The commentators thought it was going to be overturned and I initially thought the same thing. I think the key to understanding the call is that it was initially ruled a TD. The review can only overturn a call if there is indisputable evidence that it was wrong. Determining whether Thomas had control of the ball or not was strictly a judgement call, with no definitive proof one way or another, so the replay official probably felt he couldn't overturn the initial call. If the pass had been ruled incomplete initially, I think that call would have stood as well...for exactly the same reason.

2 ...

Report Post

Posted by wadewilson

Member since Sep 2009

36760 posts

Posted on 10/1/23 at 10:42 pm to TigerCard

quote:
The commentators thought it was going to be overturned and I initially thought the same thing.

RG3 did, and he seemed personally offended that it didn't.

I didn't think it was bad. He's kinda holding the ball at a funny angle, but it was in the same place when he hit the ground out of bounds as it was when his left foot was in.

0 ...

Report Post

Posted by jonnyanony

Member since Nov 2020

10359 posts

Posted on 10/2/23 at 7:03 am to TigerCard

quote:
The commentators thought it was going to be overturned and I initially thought the same thing. I think the key to understanding the call is that it was initially ruled a TD. The review can only overturn a call if there is indisputable evidence that it was wrong. Determining whether Thomas had control of the ball or not was strictly a judgement call, with no definitive proof one way or another, so the replay official probably felt he couldn't overturn the initial call. If the pass had been ruled incomplete initially, I think that call would have stood as well...for exactly the same reason.

This is the longest way to write "not enough evidence to overturn"

1 ...

Report Post

SEC Rant - Replies to Post

Return To Board

Page 1

Return To Board