Picture of AD vs Tech in '05?

[TheLadiesMike]

Does anyone have a picture of AD pushing the Tech defender out of the way to score the go-ahead touchdown in 2005?

Thanks in advance! :cool:

[bearcat_sooner]

Nope.......but I DO have a Boomer Sooner Ringtone you may be interested in. :D

[OKLA21FAN]

Nope.......but I DO have a Boomer Sooner Ringtone you may be interested in. :D
genius

[fadada1]

what's AD?

[boomersooner28]

Does anyone have a picture of AD pushing the Tech defender out of the way to score the go-ahead touchdown in the screwing of 2005?

Thanks in advance! :cool:



Fixed it fer ya!

[SapulpaSooner]

try this one :D http://www.soonersports.com/mediaPlayer/video.dbml?ATCLID=28176&DB_MENU_ID=&SPSID=2475&SPID=190&DB_OEM_ID=300&CLIP_ID=20527&CLIP_FILE_ID=23822&CONTENT_TYPE=ONDEMAND

[OKC-SLC]

that was teh win.

[goingoneight]

He was in... were you?

[poke4christ]

For a long time I assumed it was the wrong call (Tech last second TD) because of all the crap I heard from the media. A week ago I watched a clip of it on Youtube.com and I have to say that he was in. Or at least it was WAY to close to overturn a call.

However, that was an absolutely AMAZING play by Peterson. He just Bullied that guy to get the TD>

[Sco]

For a long time I assumed it was the wrong call (Tech last second TD) because of all the crap I heard from the media. A week ago I watched a clip of it on Youtube.com and I have to say that he was in. Or at least it was WAY to close to overturn a call.

However, that was an absolutely AMAZING play by Peterson. He just Bullied that guy to get the TD>

Aaaaaaand...... he's BANNED! :pop:

[Jello Biafra]

For a long time I assumed it was the wrong call (Tech last second TD) because of all the crap I heard from the media. A week ago I watched a clip of it on Youtube.com and I have to say that he was in. Or at least it was WAY to close to overturn a call.

However, that was an absolutely AMAZING play by Peterson. He just Bullied that guy to get the TD>


you are out of your christ loving mind.....


he was clearly down and THEN reached the ball over the goalline........

trust us, the video has been looked at a couple of times here.

[poke4christ]

Either way, it really doesn't matter. They called him in on the play and then there was no where close to enough evidence to overturn. Had they rulled him out and reviewed, it would have been the same thing. No where close to enough evidence to put him in.

[SoonerStud615]

But, the second scenario is only true, because he wasn't in.

[TheLadiesMike]

The truly bad call was the spot on the 4th down a bit before. They gave a very favorable spot that resulted in a first down, moving the ball at least a yard forward.

[MojoRisen]

The truly bad call was the spot on the 4th down a bit before. They gave a very favorable spot that resulted in a first down, moving the ball at least a yard forward.


Atleast a yard- maybe two yards very clearly cheating though...

[SoonerGM]

Either way, it really doesn't matter. They called him in on the play and then there was no where close to enough evidence to overturn. Had they rulled him out and reviewed, it would have been the same thing. No where close to enough evidence to put him in.


if you watch it in HDTV, you can clearly see the guy bouncing off the ground, and then reaching across the goal line. of course, there is no evidence to prove that he was bouncing off the ground, he could have been bouncing off of air...

and you really cant just look at that one play. you have to look at all the last minute blown calls by the refs as they had one of the worst desperation meltdowns that i have ever seen. that really puts it in to perspective.

[SoonerGM]

The truly bad call was the spot on the 4th down a bit before. They gave a very favorable spot that resulted in a first down, moving the ball at least a yard forward.

honestly? i am still shocked that they didnt try to signal a touchdown, because at that point in the game, the refs apparently forgot that you have to reach the endzone with the ball in hand to recieve a touchdown.

[poke4christ]

It think that what you are calling a "bounce and reach" is from watching the angle where his body is blocked. When you see the KFOR angle, you can see that that isn't from a bounce and reach, but rather from the initial fall. There was a little reach after that, but not near as drastic as what was seen from the other angle. It had to be the initial reach.

Here's a video on YouTube that does a fantastic job of comparing angles and showing that it was a TD. Oh, if there is no clear angle showing it, not only can it not be reviewed, but nobody here can say for sure he wasn't in. Yet you all seemed adamant that he wasn't. :confused: There is just way too much doubt for it to be considered any kind of "screw job".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=10L-zyCaHGA

Oh, and a note of the video. It's kinda long and takes some work to get through, but it is very well done.

