November 10, 200718 yr It was never ruled a fumble. Since it was never ruled a fumble, it couldn't be reviewed. If a ref would have called it a fumble it would have been reviewable. :thumb: Gotcha.
November 10, 200718 yr Nice road win for the Cats. Time to go back to work and prepare for the Dawgs.
November 11, 200718 yr The worst I have ever seen. I was fortunate enough to see it on TV and I couldn't believe one thing that happened. Vandy fumbled toward the end of the first half and it was ruled a non fumble on the field. Brooks challenged the call and it wasn't reversed because they said it wasn't reviewable. My question and the TV crew's question is how can Brooks lose his challenge on a play that can't be challenged? And it was clearly a fumble, not even close. I was listening in the car when this happend and Jeff Porcero or whatever his name is was going Ballistic saying he reviewed the highlight 25 times and it was clearly a fumble. What is the use of instant replay then? If it is clear to the eye then they ahve to reverse it.
November 11, 200718 yr The worst I have ever seen. I was fortunate enough to see it on TV and I couldn't believe one thing that happened. Vandy fumbled toward the end of the first half and it was ruled a non fumble on the field. Brooks challenged the call and it wasn't reversed because they said it wasn't reviewable. My question and the TV crew's question is how can Brooks lose his challenge on a play that can't be challenged? And it was clearly a fumble, not even close. During the Rich Brooks interview after the show, he mentioned that one of the refs actually gave him back the challenge flag during the second half. Since it wasn't reviewable in the first place, they never should have allowed the challenege, therefore Brooks got his challenge back....unfortunately, no timeout was given back.
November 11, 200718 yr During the Rich Brooks interview after the show, he mentioned that one of the refs actually gave him back the challenge flag during the second half. Since it wasn't reviewable in the first place, they never should have allowed the challenege, therefore Brooks got his challenge back....unfortunately, no timeout was given back. Exactly, the review should have never happened. Unfortunately it was a fumble, and a missed call. That's the flaw with the challenge, if it didn't happen in the official's eyes then it "technically" never happened.
November 11, 200718 yr Any win on the road in the SEC is a good win... If the Cats play next week like they have the last two times out the Dawgs will beat them like a drum.
November 11, 200718 yr This game was about what I figured it would be. A tough faught close win late on the road. This was a big win as it should guarantee a bowl game. The next couple of weeks are going to take better efforts on both sides of the ball. I wish KY could get healthy! The offense still doesn't seem to be clicking like it was. Hopefully they blow up the next couple of weeks.
November 11, 200718 yr This doesn't look or act like the same Kentucky team as about 3 weeks ago. But as has been said before, an SEC road win is a good win and I agree.
November 11, 200718 yr During the Rich Brooks interview after the show, he mentioned that one of the refs actually gave him back the challenge flag during the second half. Since it wasn't reviewable in the first place, they never should have allowed the challenege, therefore Brooks got his challenge back....unfortunately, no timeout was given back. Well that's nice. This crew was incompetent at best. FWIW, the fumble was so obvious I don't know how it was missed to begin with. The runner was straight up when he fumbled.
November 11, 200718 yr It was never ruled a fumble. Since it was never ruled a fumble, it couldn't be reviewed. You can't review a fumble that wasn't "technically" ruled a fumble on the field. But UK should have got thier timeout back I would think. If a ref would have called it a fumble it would have been reviewable. Correct. The referee was shielded from the fumble by the defensive player tackling the runner. You could see the ref signaling the play dead as the ball popped out. Since the wistle was blown, the play was over at that point and there is nothing to review. The things that bothered me were two late hit penalties on UK players tackling Vandy players close to the sideline, while UK's Little was hit a step out of bounds and no flag was thrown. Also, Bennett got a very generous spot on one of the fourth down conversions the Dores made on their last drive of the game. The UK players clearly thought they had him stopped short, but the spot gave Vandy the first down by a yard. After reviewing the play on Tivo, it would have been measured and may have been a first down, but the spot given on the play was a first down by a yard. I could go on, the pass interference call on Woodyard in the fourth quarter, a missed grounding call on Woodson, but UK won and I don't want to sound bitter.
November 11, 200718 yr I usually dont complain about officiating in football unless it is really bad and today in Nashville it was really bad. The non-fumble call was bad but the series of pass interference calls on one drive on third down was bad....Vandy had the ball forever on that drive. Throw in the questionable personal foul penalty where Ashton Cobb lit up the Vandy RB who in just one split second stepped OB...Vandy kept marching. THey missed several blatant holds as well... Big win though....
November 11, 200718 yr I did not get to see the game, just listen to a lot of it. It sounds like UK got some shady calls. The defense made adjustments after struggling early and holding Vandy to 20 points was a nice accomplishment, only 6 points given up in the 2nd half. The stats don't show it because of the sacks, but Woodson seemed to do a nice job running the football several times when nothing else was there. Nice win. UK has got 2 games left against 2 teams that are really hot!
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.