Water cooler Cyclone talk

[djb]

Re: Water cooler Cyclone talk

I haven't read all of the threads, but was that really a fumble inside our 20? Since we won, it wasn't discussed much. When do you consider the ground causing the fumble. The hit didn't cause the fumble, but it popped out when he hit the ground, but it was only his arm and the ball that hit first, then his head.

http://www.panthernation.com/album.p...&pictureid=126

Fumble was on the 20. And as pointed out earlier - victory formation on the 23. The right thing to do but I really wanted to see Johnson get a couple more carries.

[djb]

Re: Water cooler Cyclone talk

sure looks like the ground caused that fumble from the picture. Nice big 12 review. Like I said last week, you need at least one TD lead to beat the refs.

[Trapped in California]

Re: Water cooler Cyclone talk

I think that the crew did not have a good video angle to overrule the call on the field (fumble on the 20). This was a tie that ISU benefited from - if UNI had received the call on the field, they probably would have kept the ball.

[sivert]

Re: Water cooler Cyclone talk

... but the Panthers had no answer on defense for Sam Richardson, who threw for 2 touchdowns and no interceptions and rushed for 71 yards.

Wait- isn't sacking him an answer?

[UNIdad]

Re: Water cooler Cyclone talk

I think that the crew did not have a good video angle to overrule the call on the field (fumble on the 20). This was a tie that ISU benefited from - if UNI had received the call on the field, they probably would have kept the ball.

I agree. Both that the fumble was caused by the ground (and therefore not a fumble) and that ISU benefited just because the refs made the call in their favor. The video seemed conclusive to me, but not to the video review ref.