Should the Whithead 100Yard fumble have been overturned?Called a TD for Pitt

[mdpitt]

and I honestly did not see any camera angle refuting fumble. Am I blind or was that just a hometown call for instinctively thinking it crossed without proof?

The way we were playing, it would have been 21-7 with all kinds of momentum and booing going on.

 

[BuffetParrothead]

and I honestly did not see any camera angle refuting fumble. Am I blind or was that just a hometown call for instinctively thinking it crossed without proof?

The way we were playing, it would have been 21-7 with all kinds of momentum and booing going on.

The angle we saw on the broadcast showed a clear view of the Clemson playing scoring aTD prior to Whitehead recovery and run. The announcers made up their minds immediately after seeing the reply.

 

[mdpitt]

The angle we saw on the broadcast showed a clear view of the Clemson playing being down prior to Whitehead recovery and run. The announcers made up their minds immediately after seeing the reply.

Down and in the endzone?

 

[giveitarest]

Down and in the endzone?

I thought it was a Clemson TD based on what the TV showed.

 

[VAPITTALUM]

It wasn't a question of the Clemson player being down, since he was laying on another player when he was near the goal line/fumble occurring. It's a tough call, but it did appear that he had broken the plane, and actually touched the goal line with the ball before the ball was knocked away. It was a matter of inches, but I think the officials got it right.

 

[Las Panteras]

It was a touchdown....wasnt even close.

Refs got it right

 

[pittmeister]

It was a touchdown....wasnt even close.

Refs got it right

Agreed

 

[PhPanther1]

I do not agree with any of you who think it was a TD. Logic tells me it was a TD, but based upon the rule, you need CONCLUSIVE video evidence showing that the player had clear control and that it broke the goal line. This all needs displayed in 1 shot, you can't piece together multiple views of the video to create logic to show it was a TD. Here is the link, I can't gather this information on any video shot. For those of you who clearly see it, please give me a time in the video or even better yet, put of a screen shot. Thanks.

 

[Howie'81]

and I honestly did not see any camera angle refuting fumble. Am I blind or was that just a hometown call for instinctively thinking it crossed without proof?

The way we were playing, it would have been 21-7 with all kinds of momentum and booing going on.

Are you kidding? Almost every angle showed the ball breaking the plane before it came out. Once the ball breaks the plane, the play is over and it's a TD.

 

[upj87]

It was a touchdown....wasnt even close.

Refs got it right

I agree it was a td...do not agree that it wasn't even close..

 

[giveitarest]

I do not agree with any of you who think it was a TD. Logic tells me it was a TD, but based upon the rule, you need CONCLUSIVE video evidence showing that the player had clear control and that it broke the goal line. This all needs displayed in 1 shot, you can't piece together multiple views of the video to create logic to show it was a TD. Here is the link, I can't gather this information on any video shot. For those of you who clearly see it, please give me a time in the video or even better yet, put of a screen shot. Thanks.

View embedded media

You can't see it on this game replay you had to watch the multiple replays, especially the ones in slow motion. Those are very clear they got it right. The ball crossed the line before he fumbled.

 

[Pittx9]

The call should've stood either way. It looked more like a Clemson TD, but it also kind of looked like the ball was coming out as it was about to cross. I can't say it was the wrong call at all, but to overturn any call there was a far stretch.

 

[OH Pete]

Are you kidding? Almost every angle showed the ball breaking the plane before it came out. Once the ball breaks the plane, the play is over and it's a TD.

There was only one angle that I saw that indicated that the ball may have crossed. I say may have, because the camera was not right down the goal line. It is nearly impossible to tell conclusively from that type of angle. Having said that, I can't imagine that the ball did not cross. As another poster said, logic indicates that. But as far as being able to tell conclusively with my eyes (and not making assumptions), the play call on the field should have stood.

 

[Parkview57]

IMO, two seemingly conflicting points of view are correct. Using all possible angles it appeared likely that he crossed the plane, but there was no conclusive evidence to overturn the call. In the end I am glad the call went Clemson's way.

 

[Phantomrecruit]

Was at the game clearly a touchdown by Clemson. End of Story

 

[9nationalchampionships]

I saw all ten or so angles on TV and could not see one that definitely showed the ball over the goal line before he fumbled it but you saw it live with 80K others and could tell.......amazing!

