Bad Call: Hogs did not fumble through end zone for touchback. See added video.

[PonderinHog]

I'm not sure why this keeps getting repeated. Unless Bielema doesn't understand the challenge rule he could have challenged but didn't because he didn't think there was enough evidence to overturn. 

http://m.arkansasonline.com/news/2016/dec/30/turned-upside-down-24-point-second-half/

I'm pretty sure he used and lost his challenge in the first half, man.

[Hawgphish]

I watched it frame by frame and as much as I hated that referee crew I believe they got it right.  The football is fumbled through the end zone and thus a touchback.  Also, Drew's reaction tells the story, he clearly acts deflated by the fumble.  He shows no objection to the call whatsoever. 

[EastexHawg]

I'm pretty sure he used and lost his challenge in the first half, man.

And the targeting rule never changed!  Virginia Tech should have been penalized 15 yards anyway even though the targeting call was overturned on replay!

[ricepig]

And the targeting rule never changed!  Virginia Tech should have been penalized 15 yards anyway even though the targeting call was overturned on replay!

Wrong

http://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/10562246/teams-no-longer-penalized-overturned-targeting-call

[hogsanity]

Wrong

http://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/10562246/teams-no-longer-penalized-overturned-targeting-call

STOP, just stop pointing out facts.

[EastexHawg]

Wrong

http://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/10562246/teams-no-longer-penalized-overturned-targeting-call

Really?  After reading this entire thread,  and everything I have posted in it, you think you got me with that?  Maybe try reading a page or two back where someone made the "it should have been 15 yards anyway" claim and the rule change was pointed out.

[hogsanity]

Really?  After reading this entire thread,  and everything I have posted in it, you think you got me with that?  Maybe try reading a page or two back where someone made the "it should have been 15 yards anyway" claim and the rule change was pointed out.

Then why did you make this comment?

And the targeting rule never changed!  Virginia Tech should have been penalized 15 yards anyway even though the targeting call was overturned on replay!

[ricepig]

Really?  After reading this entire thread,  and everything I have posted in it, you think you got me with that?  Maybe try reading a page or two back where someone made the "it should have been 15 yards anyway" claim and the rule change was pointed out.

Then you were posting out of ignorance? Or did you not read what had previously been posted? I figured you jumped in late and didn't know the rule, my fault, you just choose to ignore it.

[EastexHawg]

Then why did you make this comment?

Yeah, I had no idea about the rule change.  That's why I put exclamation points at the end of both sentences.

It couldn't be that I was playing along with Ponderin's obviously tongue in cheek post.

[Pork Twain]

Those officials did suck, but it was pretty obvious it was a fumble out of the back of the endzone.

[PonderinHog]

Yeah, I had no idea about the rule change.  That's why I put exclamation points at the end of both sentences.

It couldn't be that I was playing along with Ponderin's obviously tongue in cheek post.

But he did use and lose his challenge in the first half, didn't he?  Nothing tongue in cheek about my post.

[hogsanity]

Those officials did suck, but it was pretty obvious it was a fumble out of the back of the endzone.

no that was not obvious at all.

[ricepig]

Those officials did suck, but it was pretty obvious it was a fumble out of the back of the endzone.

I thought so, but I haven't watched much of the replay, live was bad enough.

[EastexHawg]

But he did use and lose his challenge in the first half, didn't he?  Nothing tongue in cheek about my post.

Did you read the Bielema quote I posted?  Either he could have challenged but chose not to based on what the coaches upstairs told him or he doesn't understand the challenge rule.  He clearly said he decided not to challenge.

Sorry, I misunderstood your post.

[Pork Twain]

no that was not obvious at all.

Sure was...  His knee was not down when he lost the ball and it went out of bounds after it passed the goal line.  That penalty saved us a touchback.  This probably one of the worst posts on here right now.  The booth guys had plenty of time to review this and they have been spot on all year.  They surely told BB the exact same thing I saw on TV and that was that, that flag saved us.

[shshark00]

But he did use and lose his challenge in the first half, didn't he?  Nothing tongue in cheek about my post.

No. He called the timeout with the intent to challenge but during the timeout the booth initiated the review and we were not charged a timeout.

[PonderinHog]

Did you read the Bielema quote I posted?  Either he could have challenged but chose not to based on what the coaches upstairs told him or he doesn't understand the challenge rule.  He clearly said he decided not to challenge.

