Because if you were there (like I was), they showed it on the big screen like 700 times after the game.

Go find a video of the play, you'll see he's clearly in.

OH WAIT

No one is showing the video.

Why?

Because it shows he's in.

9/11/2006 8:32:13 PM

Our fanbase is retarded, what do you expect

9/11/2006 8:34:36 PM

the only video i saw wasn't clear enough.. and i didn't see the replay on the scoreboard while i was trying to figure out why we sucked so bad


im tired of talking about it now.. i don't really care that much.. its jsut i don't see how a video of him clearly getting in beats a picture of him being down before the goal line..

yeah and we did deserve to lose either way

[Edited on September 11, 2006 at 9:05 PM. Reason : ]

9/11/2006 9:03:40 PM

^^^you are full of shit, the video showed the same thing as this pic, as soon as i saw the vid i yelled HIS ELBOW WAS DOWN

[Edited on September 11, 2006 at 9:05 PM. Reason : i don't really give a shit anymo', but u just be spoutin lies]

9/11/2006 9:05:16 PM

how can a video of him scooting across the ground be more clear than a still shot??

9/11/2006 9:11:57 PM

Quote :

"how can a video of him scooting across the ground be more clear than a still shot??"

Because you can see what led up to his arm being in that position, which is the ball breaking the plane of the endzone then coming back out.

Here's a grand example. Have your arm at about a 90 degree angle. Slam your elbow into something. It's going to bend in more, right?

Exactly.

Ball breaks plane. Elbow slams into ground. Arm retracts a little. Picture taken.

Quote :

"^^^you are full of shit, the video showed the same thing as this pic, as soon as i saw the vid i yelled HIS ELBOW WAS DOWN"

Except it wasn't.

9/11/2006 9:21:22 PM

k.

9/11/2006 10:01:25 PM

^^ you acting like what you think is fact is just as reliable as what we're saying, so don't act like you are some allknowing demigod until you show something concrete.

9/11/2006 10:02:51 PM

it's over why argue now

9/11/2006 10:05:34 PM

like i said i dont care, i've accepted the loss, but i can't stand arrogant assholes that always think they are right no matter what.

9/11/2006 10:07:55 PM

There are two ways in which I know I am right.

First, I know what I saw and have known it with absolutely no doubt since they showed it over

and over

and over

and over

again on the scoreboard.

Second, when I go and bring up the score on ESPN, we've still lost.

When I bring it up on GoPack, we've still lost.

See, your problem is that you have this delusion you're right, when everything except this one inconclusive picture says you're wrong.

And you're calling me arrogant?

[Edited on September 11, 2006 at 10:19 PM. Reason : .]

9/11/2006 10:13:04 PM

the replay they showed "over and over" was from a back angle IIRC, no? that was your conclusive evidence? a jumbotron viewed from at least a hundred feet away with a bad camera angle? or did you see a different camera angle than what I saw "over and over and over"? so yes, I'm calling you, the almighty know-it-all stein, arrogant.

all i wanted was for the replay official to do his job, which he did not.

if they would have reviewed it and agreed with you, fine. but when blackman gets and easy TD reviewed, this shit should be in-depth...ly reviewed in a heartbeat

[Edited on September 11, 2006 at 10:31 PM. Reason : fgdsa]

9/11/2006 10:27:00 PM

Quote :

"the replay they showed "over and over" was from a back angle IIRC, no? "

No, it was from just about the same angle as the picture in the beginning of this thread was taken. I don't know what you were looking at.

Quote :

"if they would have reviewed it and agreed with you, fine. but when blackman gets and easy TD reviewed, this shit should be in-depth...ly reviewed in a heartbeat"

http://www.newsobserver.com/752/story/484957.html

Read this article. Thanks!

9/11/2006 11:28:21 PM

Quote :

"at least in the UNC game there was some sort of review even though we lost the game"

if by "review" you mean "hey, UNC is paying us, so we gotta change that TD," then sure...

9/12/2006 12:13:47 AM

Quote :

"The guys in the booth do and in looking at the play on their monitors they decided it wasn't close enough to stop the game (which was already over) to review."

Well guess what, Stein. The refs have to be ON THE FIELD in order to make the call. This "well, they can review it after the game in the booth" shit is just that, bullshit. They aren't going to change a damned thing once the refs leave the field, that one game notwithstanding where it actually happened. The refs run off, the game is over. It doesn't matter if the guy in the booth is looking at it, the game is over.

The refs didn't even GIVE the guys in the booth the chance to say "uh, hey, uh, we need to look at this." That is unacceptable, especially on a play like that. People were throwing shit? Probably because the refs ran off the field like pussies instead of staying and doing their freaking JOB.


