Did Michael Johnson recover the fumble and if so

thwg

thwg

Damn Good Rat
Joined
Sep 10, 2003
Messages
1,454
couldn't we have challenged that? I mean if he came up with the ball, surely some camera angle would have had that.

Rarely does GT's sideline show such definitiveness but they were sure that was a TD. Even Gailey seemed sure of it.

I know we lost and this post is useless as I only know one rational UGA fan and 50 years from now it will just be a loss but man would that have potentially changed the game.

Oh well.
 
thwg said:
couldn't we have challenged that? I mean if he came up with the ball, surely some camera angle would have had that.

Rarely does GT's sideline show such definitiveness but they were sure that was a TD. Even Gailey seemed sure of it.

I know we lost and this post is useless as I only know one rational UGA fan and 50 years from now it will just be a loss but man would that have potentially changed the game.

Oh well.
Click to expand...

Every camera angle had UGA recovering.
 
Yeah, UGA did recover it. What I'm wondering is how it wasn't a safety. Do they have to have possession outside the endzone for it to be a safety or was it a bad call?
 
^ Because $EC officials make up their own rules as they go along.
 
floridajacket said:
Yeah, UGA did recover it. What I'm wondering is how it wasn't a safety. Do they have to have possession outside the endzone for it to be a safety or was it a bad call?
Click to expand...

It's only a safety if the player fumbles the ball into the end zone; not when the ball's own momentum gets it in there, even if it touches the receiving team.
 
floridajacket said:
Yeah, UGA did recover it. What I'm wondering is how it wasn't a safety. Do they have to have possession outside the endzone for it to be a safety or was it a bad call?
Click to expand...

Yes they have to have possession hence the reason neither of their funbles into the endzone were safeties as they were both muffed but the player never actually had possession.

They were the right calls if we didn't recover the ball.
 
Only because I had a view from above on TV, I saw the nad-licker have possession of the ball while lying on his side. At that point, the nad-licker was down with possession.That should give possession to the nad-lickers. MJ came into the pile after that instance.

We'll all have a chance to see on Tuesday night on Comcast.
 
Both times the ball seemed to go into the end zone due to the player causing it to....not on it's own momentum.

Watch the ugagger's feet. Seems like the only two outcomes possible are a safety or GT td. Since ugag seemingly recovered it, we have a safety. Is this correct? Got any official wording available on ruling?
 
GoldZ said:
Both times the ball seemed to go into the end zone due to the player causing it to....not on it's own momentum.

Watch the ugagger's feet. Seems like the only two outcomes possible are a safety or GT td. Since ugag seemingly recovered it, we have a safety. Is this correct? Got any official wording available on ruling?
Click to expand...

I'm too lazy to go look up the actual rule right now, but it's definitely based on where the receiving team first gets possession. If they first get possession in the endzone, then it's a touchback.
 
I watched the replay several times, and the ball definitely wasn't ever in anyone's possession until some point after several players jumped on to go for the ball. One of the UG players had the ball between his legs, but didn't ever get his hands on it, and then several players jumped on. MJ came out with the ball, so we should have gotten a TD.
 
MJ had it. But that ball was knocked into the end zone by a UGAG player and NOT by the momentum of the ball.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top