Sorry, I misunderstood your post.

I didn't read it, but I still think he used and lost his challenge in the first half.  Somebody correct me if I'm wrong.  Sure as hell won't be the first time.

[Pork Twain]

No. He called the timeout with the intent to challenge but during the timeout the booth initiated the review and we were not charged a timeout.

This is also true.  He called the timeout, which was clearly indicated by the officials and then they reviewed it.  We never threw the challenge flag there.

[PonderinHog]

No. He called the timeout with the intent to challenge but during the timeout the booth initiated the review and we were not charged a timeout.

Sorry, I missed this post.  Carry on.

[arkfan81]

Sure was...  His knee was not down when he lost the ball and it went out of bounds after it passed the goal line.  That penalty saved us a touchback.  This probably one of the worst posts on here right now.  The booth guys had plenty of time to review this and they have been spot on all year.  They surely told BB the exact same thing I saw on TV and that was that, that flag saved us.

The ball clearly doesn't go over or hit pylon. Was out of bounds before crossing goal line.

[Pork Twain]

The ball clearly doesn't go over or hit pylon. Was out of bounds before crossing goal line.

Not from that angle it doesn't but from the other one it did.  The ball was well out of his hand by this point as well.  You guys are probably right though, you can all see something from bad angles on still shots that our experts in the booth just could not catch while the refs were dicking around.

[arkfan81]

I have a video clip that slow motion, if I can figure how to post it I will. The ball never touches.

That ball was clearly out yes, I still think we were robbed.

[arkfan81]

nm

[Hollywood870]

TADAA. Was arguing with fellow Hog fans all night about this call. Don't know if they were blind or just mildly retarded.

[Hollywood870]

The ball clearly doesn't go over or hit pylon. Was out of bounds before crossing goal line.

Not even close. A half yard before the pile on. How do you screw that up? Just an 80 yard momentum changing TD. No big deal.

[ThisTeetsTaken]

How about the intentional grounding call against Allen?  The ball hit the ground because of defensive player hitting Allen's arm when he was throwing. 

[Biggus Piggus]

Refs also let VT bait Arkansas into motion penalties by mimicking the QB's cadence.

[Iwastherein1969]

We don't have the direct overhead view that would prove whether the ball crossed the sideline inside the field of play or over the end zone, but based on the pictures I have seen...showing where Drew was when he fumbled combined with where the ball landed...I conclude that the call was correct.

If you draw a line from where he fumbled to where it landed it seems the only way the ball could have not crossed the end zone would be if it magically curved around the pylon in flight.

the ball landed OUT of bounds...and as you say, magically rolled around back into the field of play....the ball did land out of bounds and its debatable whether it went over the pylon when you see where the ball landed based one where it was fumbled....doesn't really matter, one gets the feeling that VT was going to beat our asses no matter what....go on youtube the sequence begins at 133:03   

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TLCt5oW5eO0

[EastexHawg]

Our own coaches in the press box told Bielema not to challenge it.  Don't you think, with what was on the line, that if they thought there was even a chance of overturning they would have said, "throw the flag"?

[Pork Twain]

Our own coaches in the press box told Bielema not to challenge it.  Don't you think, with what was on the line, that if they thought there was even a chance of overturning they would have said, "throw the flag"?

well you see...  MMBQ know better than stinking coaches

[(notOM)Rebel123]

well you see...  MMBQ know better than stinking coaches

Heck, the OP thinks the ball landed out of bounds at the 3 yard line.
I get the feeling that people will be arguing this all the way into next year.

[Youngsta71701]

Nope, we stayed where he caught the pass, from my seat.

Beilema should have caught that an alerted the refs just like he should have called a timeout and gave the replay booth time to look at the Drew Morgan fumble.

[Youngsta71701]

At that time in the game, 31 points would not have been enough--we still would have found a way...............

We would have taken the momentum back.

[razorbackkid]

We would have taken the momentum back.

Missouri. 

[Pork Twain]

Heck, the OP thinks the ball landed out of bounds at the 3 yard line.
I get the feeling that people will be arguing this all the way into next year.

Well my stills above show where the ball was lost and where it landed,  anyone can deduce its travel based on those two points.  No matter, it clearly went out of the Endzone...touchback.