Furthermore, looking at that photo, I really can't say for sure whether his elbow is down or not. There might be a lil space between the elbow and ground. The shadow does, unfortunately, cast doubt. Nevermind the fact that we really don't know, as Stein has said, where that shot is in relation to the actual action. If that shot shows him after he pulled his arm back, then the shot is useless. What we need, honestly, is a few more frames, which we conveniently don't have

This blow up really makes me question whether the elbow is down, and any honest fan should question it based on this.



Look at the elbow. Look at the grass. It's hard to say for sure what's goin on...

[Edited on September 12, 2006 at 12:28 AM. Reason : ]

9/12/2006 12:21:44 AM

i still dont like the fact that they reviewed 2 of our plays in-depth.

if this "look real quick, nope no TD" method is so efficient then why did they stop everything and fuck up our momentum on the "stone past the line of scrimmage play"?

9/12/2006 12:32:39 AM

who cares

we lost

9/12/2006 12:34:50 AM

For the love of god, just let if to people!

9/12/2006 12:35:30 AM

i'll gladly let if to...

9/12/2006 12:36:23 AM

did he extend the ball across the plane prior to his elbow hitting the ground??

9/12/2006 12:36:33 AM

hey! stop asking questions that make sense!

9/12/2006 12:37:11 AM

Quote :

"Look at the elbow. Look at the grass. It's hard to say for sure what's goin on..."

in order for that ball to cross the plane, his elbow had to be on the ground before it was crossed, which means it is down

9/12/2006 1:22:09 AM

it doesnt make sense. the man dove and eventually ended up with half his body in the endzone so theres no way his elbow broke the plane and came back out all while his entire body was flying into the endzone. he slid into home and this was the wrong sport. those refs prolly do baseball games too.

9/12/2006 1:28:34 AM

the elbow doesn't have to break the plane and they aren't saying the elbow broke the plane. they are saying that it is possible that he reached the ball out across the plane before he brought the ball back in towards his body as he fell. that would account for where the elbow hit. you see players do it all the time... try and reach the ball out and then bring back in towards their body as they near impact with the ground.

their point is that still shot is still inconclusive because it can't prove or disprove the above scenario. until someone provides some non-crappy video, you won't be able to tell for sure.

you can continue to whine about the refs but that won't accomplish anything except solidy our reputation for being a bunch of whiny fans.

9/12/2006 1:53:12 AM

dude, i don't care that we lost the game, we should have. I cannot see us winning another game this year...

But he did not go across the plane then pull back out... It is obvious in the vid, he went forward & nothing else

9/12/2006 2:27:48 AM

Quote :

"in order for that ball to cross the plane, his elbow had to be on the ground before it was crossed, which means it is down"

This is not correct.

Quote :

"But he did not go across the plane then pull back out... It is obvious in the vid, he went forward & nothing else"

Are you watching the video on that site linked earlier? Because that's just as inconclusive as the picture. There's only one good camera angle, but no one here has it because it shows him breaking the plane.

9/12/2006 12:34:26 PM

Does that picture...beyond a shadow of a doubt....prove he wasn't in? No.

[Edited on September 12, 2006 at 12:37 PM. Reason : a]

9/12/2006 12:37:36 PM

http://www.newsobserver.com/122/story/485110.html

Did the refs say that they had 3 angles to look at, but no camera on the goal line?

Yes.

Quote :

"However, ACC coordinator of football officials Tommy Hunt said the camera angles his crew was given showed that Kennedy scored. Hunt said officials on the field also said it was clearly a touchdown. Hunt has said the replay officials had three shots of the play but no camera on the goal line"

[Edited on September 12, 2006 at 2:42 PM. Reason : should really have a goal line cam every game for reviews....]

9/12/2006 2:41:46 PM

ESPN's Schlabach in Off the Mark:

Quote :

"Off the Mark Bad coaching. NC State coach Chuck Amato is on the hot seat again after the Wolfpack lost to a team they should have beaten. Amato chased the officials after Akron scored its game-winning touchdown. He wanted officials to review the play, but the Wolfpack already had used their three timeouts, so Amato couldn't challenge the play. Once again, NC State was ruined by stupid penalties. After Marcus Stone threw an 11-yard touchdown to Jamelle Eugene to go ahead 17-14 with 1:07 to play, the Wolfpack were penalized 15 yards for excessive celebration. That penalty allowed Akron to return the kickoff to its 33-yard line and set up its game-winning drive. It was the worst loss of Amato's mediocre tenure, which says a lot. In his six seasons, Amato has lost to North Carolina three times and Wake Forest twice. "

9/12/2006 3:12:12 PM

are you faggots seriously still talking about this??? fucking akron won. state was a 10 point favorite and had the lead with a minute left and fucked it up, deal with it. jesus christ you all sound like a bunch of fucking whiney ass bitches

[Edited on September 12, 2006 at 3:17 PM. Reason : d]

9/12/2006 3:15:43 PM

worst loss?

thats.....not quite it

9/12/2006 3:17:06 PM

Quote :

"are you faggots seriously still talking about this??? fucking akron won. state was a 10 point favorite and had the lead with a minute left and fucked it up, deal with it. jesus christ you all sound like a bunch of fucking whiney ass bitches"

holy crap, I actually agree with Jaybee1200 on something

9/12/2006 7:28:10 PM

Quote :

"should really have a goal line cam every game for reviews..."

