Texas vs Iowa State

[KCRC]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

Those stating that you can't review when forward progress is stopped are not correct. It is true that if it is ruled on the field that forward progress is stopped, that cannot be overturned by review...

But FP is ruled routinely on review plays. Almost every single "Did he make the first down" review is a FP decision. And MANY fumble / no fumble decisions are FP decisions in the end (otherwise you could just hold him up in a pile, keep him off the ground and knock the ball out - and unless they could see it on the field, it would always be a fumble).

I was not aware of this. I learn something every day (I'm a BB board lurker). This leads me to a follow up question.

The White Hat announced the ruling on the field was "down by contact" which allowed for the review. With your above statement, I think you are saying that the review could result in a determination that forward progress had stopped prior to loss of possession.

However, the announced result of the review was that "the play stands as called." Well, as called was "down by contact." To me, such an announcement means that the review official did not find indisputable video evidence to overturn "down by contact." If the review official disagreed with "down by contact" but made a forward progress ruling, wouldn't that require more of an explanation than "the play stands as called?" Or do I have too high of expectations on post-review explanations?

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by KCRC

I was not aware of this. I learn something every day (I'm a BB board lurker). This leads me to a follow up question.

The White Hat announced the ruling on the field was "down by contact" which allowed for the review. With your above statement, I think you are saying that the review could result in a determination that forward progress had stopped prior to loss of possession.

However, the announced result of the review was that "the play stands as called." Well, as called was "down by contact." To me, such an announcement means that the review official did not find indisputable video evidence to overturn "down by contact." If the review official disagreed with "down by contact" but made a forward progress ruling, wouldn't that require more of an explanation than "the play stands as called?" Or do I have too high of expectations on post-review explanations?

The play stands as called almost always means "We don't have enough evidence to change anything."

If they agreed he was down by contact after the review, they would say, "The ruling on the field was confirmed."

(Of course, the TD 2 plays later was also "play stands as called" when there was literally no doubt of the score).

[grunewar]

Big 12: Officials made right call in Texas-Iowa State game

[Steven Tyler]

Originally Posted by grunewar

Big 12: Officials made right call in Texas-Iowa State game

Watching in real time, I thought forward progress was stopped, and Gray recovered his first and only fumble.

[parepat]

First play, forward progress was stopped, Second was a fumble. Hard to tell who recovered. IMO.