[Snouty]

Whether Morgan fumbled out of bounds or through the end zone, he still fumbled the ball.  This was his second fumble of the game and of the 2nd half.  If he had just held on to the ball and hit the ground, we would have had the ball on the 2 yard line or so.  Just stating the facts, not bashing Drew Morgan.  If Morgan had just run out of bounds, we would have had the ball close enough to fall into the end zone.

It seems to me that when players have made a big play, they need to hit the ground or run out of bounds rather than risk having the ball stripped from them.

[MountieDawg]

The fumble that cost the hogs the game occurred in the locker room at halftime when the coaches dropped the ball preparing the team for the 2nd half.

[clutch]

He used a timeout and it got reviewed during the timeout. 

Not sure there's even a challenge to be lost in college football. It's my understanding that all reviews come from a booth official.  So he couldve burned another timeout to state his case and get a closer look.  But, alas they were too busy in lala land to realize what actually happened.

No, he used his challenge and lost so he was charged a timeout. That's how it works.

[(notOM)Rebel123]

Well my stills above show where the ball was lost and where it landed,  anyone can deduce its travel based on those two points.  No matter, it clearly went out of the Endzone...touchback.

Agree.

[Iwastherein1969]

Well my stills above show where the ball was lost and where it landed,  anyone can deduce its travel based on those two points.  No matter, it clearly went out of the Endzone...touchback.

NO NO NO....if the ball went inside the pylon (which it did) and hit out of bounds, the ball is spotted at the point where it crossed the out of bounds sideline...the ball went out of bounds then rolled back in to the field of play in the endzone...you do realize that footballs, based on their oblong shape tend to do strange things sometimes....the ONLY way it was a touch back is if the ball went over the pylon (which it did not, look at your stills, the ball broke the out of bounds plane before the pylon)...anyway, it was a bad call, likely cost us the game but our coaching staff still sux...dude, the ball went inside the pylon and hit out of bounds then rolled back into the field of play...the ball was dead once it crossed the out of bounds sideline ...man, I don't get how people don't understand...the ball went out of play BEFORE the pylon and hit OUT OF BOUNDS then rolled back into play....the proper call should have been ARK ball at or just inside the one yard line....good god almighty

[RebelliousHog]

NO NO NO....if the ball went inside the pylon (which it did) and hit out of bounds, the ball is spotted at the point where it crossed the out of bounds sideline...the ball went out of bounds then rolled back in to the field of play in the endzone...you do realize that footballs, based on their oblong shape tend to do strange things sometimes....the ONLY way it was a touch back is if the ball went over the pylon (which it did not, look at your stills, the ball broke the out of bounds plane before the pylon)...anyway, it was a bad call, likely cost us the game but our coaching staff still sux...dude, the ball went inside the pylon and hit out of bounds then rolled back into the field of play...the ball was dead once it crossed the out of bounds sideline ...man, I don't get how people don't understand...the ball went out of play BEFORE the pylon and hit OUT OF BOUNDS then rolled back into play....the proper call should have been ARK ball at or just inside the one yard line....good god almighty

Just so you know. "Inside the pylon" means in the field of play. The ball went over the pylon (which is still in the field of play) and landed out of the end zone.  No way was it out at the 1 much less the 3 as some want it to be.

[Iwastherein1969]

Just so you know. "Inside the pylon" means in the field of play. The ball went over the pylon (which is still in the field of play) and landed out of the end zone.  No way was it out at the 1 much less the 3 as some want it to be.

okay, semantics...the gdmn ball went out of bounds in air before it got to the gdmn pylon....the ball hit OUT OF BOUNDS and then rolled back into the endzone and out of the back of the endzone...ARK ball at the point where the ball went out of bounds before it got to the pylon...either we didn't have a protest left or our coaches upstairs are friggn retarded....the ball went out of bounds before the pylon....if the ball had been punted and it took the same trek, the ball would have been spotted around the 1 to 1/2 yard line....but it really doesn't matter, our coaching staff is so weak that we were going to lose that game no matter what

[RebelliousHog]

okay, semantics...the gdmn ball went out of bounds in air before it got to the gdmn pylon....the ball hit OUT OF BOUNDS and then rolled back into the endzone and out of the back of the endzone...ARK ball at the point where the ball went out of bounds before it got to the pylon...either we didn't have a protest left or our coaches upstairs are friggn retarded....the ball went out of bounds before the pylon....if the ball had been punted and it took the same trek, the ball would have been spotted around the 1 to 1/2 yard line....but it really doesn't matter, our coaching staff is so weak that we were going to lose that game no matter what

Damn dude you can't blame the coaching staff because Morgan was hustling and lost the damn ball. You can cuss and rant all you want. They didn't argue with the refs. Morgan didn't even try to argue. You know with his temperament he would have raised hell. He knew. When I watfched it live I knew. And it isn't semantics. It's a fact.


