Last Year's UGA Game

BabyJacket1990

BabyJacket1990

Banned
Messages
921
Location
Middle, Ga
JorgeJonas said:
I had lunch yesterday with a buddy of mine, a UGA graduate, and we started talking about the upcoming season, which led to us talking about last season. When we talked about the UGA game, he made an interesting point that I hadn't considered. His point was that Thomas's second "fumble" ended up being a positive thing for Tech, and after hearing him out, I think I agree.

Essentially, the reasoning is that the fumble happened with 2:45 or so left with UGA down to one timeout. Let's assume that instead of fumbling he gets tackled where he fumbled, making it fourth down with around 2:45 left, and UGA burns their final timeout. Let's assume Butker makes the FG (large assumption, I think) and Tech takes a 24-17 lead. UGA gets the ball back around the 25 yard line (which is near where the fumble happened) with around 2:30 left. If they have the exact same drive they had, they score with almost no time left, and we go to overtime. Anyway, his thinking was that Tech went into the overtime period feeling awesome about it, while UGA felt like all the air was out of the balloon. If you believe in momentum, and even though I'm not sure I do, it's hard to argue what he said. I'd love to know if anyone agrees with him.
Click to expand...
I have made my point to several of my UGA buddies. How dumb was Richt for calling the time out with 4 seconds left on the play clock and Butker not even set. I've watched time and time again, we more than likely would have got a day of game penalty. That 5 yards takes him out of range.
 

Skeptic

Helluva Engineer
Messages
6,372
Supersizethatorder-mutt said:
The second one was a blown call too. Whether the plan was for him to throw it or not, it arm was in a forward motion when he dropped the ball. It should have been an incomplete pass. But a larger question is why the hell did Johnson run that play anyway?
Click to expand...
Nah. Sad to say it was a fumble; he was trying to put it away. Any proof needed is his demeanor on the sideline afterwards. That is not the look of a QB complaining about a bad call. Must be offseason.
 
GTJoeBrew

GTJoeBrew

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,099
Location
Loganville, GA
BabyJacket1990 said:
I have made my point to several of my UGA buddies. How dumb was Richt for calling the time out with 4 seconds left on the play clock and Butker not even set. I've watched time and time again, we more than likely would have got a day of game penalty. That 5 yards takes him out of range.
Click to expand...
No way he makes that kick even if they do get it off. Would have had to hurry big time. I was thanking Richt big time when he called it.
 
Northeast Stinger

Northeast Stinger

Helluva Engineer
Messages
9,716
Skeptic said:
Nah. Sad to say it was a fumble; he was trying to put it away. Any proof needed is his demeanor on the sideline afterwards. That is not the look of a QB complaining about a bad call. Must be offseason.
Click to expand...
But the issue is not whether or not he thought it was a fumble. The issue was only whether or not the refs thought it was a fumble. Once they ruled he was naturally going to feel dejected because he failed to make the play he was supposed to make.
 

Skeptic

Helluva Engineer
Messages
6,372
BabyJacket1990 said:
I have made my point to several of my UGA buddies. How dumb was Richt for calling the time out with 4 seconds left on the play clock and Butker not even set. I've watched time and time again, we more than likely would have got a day of game penalty. That 5 yards takes him out of range.
Click to expand...
I don't follow the SEC and/or Georgia and all I know about Richt is what I see. I thought he was a good coach in the double OT last year, but this year was ... what? A pooched kickoff after taking the lead late, so short that even a LB could get a good runback? And the timeout? Even Johnson said he was glad it was called because his FG team was kind of milling around, I think he said. Kind of strange.
 
Ash

Ash

Ramblin' Wreck
Messages
766
The issue was not sack vs fumble, it was fumble vs incomplete pass. If we had the correct call on the 100 yard "fumble return" all of that would be a moot point anyway.

As CPJ said after the game...it didn't have to be that close.
 

Skeptic

Helluva Engineer
Messages
6,372
Supersizethatorder-mutt said:
Doesn't matter what his reaction was. He obviously reacted to the call, but the call was still BAD!!!
Click to expand...
I wouldn't argue a second on the goal line "fumble" that clearly to all watching was taken long after forward progress stopped. A dreadful call. But the pass vs. fumble was just as clearly a fumble. A good call.
 
forensicbuzz

forensicbuzz

Helluva Engineer
Messages
8,118
Location
North Shore, Chicago
Skeptic said:
I wouldn't argue a second on the goal line "fumble" that clearly to all watching was taken long after forward progress stopped. A dreadful call. But the pass vs. fumble was just as clearly a fumble. A good call.
Click to expand...
As the rule reads, if the hand is going forward, it is an incomplete pass, it doesn't matter what the intent of the QB is. His hand was clearly moving forward when the ball came loose. Clearly an incomplete pass per the rule. Bad call.

I don't have so much an issue with the guys on the field. It's hard to make the correct call with everything moving so quickly. However, there's no reason the replay official should have botched so many calls.
 

Skeptic

Helluva Engineer
Messages
6,372
Ash said:
The issue was not sack vs fumble, it was fumble vs incomplete pass. If we had the correct call on the 100 yard "fumble return" all of that would be a moot point anyway.

As CPJ said after the game...it didn't have to be that close.
Click to expand...
He was right. I forget which poster opined that even had GT lost, it clearly was the better team on the field.
 
dressedcheeseside

dressedcheeseside

Helluva Engineer
Messages
14,046
forensicbuzz said:
As the rule reads, if the hand is going forward, it is an incomplete pass, it doesn't matter what the intent of the QB is. His hand was clearly moving forward when the ball came loose. Clearly an incomplete pass per the rule. Bad call.

I don't have so much an issue with the guys on the field. It's hard to make the correct call with everything moving so quickly. However, there's no reason the replay official should have botched so many calls.
Click to expand...
what if the ball flies out as your hand is moving forward while you are running?
 
forensicbuzz

forensicbuzz

Helluva Engineer
Messages
8,118
Location
North Shore, Chicago
dressedcheeseside said:
what if the ball flies out as your hand is moving forward while you are running?
Click to expand...
I think you're trying to be funny, and your comment made me smile. But we're talking about when the QB is in the act of throwing. It doesn't matter if it was an intended pump fake, hand slip, mind change or whatever. Hand moving forward means incomplete pass. Now, they could call "intentional grounding" if there's not a player in the vicinity, he's in the tackle box and the ball doesn't reach the original line of scrimmage.
 
AE 87

AE 87

Helluva Engineer
Messages
13,016
forensicbuzz said:
I think you're trying to be funny, and your comment made me smile. But we're talking about when the QB is in the act of throwing. It doesn't matter if it was an intended pump fake, hand slip, mind change or whatever. Hand moving forward means incomplete pass. Now, they could call "intentional grounding" if there's not a player in the vicinity, he's in the tackle box and the ball doesn't reach the original line of scrimmage.
Click to expand...

I agree that the proper call was probably incomplete pass. And oops there's @Whiskey_Clear making the same point. The ball was going more down than forward in terms of point in throwing motion.

However, I think forward in the rule was intended to differentiate from wind up not some mystical point in the follow through. So, I think inc was still the better call.
 
Top