 

[Gregory25]

I do not agree with any of you who think it was a TD. Logic tells me it was a TD, but based upon the rule, you need CONCLUSIVE video evidence showing that the player had clear control and that it broke the goal line. This all needs displayed in 1 shot, you can't piece together multiple views of the video to create logic to show it was a TD. Here is the link, I can't gather this information on any video shot. For those of you who clearly see it, please give me a time in the video or even better yet, put of a screen shot. Thanks.

View embedded media

I saw it the same way. It was easy to assume the ball crossed the goaline, but the down the line view was blocked by a defender (I think). Can't quite remember. I never saw a replay that actually showed the ball crossing. At least not on my TV. Hey, maybe this could help me talk my wife into green lighting a 4K TV??

 

[Panther Parrothead]

IMHO, I thought that the ball broke the goal line, albeit very briefly, while he was at his highest point in the air. But as he was coming down and getting pushed backwards, the ball started going backwards, too, so it looked as though it didn't penetrate the horizontal plane of the goal line.

So was it a TD? By my line of vision, unfortunately...yes.

 

[paschuler1970]

Hi, first time poster so I hope I don't do this wrong. I watched the replays numerous times. I did not see the ground causing the fumble nor a player knock the ball loose. But to me it appeared the ball. was coming out as the player fell. Since there was no clear angle showing control as the ball crossed the goal line I believe the call should not have been overturned. That's how I saw it.

 

[PhPanther1]

The only way you can tell is from a goalline cam, which it's blocked by Whitehead or the overhead cam, which you can't see the ball, all you can see is his arm. Since all you can see is his arm, you can't tell when possession was lost, so you keep the call on the field.

Any camera angle shown that was not directly on the line is a waste of time and not even looked at because you can't see when he breaks the line. No way in hell the call on the field should be over turned.

 

[PA_Panther]

I thought it was a clear touchdown. At the 35:57 mark, the Clemson FB #42 butt was in end zone, the Ball hit his butt while having control it's a clear touchdown.. After that, the RB still has the football and the ball is in his hands going down clearly crossing the goal line

.

 

[CJsE]

I thought it was a clear touchdown. At the 35:57 mark, the Clemson FB #42 butt was in end zone, the Ball hit his butt while having control it's a clear touchdown.. After that, the RB still has the football and the ball is in his hands going down clearly crossing the goal line

.

This^

The officials do not need to have definite evidence in a single replay, they can use information from multiple replays. From the midfield sideline replay you can see that the ball begins to come out when the forearm hits the ass of the blocker. From the same angle as well as in the overhead and goal line camera you can see that the blockers ass is well beyond the plane.

 

[FireballZ]

False - there literally couldn't have been another fan in the entire stadium with a better view than me. There was nothing 'clear' about it, but I appreciate all of the fake Pitt fans/trolls saying it was clear.

 

[FireballZ]

This^

The officials do not need to have definite evidence in a single replay, they can use information from multiple replays. From the midfield sideline replay you can see that the ball begins to come out when the forearm hits the ass of the blocker. From the same angle as well as in the overhead and goal line camera you can see that the blockers ass is well beyond the plane.

I'm not positive that this is true in the college game. You may be correct, but can you post a link?

 

[TempleBAPittMPA]

I didn't think there was sufficient "conclusive video evidence" to overturn the call that was made on the field, but I also cannot fault the officials for looking at as many angles as they had at their disposal before either upholding or overturning.

 

[CJsE]

I'm not positive that this is true in the college game. You may be correct, but can you post a link?

Rule 12 Section 7 Article 1 -
To reverse an on-field ruling, the replay official must be
convinced beyond all doubt by indisputable video evidence through one or
more video replays provided to the monitor.

 

[revampedpanthers]

I saw all ten or so angles on TV and could not see one that definitely showed the ball over the goal line before he fumbled it but you saw it live with 80K others and could tell.......amazing!

I have the game DVr'd. Watched it about 10 times and there wasn't any conclusive evidence in my opinion. Look he crossed the goal line its easy to flip back and forth between views and conclude he crossed but no view clearly showed the ball crossing the goal line.

 

[9nationalchampionships]

I believe he crossed the goal as logic takes over but there is no way you could have seen this live unless you were standing right there on the goal line. IMO

I have the game DVr'd. Watched it about 10 times and there wasn't any conclusive evidence in my opinion. Look he crossed the goal line its easy to flip back and forth between views and conclude he crossed but no view clearly showed the ball crossing the goal line.