By the way. Dont cuss at me again.

[BenVT]

It was clearly targeting ( ie hitting a defenseless player in the HEAD).  Doesn't matter if he launched, crouched, turned his back, etc.  He hit a DEFENSELESS player in the HEAD.   He did drop his head at the last minute and the intent was even further exaggerated with the extending of his forearm.   Also, once the penalty is called it is a 15 yard penalty REGARDLESS if the player is ejected or not.  They never walked off the 15 yards.  The review is ONLY whether to uphold the ejection or not.   That review official missed the call and the refs on the field missed marking off the yardage.  Both were just further examples at how BAD that crew was.

They changed the rule if the targeting is overturned no penalty now

[Josh Goforth]

A punt and a fumble out of the end zone are way different. They put this rule in keep players from diving at the end zone and throwing the ball at the pylon. Clearly a touchback.

[Bacons Rebellion]

The most incompetent ref moment was on when Virginia Tech fumbled the punt, we recovered, but the refs gave the ball to Virginia Tech at about their 30. Bielema argued for about 10 minutes and the refs finally announced that they had gotten it wrong and it was our ball.

THEN and ONLY THEN did the refs "remember" that there was an inadvertent whistle and that the ball should go back to the line of scrimmage, play dead, and mark off the penalty, giving us the ball at our own 40 or so instead of the VT 30. We score again before half and (I thought at the time) we would win the game.

Why was not that there original call?

[PonderinHog]

The most incompetent ref moment was on when Virginia Tech fumbled the punt, we recovered, but the refs gave the ball to Virginia Tech at about their 30. Bielema argued for about 10 minutes and the refs finally announced that they had gotten it wrong and it was our ball.

THEN and ONLY THEN did the refs "remember" that there was an inadvertent whistle and that the ball should go back to the line of scrimmage, play dead, and mark off the penalty, giving us the ball at our own 40 or so instead of the VT 30. We score again before half and (I thought at the time) we would win the game.

Why was not that there original call?

For one thing we didn't recover the muffed punt.

[regi]

Main problem on the fumble through the end zone, was our undisciplined player. It is 24-7, we have the lead with 12:30 to go in the 3rd quarter. Don't be a glory hunter, if you don't trust your speed, which he clearly didn't, two hands on the ball, give your TEAM, 1st and goal inside the 3 yard line. If that had been the last play of the game, and we are down 4 to 8 points? Great effort, but since we are up 24-7 with 12:30 to go in the 3rd, it was an awful selfish "look at me, I will be on SC" play. Typical of a lot of todays youth. Other than that, doubt there was a camera angle, that would have allowed an over turn.

[Pork Twain]

NO NO NO....if the ball went inside the pylon (which it did) and hit out of bounds, the ball is spotted at the point where it crossed the out of bounds sideline...the ball went out of bounds then rolled back in to the field of play in the endzone...you do realize that footballs, based on their oblong shape tend to do strange things sometimes....the ONLY way it was a touch back is if the ball went over the pylon (which it did not, look at your stills, the ball broke the out of bounds plane before the pylon)...anyway, it was a bad call, likely cost us the game but our coaching staff still sux...dude, the ball went inside the pylon and hit out of bounds then rolled back into the field of play...the ball was dead once it crossed the out of bounds sideline ...man, I don't get how people don't understand...the ball went out of play BEFORE the pylon and hit OUT OF BOUNDS then rolled back into play....the proper call should have been ARK ball at or just inside the one yard line....good god almighty

Agreed, you are completely wrong.  Stop posting on the subject, your are beginning to look foolish.

[Pork Twain]

No, he used his challenge and lost so he was charged a timeout. That's how it works.

watch the replay again...  He called timeout, as was indicated by the officials, did not throw the flag.  During the timeout they reviewed it and the play stood.  The only thing you are correct about is that the result was that we used a timeout