[Jello Biafra]

It think that what you are calling a "bounce and reach" is from watching the angle where his body is blocked. When you see the KFOR angle, you can see that that isn't from a bounce and reach, but rather from the initial fall. There was a little reach after that, but not near as drastic as what was seen from the other angle. It had to be the initial reach.

Here's a video on YouTube that does a fantastic job of comparing angles and showing that it was a TD. Oh, if there is no clear angle showing it, not only can it not be reviewed, but nobody here can say for sure he wasn't in. Yet you all seemed adamant that he wasn't. :confused: There is just way too much doubt for it to be considered any kind of "screw job".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=10L-zyCaHGA

Oh, and a note of the video. It's kinda long and takes some work to get through, but it is very well done.




bull****!!!! you're gonna make me cuss you out aren't you? at :34 and 1:10 he is clearly down. you are NOT called down when both of your asscheeks are firmly planted on the turf ....it is when you are no longer making forward progress and you are not on your feet. even in the slow motion there are SEVERAL frames that go by after his homowning azz touches the ground when he stretches for the goal line. shut up. you won't win this argument. no matter how hard you try.

[poke4christ]

bull****!!!! you're gonna make me cuss you out aren't you? at :34 and 1:10 he is clearly down. you are NOT called down when both of your asscheeks are firmly planted on the turf ....it is when you are no longer making forward progress and you are not on your feet. even in the slow motion there are SEVERAL frames that go by after his homowning azz touches the ground when he stretches for the goal line. shut up. you won't win this argument. no matter how hard you try.

Were you a ref for the OSU-Houston game? Cause you would have to be if you thought that his forward progress was stopped.

[IB4OU]

His theory allows too much action (and time) to pass after he was officially down. Sure it looks like the ball didn't move much in the 1st view but you can clearly tell that he's extending his arms at the 2:42 mark during the 2nd view.

[Jello Biafra]

Were you a ref for the OSU-Houston game? Cause you would have to be if you thought that his forward progress was stopped.



ummm no. i couldn't give a fat, hairy, lice-infested, sewer rat's asss about OSU.....so i guess i'm saying i didn't even watch the game much less ref in it. if the calls went against you, im assuming your entire fanbase said it was an NO U conspiracy or the referees lived in moblie homes or they bought their sooner gear at wal mart or some crazily concocted BS though....... have i gotten any where close to the truth?

[poke4christ]

His theory allows too much action (and time) to pass after he was officially down. Sure it looks like the ball didn't move much in the 1st view but you can clearly tell that he's extending his arms at the 2:42 mark during the 2nd view.

True, he does move the ball a little. However, if you check the sideline view that shows the ball over the line, the entire length of the ball is over the line. There is no way he moves enough for it to be out and then in (as seen from the other angle. However, I'll watch it again to see what was happening at the 2:42 mark as you said.

You guys may not believe this, but I really am trying to find the truth, and not just trying to go against OU. If you want proof of that, read my posts on Orangepower.com and see how much crap I get from my other OSU fans for not being "anti-OU" enough.

[poke4christ]

Sorry man, but there is nothing clear or arm extending about the 2:42 mark. Number 99 falls and you just see his arms there. They are moving slightly (as time is passing), but not in a "put ball across line" motion. If he was, that motion would have been seen by the other angle. Once again, the entire ball was across when number 99's elbow hit the ground. For the ball to move that far between that moment and the Tech guys butt hitting the ground, it would have been visible from the other angle.

[Czar Soonerov]

more than the touchdown, something else stuck out in my mind... if it didn't in yours, I hope this brings attention to it;
http://img510.imageshack.us/img510/7181/nelson2ih.jpg

:D

[Jello Biafra]

:D


and there ya go..........


THAT is what i saw in the video.......his pickle pocket clearly on the ground and the ball nowhere near the goalline.......


o and nice score. it seems that last year wasn't the only time frame you guys couldn't find your defense eh?

[poke4christ]

I'm not defending our 05 season. We sucked, and you can milk it all you want. However, that doesn't distract from the point at hand. If you want to just make fun of me and OSU, go right ahead. It doesn't bother me, but if you really want to do something, try making logical and thought out posts like IB4OU did. He's thinking and making good posts ranther than just saying "Un-Uh" and calling names.

[poke4christ]

I'll still give badger props for the pic. It is pretty funny.

