the ball?

And is down by contact/forward progress reviewable?
Click to expand...
2 yard line is where we should have had the ball. Down by contact is reviewable, if the play had been blown dead for forward progress it isn't reviewable.
 
Forward progress/early whistle is not reviewable. The play has to end there, because the refs can't assume what might have happened if the whistle hadn't blown.

Down by contact IS reviewable, and, fun fact, that's what the call was on the field. The refs hadn't ruled forward progress had stopped, they had ruled the runner was down before the ball came out. That is reviewable, and clearly should have been overturned.

Now, since the whistle blew after George took the ball and headed south, they couldn't assume the Iowa State touchdown on a reversal. I can't say for certain where ISU would have been granted possession, my guess is somewhere near the line of scrimmage.

ETA: Man, you guys are fast! Three replies since I started typing this!
 
resident said:
I think the replay was just not adequate to overturn the down on contact as much as we all wanted it to be. If it was originally called a fumble I think they could have upheld it but that wasn't the case and we get bent over as a result.
Click to expand...

Let's see. Replay shows runner wasn't down until George had stolen the ball from him and was 10 yards up the field. How is that not adequate to overturn down by contact?
 
resident said:
I think the replay was just not adequate to overturn the down on contact as much as we all wanted it to be. If it was originally called a fumble I think they could have upheld it but that wasn't the case and we get bent over as a result.
Click to expand...
The entire country, Texas fans included, seem to disagree with you. Well maybe ESPN agrees with you.
 
jdoggivjc said:
Let's see. Replay shows runner wasn't down until George had stolen the ball from him and was 10 yards up the field. How is that not adequate to overturn down by contact?
Click to expand...

Yep, I think George had the ball and was moving away from the runner before he hit the ground. How can that not be clear evidence? Did the ball teleport into George's arms once the runner was down?
 
[video=youtube;i8hEZ1Bhcbw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8hEZ1Bhcbw[/video]

1. Call was "down by contact."

2. Ball was stripped, recovered, and ran upfield before the runner was down.

3. Ball was stripped, recovered, and ran upfield before the whistle was blown (yeah, they don't get sound in the replay booth - besides the point).

Care to share how evidence WASN'T there?
 
Bret44 said:
I was on my knees praying that we would get it, stupid I know. I knew we wouldn't get the call. We never do. But my god the hope is what kills ya huh?
Click to expand...


I did the very same thing. Then I realized a little later that I was behind real time watching it on my DVR so that prayer came in a bit late for any divine intervention.
 
jdoggivjc said:
[video=youtube;i8hEZ1Bhcbw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8hEZ1Bhcbw[/video]

1. Call was "down by contact."

2. Ball was stripped, recovered, and ran upfield before the runner was down.

3. Ball was stripped, recovered, and ran upfield before the whistle was blown (yeah, they don't get sound in the replay booth - besides the point).

Care to share how evidence WASN'T there?
Click to expand...

I think the overhead shot showed it the best. This is why the officials need to be held accountable and provide a detailed explanation of what they saw with exactly what they were looking at. If you compare the timeline of that shot with the one everyone is replaying/gif'ing, you see the ball is out...indisputable...unless you think the runner was Stretch Armstrong.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Help Support Us

Become a patron
Top Bottom