 

[pittmeister]

If you have one ounce of objectivity you would say it was a TD. If that happened to Pitt, and the refs said no TD, you'd all be screaming for a month....

He broke the plane, once that happens it's a TD. Everything that happens after that doesn't matter.

 

[pittmeister]

Are you kidding? Almost every angle showed the ball breaking the plane before it came out. Once the ball breaks the plane, the play is over and it's a TD.

STFU, Howie.. Nobody asked you. Find your way back to BWI Message board...

 

[FireballZ]

Rule 12 Section 7 Article 1 -
To reverse an on-field ruling, the replay official must be
convinced beyond all doubt by indisputable video evidence through one or
more video replays provided to the monitor.

Thanks, but that doesn't exactly collaborate your original statement.

 

[Joe the Panther Fan]

Thanks, but that doesn't exactly collaborate your original statement.

They actually have the ability to sync up multiple replays and view them at the same time. If they weren't allowed to use multiple replays why would they bother doing that?

It was a touchdown.

 

[BVGPitt]

It's too high....what do you mean too high?..I mean too high...Who gives a Sh*t...It's gone

 

[bjf1991]

I do not agree with any of you who think it was a TD. Logic tells me it was a TD, but based upon the rule, you need CONCLUSIVE video evidence showing that the player had clear control and that it broke the goal line. This all needs displayed in 1 shot, you can't piece together multiple views of the video to create logic to show it was a TD. Here is the link, I can't gather this information on any video shot. For those of you who clearly see it, please give me a time in the video or even better yet, put of a screen shot. Thanks.

View embedded media

Seriously?

 

[sshulk]

The only conclusive proof would have been a video taken "down" the goal line not the ones we had taken from the field and from the end zone where the perspective is skewed.
Raises question why there is not always a camera on the goal line itself.
Not enough to overturn the call on the field whether it was fumble or TD.

 

[Delpanther]

Anyone who called that play a td wasn't basing that conclusion on clear conclusive evidence. I saw umpteen replays of the play and it's not clear when the ball came put relative to the ball's position to the goal line. I've seen much clearer plays on replay suggesting that the call on the field should be reversed which were instead upheld. Pitt got royally screwed on that play. In the end, however, Pitt's overcoming that play and still winning prevents JA's like those at UPS and Clemson itself from contending that a bad call allowed Pitt to win. Bottom line- we got screwed, overcame the adversity and still beat the second ranked team on their turf on senior day!!!! H2P!!!!

 

[JokePa]

I just saw the game for the first time. And any of you clowns that say it was a touchdown, please post a screen shot of when you see that.
I saw in slowmo every angle and not ONE showed a touchdown, not one.
I mean the fourth down play against vtech that cost us the game had CLEAR evidence he was stopped before the marker, and stop footage that clearly showed it, and it wasnt overturned because they said there wasnt enough evidence.
This one has NO clear angle No clear evidence, and was clear it was a fumble and they overturned it.

Again, if you disagree, prove me wrong... there is NOOOOOOO way it is INDISPUTABLE EVIDENCE to overturn that call. NO WAY!

 

[Pitt-Chains]

I have the game DVr'd. Watched it about 10 times and there wasn't any conclusive evidence in my opinion. Look he crossed the goal line its easy to flip back and forth between views and conclude he crossed but no view clearly showed the ball crossing the goal line.

Not clear is the correct call... TD PITT Jordan Whitehead.

I'll take the PITT W and forget about it...

If we are talking VT game different f'n story... PITT/we got jobbed.. when the line judge called DJ down the field killing the first down.. and him turning to us and asking if he made the correct call... you f'n kidding me !

 

[Joe the Panther Fan]

PITT/we got jobbed.. when the line judge called DJ down the field killing the first down..

Once again, watch the replay. He was clearly and obviously three yards past the line of scrimmage. Three yards past the line of scrimmage when the ball is throw is a penalty. Whether the ref was unsure if it was the right call or was 100% absolutely positive that it was the right call is immaterial to the fact that it was the right call.

 

[Pitt-Chains]

Once again, watch the replay. He was clearly and obviously three yards past the line of scrimmage. Three yards past the line of scrimmage when the ball is throw is a penalty. Whether the ref was unsure if it was the right call or was 100% absolutely positive that it was the right call is immaterial to the fact that it was the right call.

You don't throw it, not the same as holding on every play..