The only thing you'd have seen on a goal line cam is Rick Page's ass. Why is that so hard to understand?

9/12/2006 7:32:39 PM

not actually ON THE GOAL LINE

9/12/2006 8:12:40 PM

yeah... it has to be attached to his crotch. that would give the best angle.

9/12/2006 9:21:39 PM

people are still missing the point

it DOES NOT matter whether or not that pic shows he didn't get in. what it does show, is that it was pretty fucking close. so close, in fact, that we are still talking about this shit. it should have been reviewed. that was the entire point of bringing the option to review to the NCAA. you don't fucking review whether the quarterback crossed the line of scrimmage before throwing and then decide that the game-winning (or losing) play with no time on the clock is not worth reviewing.

it should have been reviewed. i can truly say that if the refs had taken 60 seconds to look at the replays and really question the touchdown, and then STILL came out and ruled him in, i wouldn't still be peaved at this. i would just accept it as a legitimate loss to lesser opponent and move on.

i can understand that you don't want to start reviewing every play and drag the game out and waste time, but it simply doesn't get any bigger than a scoring play with no time left to take the lead. if there's ANY doubt, you look at it. it's as simple as that. while i think that the pictures show the elbow is down, some of you seem to think they don't. i just don't see how you can believe that there was no doubt though.

it should have been reviewed.

9/12/2006 9:28:49 PM

^no we get the point. and I agree 100% But that doesn't mean you have to say it 10298542398509236512039685 freaking times. It is over and done with, nothing will change now.

9/12/2006 9:42:34 PM

Quote :

"it should have been reviewed."

who burned all our TO's?

9/12/2006 9:44:37 PM

not even watching a video.

all i know is that there is a play in question which determined the ultimate outcome between us and

AKRON

FUCKING AKRON

jesus fucking christ cry.

<3 NCSU

9/12/2006 9:45:57 PM

Quote :

"you don't fucking review whether the quarterback crossed the line of scrimmage before throwing"

you do when the other coach challenges it. i'm pretty sure the akron coach challenged this

Quote :

"i wouldn't still be peaved at this"

yes you would. state fans would still be bitching about it.

[Edited on September 12, 2006 at 10:09 PM. Reason : #]

9/12/2006 9:51:17 PM

i'm pretty sure it the play stood and they didnt lose a timeout

9/12/2006 9:52:26 PM

is this thread really still going?

9/12/2006 9:52:40 PM

ahahaha

people still think this season matters

9/12/2006 9:52:50 PM

^^^ from the game thread.

Quote :

"akron has 2 TO, they blew one one the review"

Quote :

"they cant have 3...didnt they lose 1 on the lost challenge?"

9/12/2006 10:00:40 PM

o. there was one review that wasnt a challenge by them

9/12/2006 10:02:25 PM

there was the review of blackmon's TD that was initiated by the replay booth. Then there was the review of stone being across the line of scrimmage, which was initated by AKRON. The play stood as called and they lost a timeout.

Why that play was even allowed to be reviewed is beyond me. Being past the line of scrimmage is a penalty and penalties cannot be reviewed. So even if he was across the line, the review couldn't do anything about it.

9/12/2006 10:11:53 PM

http://tinyurl.com/nhnkb

Quote :

" Article 2. Reviewable plays involving passes include: e. a foward pass or foward handling ruled when a runner is beyond the line of scrimmage"

9/12/2006 10:38:37 PM

Quote :

"who burned all our TO's?"

one, the booth should have reviewed that play. that was my entire point. the play cleary should have been reviewed.

two, there were 0 seconds on the clock and the officials ran to the tunnels, how are we supposed to call a time out to have this reviewed with 0 seconds left? and even if we had a timeout, like it would really matter that we lose it if we were wrong about the review... there was no time left.

9/13/2006 4:36:05 AM

This call cost us the SMU game

fuck the refs man....we're still undefeated in my book

[Edited on September 16, 2006 at 10:13 PM. Reason : a]

9/16/2006 10:13:21 PM

Yeah our guys had this hanging on their head.

Least people will stop bitching about this and bitch about Chuck now.

9/16/2006 10:14:08 PM