The optical illusion of the Review; how could they know for sure the ball was still in his hand?

uihawk82

HR MVP
Nov 17, 2021
1,178
1,369
113
I am still pissed at the replay reversal on Moss's fumble TD return. I see so many reviews that are judged not what they seem.

You know what I mean. There were two review angles on that play. One angle seemed to be from behind the endzone and at first it seemed to show the forearm down with the ball in his hand. I thought it could be overturned if that was all they had to review by. But then the second review angle seemed to really show that ball was loose before the forearm hit the ground.

So now back to the first angle which was in a direct line from camera to the QBs hand to the ball and my thought now was "Maybe the ball just looks to be in his hand?" His hand was open and the ball seemed to be in it but it might have been out of his grip.

You know to me that was the bit of unknown optical evidence that led me to say you CAN'T overturn this call.

I mean why do we have reviews as Pottebaum's fumble now looks like one just like this one that should have and could have been overturned and the Hawks would probably 5-1.
 

BlackNGoldBleeder

HR Legend
Jun 23, 2017
43,932
77,104
113
I am still pissed at the replay reversal on Moss's fumble TD return. I see so many reviews that are judged not what they seem.

You know what I mean. There were two review angles on that play. One angle seemed to be from behind the endzone and at first it seemed to show the forearm down with the ball in his hand. I thought it could be overturned if that was all they had to review by. But then the second review angle seemed to really show that ball was loose before the forearm hit the ground.

So now back to the first angle which was in a direct line from camera to the QBs hand to the ball and my thought now was "Maybe the ball just looks to be in his hand?" His hand was open and the ball seemed to be in it but it might have been out of his grip.

You know to me that was the bit of unknown optical evidence that led me to say you CAN'T overturn this call.

I mean why do we have reviews as Pottebaum's fumble now looks like one just like this one that should have and could have been overturned and the Hawks would probably 5-1.
Honestly, I_ _A doesn’t deserve to be 5-1. And frankly, this type of thinking is what leads to comments from the head coach about how I_ _A won 10 games last year against crap and mediocre teams.

Functioning offenses don’t rely on 50/50 officiating calls to score double-digit points. The I_ _A Hawkeyes are what their record says they are: great defense + great special teams + a shit offense = .500 record through six games.

Stop trying to put lipstick on this pig. An unmerited 5-1 record for I_ _A means the offense is covered for again and Kirk feels vindicated for putting out an offense that would make the pre-WWII era of college football blush.

We need change in the I_ _A football program. Let this play out how it’s going to.
 

uihawk82

HR MVP
Nov 17, 2021
1,178
1,369
113
Honestly, I_ _A doesn’t deserve to be 5-1. And frankly, this type of thinking is what leads to comments from the head coach about how I_ _A won 10 games last year against crap and mediocre teams.

Functioning offenses don’t rely on 50/50 officiating calls to score double-digit points. The I_ _A Hawkeyes are what their record says they are: great defense + great special teams + a shit offense = .500 record through six games.

Stop trying to put lipstick on this pig. An unmerited 5-1 record for I_ _A means the offense is covered for again and Kirk feels vindicated for putting out an offense that would make the pre-WWII era of college football blush.

We need change in the I_ _A football program. Let this play out how it’s going to.

I know what you are saying and I agree but let's forget the Pottebaum fumble for now. Iowa's defense was playing really good yesterday on the road making several turnovers and keeping Illinois from even scoring a TD so Iobeinwa could have won that game with that fumble return.

I am not going to apologize for Iowa as a team being one replay reversal from probably winning that game.

What is absolute visual evidence and when you stitch a few angles together there is doubt there.

Was there a third camera angle that I didnt see? I would like to know.
 

michiganman95

Rookie
Dec 2, 2011
65
88
18
I am still pissed at the replay reversal on Moss's fumble TD return. I see so many reviews that are judged not what they seem.

You know what I mean. There were two review angles on that play. One angle seemed to be from behind the endzone and at first it seemed to show the forearm down with the ball in his hand. I thought it could be overturned if that was all they had to review by. But then the second review angle seemed to really show that ball was loose before the forearm hit the ground.

So now back to the first angle which was in a direct line from camera to the QBs hand to the ball and my thought now was "Maybe the ball just looks to be in his hand?" His hand was open and the ball seemed to be in it but it might have been out of his grip.

You know to me that was the bit of unknown optical evidence that led me to say you CAN'T overturn this call.

I mean why do we have reviews as Pottebaum's fumble now looks like one just like this one that should have and could have been overturned and the Hawks would probably 5-1.
I think it was alot closer than the announcers made it out to be. The one angle that appeared indisputable was deceiving I think
 

uihawk82

HR MVP
Nov 17, 2021
1,178
1,369
113
I think it was alot closer than the announcers made it out to be. The one angle that appeared indisputable was deceiving I think

That is what I think when you are looking straight on at a scene. If you are sitting right behind a first baseman you could not tell by looking at the back of his glove when the ball actually hit the pocket. And that is with a ball traveling very fast.

You can freeze that frame with the camera looking thru the Illini QB's hand just prior to his arm hitting the ground and you can see his open hand and the ball but you cannot 100% say he has a grip on it which was the call on the field, a fumble. That is all I am saying but I doubt the review officials even thought about this optical angle.
 

texas twister

HR Heisman
Jan 14, 2005
5,834
4,841
113
I am still pissed at the replay reversal on Moss's fumble TD return. I see so many reviews that are judged not what they seem.

You know what I mean. There were two review angles on that play. One angle seemed to be from behind the endzone and at first it seemed to show the forearm down with the ball in his hand. I thought it could be overturned if that was all they had to review by. But then the second review angle seemed to really show that ball was loose before the forearm hit the ground.

So now back to the first angle which was in a direct line from camera to the QBs hand to the ball and my thought now was "Maybe the ball just looks to be in his hand?" His hand was open and the ball seemed to be in it but it might have been out of his grip.

You know to me that was the bit of unknown optical evidence that led me to say you CAN'T overturn this call.

I mean why do we have reviews as Pottebaum's fumble now looks like one just like this one that should have and could have been overturned and the Hawks would probably 5-1.
If the tables were turned and you were an Illinois fan, you would be screaming at the top of your lungs that he was down.
 

QChawks

HR King
Feb 11, 2013
54,465
76,684
113
Quad Cities
87651635.ExdwAP6i.DSC06554_s.jpg
 

HawkRose

HR All-State
Sep 26, 2017
768
1,553
93
Cant believe how many tavern hawks were trying to argue he wasn’t down in game thread. He was obviously down and got whiplashed by the ground. They literally had an angle where his full forearm was on the ground with the ball tucked.
 
  • Like
Reactions: iavagabond