November 22, 2005
Proof that Texas Tech beat OU
When your team beat both schools locked in a dispute, you can be trusted as the arbitrator, or so Bevo Sports would tell us.
Matt posts this definitive proof that Texas Tech beat Oklahoma - a photo Taurean Henderson, ball across the goal line, knees not yet down.
(And here I was thinking this scoreboard photo was all the proof you needed.)
OU still has a point about a bad snap, but this should close the book on the TTU Ref-gate.
Comments:
posted on November 22, 2005 2:50 PM — link — abuse?Kevin Donahue said:
Hmmm. The player I see is in the air, ball across the line. His butt, knees, you name it, are all in the air. It would seem really difficult for him to have been down and then spring up into the air & achieve this position. Maybe he could, didn't look that way on my replay or in this photo, though.
AgRyan04 said:
posted on November 22, 2005 2:54 PM — 24.160.80.2 — link — abuse?
at the 15 second point is where his butt hits the turf....he then bounces and that is when he extends the ball over the goal line.The real kicker is that they shouldn't have even had the ball at that point because it sure didn't look like they converted the 4th-and-3 earlier in the drive.
http://www.alcopestcontrol.com/spot1.avi
B.T.H.O. tu.! WHOOP!
Neville said:
posted on November 22, 2005 3:04 PM — 24.196.23.80 — link — abuse?
That is exactly what happened. Look at the replay. Look at the photo for goodness sake - do you see his feet - no. They are firmly on the ground (in the hands of Rufus Alexander I might add). His weight in this photo is supported by his 2 feet and his right shoulder. He simply extended all he could in his body after he was down on his butt. He should have been called down when he was sitting on the grass, period.
Gene Larew said:
posted on November 22, 2005 4:23 PM — 24.253.211.201 — link — abuse?
The play in the picture should've never happened.
The game was over earlier on the fourth down play from the 28. The refs spotted the ball a full yard downfield from where the player was down.
That was the game, game over. The rest doesn't occur.
And there's no video that supports that picture. He reached the ball over the goal after his butt had hit the ground.
If it was that obvious, the line judge would not have had to run into the middle of the field before he called TD.
Its pointless arguing this. The game was over before this occured.
Gene Larew said:
posted on November 22, 2005 4:25 PM — 24.253.211.201 — link — abuse?
And I just noticed, that pic was in the student paper at Tech. Does anyone really trust those local yahoos in Lubbock? Heck, the ref who made the bad call lives in Lubbock.
Geeezzz I wish these west texas bubbas weren't even in the Big 12.
cbr said:
posted on November 22, 2005 8:45 PM — 69.155.21.214 — link — abuse?
when you show me proof that the spot on the prior 4th down was correct then i'll admit that the last play was meaningful.ive seen this photo already but no one has a photo showing TT actually converted the 4th down.anyway TT better live it up because they have to go to norman next year and i gaurantee they will get thier just reward.
John Galt said:
posted on November 22, 2005 9:38 PM — 24.0.31.204 — link — abuse?
OU had a lot of dumb penalties, like roughing the passer, etc. If not for that, OU would have won. OU can blame the refs, but the calls were close and there is no way to prove otherwise. Therefore, you can say OU lost because they are just plain stupid. This is comparision to Tech, who only has a fraction of the recruiting budget of OU, A&M and UT.
Brian said:
posted on November 22, 2005 9:38 PM — 24.155.71.173 — link — abuse?
Ryan, I still haven't figured out how you think that video is proof on your side. Pause it when his butt hits the turf and his arms are out and the nose of the ball sure looks like it's touching the goal line. It's still pretty inconclusive but it's certainly not proving the point you think it is.
You do know the ball only has to break the plane, not completely cross the goal line right?
Chad Evans said:
posted on November 22, 2005 10:02 PM — 66.140.59.100 — link — abuse?
Quite humorous talk, really. For the record, I am a Tech alumn and I didn't think he scored. That said though, the two people in this comment thread that assume that play should have never happened based upon the spotting of a ball, why aren't you two criticizing two critical third down conversions of OU earlier in the game that ended up with OU getting points on the board? Nah, that would be too easy.