[Jello Biafra]

We sucked,


wrong. to say you suckED would be past tense and your school currently sucks so, you should have said......WE suck


ummm yeh, there are no other points to make. the picture by czar clearly shows all you need to know. you're wrong. there's no way to dispute it. end of story. next topic. so what......you want to talk about ummm webtv? the problems with building basements on oklahoma soil? ummm the spermtacular consistancy of bull penile juice?

one thing is certain, we won't be discussing the "9" technique in football, you and I. I simply can't trust and/or respect your opinion when you look at video evidence like the ones ALL OVER youtube and the multiple photos on the internet and claim that there is not enough evidence to over turn the ruling on the field.

[poke4christ]

wrong. to say you suckED would be past tense and your school currently sucks so, you should have said......WE suck


ummm yeh, there are no other points to make. the picture by czar clearly shows all you need to know. you're wrong. there's no way to dispute it. end of story. next topic. so what......you want to talk about ummm webtv? the problems with building basements on oklahoma soil? ummm the spermtacular consistancy of bull penile juice?

one thing is certain, we won't be discussing the "9" technique in football, you and I. I simply can't trust and/or respect your opinion when you look at video evidence like the ones ALL OVER youtube and the multiple photos on the internet and claim that there is not enough evidence to over turn the ruling on the field.

Wow man, do you really think that saying "Nu-Uh" enough times in many different ways will somehow turn into a decent argument? Please just try to make some type of point. You are only insulting your own intelligence with these pointless posts. If you think there is enough video evidence to overturn, then post something to show it. Make an argument Please! I'm not going to refuse to hear it. I am open to changing my mind, you guys just have to provide something that will prove it. As of late, I've seen nothing to show that he didn't, but I've seen things that show he did.

[sooneron]

That Youtube video doesn't really prove anything. In the two shot slo mo breakdown, the person claims that the ball "doesn't really move from one frame to another. It clearly does to some degree as you can see it rotate or something. The ball does move. From the angle via KFOR, the ball could have moved towards the camera which was behind the goal line, thus looking like it did not get closer to the left side of the frame.

I believe the fox affiliate from OKC had a better angle on it. I have no idea what the link is anymore.

Foxsports is the one that really dropped the ball. Instead of paying attention to the field, they were too busy getting a tight shot on Leach with the camera on the other sideline instead of shooting the goal line for that play.

And puke for christ, why are you drudging this crap up? Actually, why are you here? Here's another idea. Instead of you asking us to provide proof for you (your opinion matters sooooo much around here), why doesn't your lazy *** maybe hit the "search" button on the forum page and find the threads pertaining to this from OVER a year ago.

:rolleyes:

[Jello Biafra]

Wow man, do you really think that saying "Nu-Uh" enough times in many different ways will somehow turn into a decent argument? Please just try to make some type of point. You are only insulting your own intelligence with these pointless posts. If you think there is enough video evidence to overturn, then post something to show it. Make an argument Please! I'm not going to refuse to hear it. I am open to changing my mind, you guys just have to provide something that will prove it. As of late, I've seen nothing to show that he didn't, but I've seen things that show he did.



first off, i was here. i lived it, i have adjusted and moved on. i don't NEED to prove anything. there are several pictures on this forum if you gave enough of a crap to do it. i wont because somethings won't change. the score of that game is one of those things. no big deal, i know it doesn't matter to you but every time i see you post something im going to say to myself "theres the dude that knows very little about football but he loves christ by gawd" :) welcome to ignore.

[SoonerGM]

man, this video just provides evidence that the ball moved a lot after hendersons butt cheeks hit the ground. i mean, just because the video says "ball did not move" doesnt make it so. doods arms had a significant amount of movement after he was down. and it should. he had forward momentum as he hit the ground and other players ankle. addtionally, #42 comes in and hits him from behind which would give him yet more push forward. he is then bounced up in to the air(with that forward momentum) and turned over on his belly. how the hell is the ball not going to move? i think we all live on this world and abide by the same laws of physics. it would be impossible for the ball not to have moved forward any, after he was down.

the creator of the vid states that because the ball is at the goal line when #99's elbow is on the ground, and is therefore a score is incorrect. the player was down before #99's arms was on the ground. to believe in the claim that he was in the endzone before being downed is to believe in the claim that the ball didnt move afterwards. as discussed earlier, the video already disproves this, and so do physics.

and to top it all off, how in the hell is it logical that from the same exact camera the ball is behind the goal line, and seconds later the ball appears to be at the goal line, but argue that the ball did not move? dumb.

this is old and dumb. what kind of caveman actually believes he made it in that endzone? use your brain. you dont have to go to college to understand these concepts, i learned them in grade school.

[Seamus]

I'm not defending our entire history. We suck.

Fixed.

[sooner518]

i could care less about the goal line play because of the horse**** 4th down call about 5 plays earlier