|
Replies: 60
| visibility 9007
|
Paw Master [16338]
TigerPulse: 98%
51
Posts: 18820
Joined: 2009
|
Can someone explain the Mafah fumble. I was at game...
1
Dec 2, 2024, 10:19 AM
|
|
At the game, we were confused due to 2 things...
1. The play was blown dead, so why was a fumble awarded after the whistle?
2. We dropped back and completed a 15 yard pass before any stoppage. Did not think they could review a previous play back in time.
|
|
|
|
 |
Varsity [104]
TigerPulse: 92%
11
|
If the play is in review,
1
Dec 2, 2024, 10:22 AM
|
|
The off site review folks can stop things even if the on field officials don't.
I hate the rule.
|
|
|
|
|
|
TigerNet Elite [69791]
TigerPulse: 100%
61
Posts: 90831
Joined: 2001
|
But they fail to review an obvious targeting penalty!?!?!***
Dec 2, 2024, 10:28 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Game Day Hero [4348]
TigerPulse: 100%
36
|
Re: If the play is in review,
Dec 2, 2024, 10:43 AM
[ in reply to If the play is in review, ] |
|
The off site review folks can stop things even if the on field officials don't.
I hate the rule.
So getting the snap off for the next play doesn’t prevent the off-site review to override the game flow? Never knew that, and don’t like it. Typical bad officiating. By my recollection there was a fair amount of standing around before the next play. Offsite review had plenty of time to stop the game before Clemson lined up to snap the ball.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Game Changer [1942]
TigerPulse: 96%
31
|
Yes, on TV I could see on the first replay ten seconds
Dec 2, 2024, 11:04 AM
|
|
later that it was a fumble. Was shocked it took so long for the review to be called.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [8201]
TigerPulse: 100%
43
Posts: 16073
Joined: 2001
|
The buzz has to occur before the snap - the ref getting
Dec 2, 2024, 1:52 PM
[ in reply to Re: If the play is in review, ] |
|
the buzz from replay has to know if it came prior to the snap. It happens a lot as the reaction of an official to blow his whistle and wave his arms comes after the buzz but doesn’t mean the buzz didn’t come prior to the snap.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [5860]
TigerPulse: 100%
39
|
None of the players reacted as if it were a fumble, not even the cox...
Dec 3, 2024, 1:42 AM
[ in reply to Re: If the play is in review, ] |
|
there was no celebrating , exasperation, nothing. If i recall correctly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2158]
TigerPulse: 99%
32
|
Re: If the play is in review,
Dec 2, 2024, 11:23 PM
[ in reply to If the play is in review, ] |
|
where is that in the rules... nowhere I can find... and I looked. Replay also has no idea when the whistle was blown...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Commissioner [1294]
TigerPulse: 100%
27
|
My understanding
Dec 2, 2024, 10:23 AM
|
|
Ref stopped play just before the ball was snapped on the next play.
It was a fumble in any case.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Paw Master [16338]
TigerPulse: 98%
51
Posts: 18820
Joined: 2009
|
Gotcha. The whistle was blown before any sort of recovery or whatever
Dec 2, 2024, 10:26 AM
|
|
but maybe that doesn't matter? Wasn't sure what the rule was.
Not suggesting it wasn't a fumble. I refuse to re-watch. But I do know the play was blown dead.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Asst Coach [840]
TigerPulse: 100%
23
|
Re: Gotcha. The whistle was blown before any sort of recovery or whatever
4
Dec 2, 2024, 4:55 PM
|
|
The ruling was that Mafi never had control of the ball even though he was on the ground and he pitched it. The replay clearly showed him being down and the ball in one hand with control, he pitched the ball with one hand and they recovered it. It was a bad reversal.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [5643]
TigerPulse: 100%
39
|
Re: Gotcha. The whistle was blown before any sort of recovery or whatever
1
Dec 2, 2024, 5:07 PM
|
|
This is correct and what’s so frustrating. He HAD to have possession to pass it backwards. If in possession while on the ground the play is dead. EVEN if it’s a judgement call on possession, it was not indisputable so ruling on the field should have stood.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Game Changer [2014]
TigerPulse: 59%
31
|
Re: Gotcha. The whistle was blown before any sort of recovery or whatever
Dec 2, 2024, 6:49 PM
|
|
This is correct and what’s so frustrating. He HAD to have possession to pass it backwards. If in possession while on the ground the play is dead. EVEN if it’s a judgement call on possession, it was not indisputable so ruling on the field should have stood.
I think he was bobbling it the whole time and not really passing it backwards it kind of just flopped back out of his hands 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Paw Warrior [4843]
TigerPulse: 100%
37
|
Being at the game, this was not the case
2
Dec 2, 2024, 10:27 AM
[ in reply to My understanding ] |
|
Play was blown dead before the "fumble." And then we were in 3rd and long since Mafah was ruled down, we run a pass play and Wesco catches the ball for ~20 yard gain and a first down. Then, the play is negated for the video review. It was not like it was a quick slant either--that play took probably 4 seconds and then the whistle was blown negating the play.
|
|
|
|
|
|
TigerNet Elite [69791]
TigerPulse: 100%
61
Posts: 90831
Joined: 2001
|
That is absolutely correct!***
Dec 2, 2024, 10:29 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Paw Master [16338]
TigerPulse: 98%
51
Posts: 18820
Joined: 2009
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dynasty Maker [3283]
TigerPulse: 94%
34
|
I don't know what you mean when you say it was a fumble . . .