Officiating was horrible, but for the vast majority of the game it was horrible on both sides of the ball therefore at least consistent. Even through the end of the game it was consistent; consistently horrible. Now we have people who want to pick apart two specific plays while leaving the rest of the entire game out of the picture. Well, Tech never would have been behind in the first place if those two third down spots were more accurate.
Boomer Sooner said:
posted on November 22, 2005 10:52 PM — 162.40.130.10 — link — abuse?
Bevo? I mean Stevo? Spare me your lame picture. They use instant replay to assist referees in calling plays. Unfortunately Texas tech hasn’t stopped paying off referees! Look at the video. You can lie to us but you can't lie to yourself. Your team sucks this year and they will continue to suck because they can't stop fibbing to themselves. Texas Tech will get thumped buy the Tide.O.U. beat the Tide twice in a row. I doubt very seriously Texas tech will ever do that to O.U. because Texas tech is not really a serious national contender and never will be. Enjoy the cotton because O.U. wipes with it.
Boomer Sooner said:
posted on November 22, 2005 11:08 PM — 162.40.130.10 — link — abuse?
Gene Larew, Don't let Stevo convince you with a lame picture. Look at the replay for God's sake. Tech did not get a first down on the 4th down conversion.He was a whole yard short of the first down. And again the runner crawled over and put the ball in the endzone after he was down. He was Down and he then reached the ball into the endzone. Helen Keller could see that!
Matt said:
posted on November 22, 2005 11:22 PM — 67.187.88.19 — link — abuse?
AgRyan04, there is no way that you can say the video has definitive proof that he did not score. When I look at the picture and then the video, it just makes me think even more that he really did score. When his butt is on the ground, the ball looks like it is across the line.
Allen in Austin said:
posted on November 22, 2005 11:42 PM — 66.143.163.91 — link — abuse?
It's OVER!
Yes it was a controversial game in many aspects. Refs make bad calls and they can't see every angle (in the amount of time allotted) for replay. What would football be without a little controversy? Boring! It's just part of the game. OU put up a great fight and I felt Tech pulled it together for the last drive (maybe with a little help from the refs). The fact is that Tech won regardless of the criticism.
Really....Tech should not be in the Big12? Would this not be the proper statement, "Baylor should not be in the Big12"? Tech is no. 2 in the conference in football, has a decent baseball program, and has a basketball program that continues improve under Knight.
Come on guys! Just admit they have an athletic program on the rise.
Texan For Ever said:
posted on November 22, 2005 11:51 PM — 64.185.40.35 — link — abuse?
Well Gene I read some of your comments, sounds to me that ALL you whining Oklahomans , aren't Greatfull enough that you might have been invited to play in a TEXAS BOWL.
So I have a suggestion, Why don't you start your own Bowl & stay in Oklahoma , Then we won't have to put up with you in TexasVTBobb said:
posted on November 23, 2005 12:12 AM — 70.17.26.228 — link — abuse?
AgRyano4, I hate to tell you, but look at that video a little closer. It looks to me like at the point the TT player's butt hits the ground, the ball is across the goalline. Compare the ball location to the OU player behind the ball. The OU players rear (there's a joke here somewhere, but I'll let it pass) is on the line, and the ball appears to be in front of the OU player's posterior. Remember, only the tip of the ball has to break the leading edge of the white line. I think the video supports the touchdown call.
Larry said:
posted on November 23, 2005 8:53 AM — 155.8.89.2 — link — abuse?
As far as the video goes; you have to give the receiver forward progress. It looks like he caught the ball on the 1st down line and then was driven back by the force of the DB as they collided. The thing is, you can't really see where the ball is in the whole thing and the rule is that video has to be definitive to overrule the ruling on the field. Too close to call and not enough to overrule the ruling on this one.
Please note that all comments are subject to the Fanblogs Comment Policy.
Neville said:
posted on November 22, 2005 2:42 PM — 24.196.23.80 — link — abuse?Wait a sec. That's no proof. His butt (not knees) was down on the ground while he still had the ball tucked into his body. Read any OU accounts. He was sitting on the turf. After that he stretched his body, extended his legs and knees and stretched the ball across. That was all after he should have been called down.