2
Dec 2, 2024, 10:35 AM
[ in reply to My understanding ] |
|
the ball didn't pop out until his but hit the ground, right? I didn't mind the call about it being a backwards pass, but then Mafah grabbed it, hit the ground, and only then did the ball pop out.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ultimate Tiger [33776]
TigerPulse: 100%
56
Posts: 14280
Joined: 2014
|
Re: I don't know what you mean when you say it was a fumble . . .
1
Dec 2, 2024, 2:01 PM
|
|
Mafah never had control of the ball.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dynasty Maker [3283]
TigerPulse: 94%
34
|
He had control
2
Dec 2, 2024, 2:31 PM
|
|
he just had it with one hand instead of two and the play happened bang-bang, so people make the assumption that he couldn't have controlled it. But the video shows him with the ball in one hand - not a good idea, but in one hand, and he hits the ground but the ball doesn't become loose until he throws it. You can even see the butt and then knee to ground contact without any ball motion in his hand, but then he throws it afterwards.
The officials are conflating "firm grasp" or "firm control" with the the idea of not possession it at all. Mafah wasn't holding it firmly and safely, but he did have it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Game Changer [2014]
TigerPulse: 59%
31
|
Re: He had control
Dec 2, 2024, 6:50 PM
|
|
Sadly, it was loose the entire time you could see that it was never in possession. It was bouncing around the whole time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dynasty Maker [3283]
TigerPulse: 94%
34
|
I thought it looked like a fumble in real time . . .
1
Dec 2, 2024, 9:21 PM
|
|
I thought it looked just as you said in real time (from the regular braodcast angle, but in the replay here from 12:04 onward (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kPtnnAhAdL8&t=723s) he very much seems to be holding the ball by one end (with one hand), and then falls to the ground, and then tosses it with that one hand. That's not a very safe hold in terms of ball security, of course, but it doesn't have to be in order to be possessed. While he's falling, you can see the ball is not moving relative to his hand - not until he throws it.
Plenty will disagree with that b/c the play is so bang-bang, but that cuts both ways, being bang bang doesn't mean one can spot movement in the ball either. I think he had control but it just wasn't a good, safe hold.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [5860]
TigerPulse: 100%
39
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ultimate Clemson Legend [102411]
TigerPulse: 100%
64
Posts: 98929
Joined: 2009
|
So how many beers does it take for...***
Dec 2, 2024, 10:50 AM
[ in reply to My understanding ] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Campus Hero [13635]
TigerPulse: 100%
48
|
Re: My understanding
1
Dec 2, 2024, 11:02 AM
[ in reply to My understanding ] |
|
No, the Ref DID NOT STOP THE PLAY BEFORE THE BALL WAS SNAPPED. The Ref stopped the play waaaaayyyyyy AFTER the ball was snapped. The play was stopped AFTER the ball was thrown. The whistle blew the instant before the ball was caught on what would have been a first down.
Never seen anything like it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rival Killer [2649]
TigerPulse: 100%
33
|
Hosed
2
Dec 2, 2024, 10:27 AM
|
|
1. Backwards hand off/pass to Mafah he never secured it so it was a fumble. Our receiver didn’t get on it initially and gamecock covered it.
2. Officials initially agreed that Mafah was down but replay buzzed after next play and reversed it.
HOSED…
Yet, why call that bs when we are driving on them. Coaches?
And why try hero ball, just cover the ball? Cade&Mafah
And aren’t players coached to cover any ball on the ground? Coaches and WR.
Oh well. That’s what happened.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rival Killer [2649]
TigerPulse: 100%
33
|
Hosed
Dec 2, 2024, 10:27 AM
|
|
1. Backwards hand off/pass to Mafah he never secured it so it was a fumble. Our receiver didn’t get on it initially and gamecock covered it.
2. Officials initially agreed that Mafah was down but replay buzzed after next play and reversed it.
HOSED…
Yet, why call that bs when we are driving on them. Coaches?
And why try hero ball, just cover the ball? Cade&Mafah
And aren’t players coached to cover any ball on the ground? Coaches and WR.
Oh well. That’s what happened.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rival Killer [2673]
TigerPulse: 100%
33
|
The "Mafah didn't secure it" was BS. He had it with one hand trying to lateral
2
Dec 2, 2024, 10:38 AM
|
|
which the rules analyst on tv said also. He wasn't trying to recover it, he was trying to pitch it back, and therefore had it in one hand.
Had the replay booth not stopped it no one would be complaining (as in not SC either). It was utter BS.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dynasty Maker [3283]
TigerPulse: 94%
34
|
Exactly . . . it was the wrong call . . . objectively so.
2
Dec 2, 2024, 10:49 AM
|
|
One cannot be at the same time "in control" for purposes of "performing a backwards pass" (WHICH IS WHAT THE OFFICIALS SAID IT WAS!), but then, at the same time **NOT** in control of it such that when you hit the ground WITH the ball, it's considered a fumble because (wait for it) he "never had control." It's a direct contradiction.
Theree are only two logical possibilities:
(A) Mafah had control, and tried to perform a backwards pass, but his butt his the ground before tossing it, so he was down for a loss but no turnover;
or
(B) Mafah did not ever have control, meaning as he fell to the ground the ball was still in no one's control, and his actions w/ the ball after he hit the ground was part of that same sequence of a live, **un-possessed** ball, and thus Carolina recovered.
But it is not a logical possibility that he both HAD control and thus made a backwards pass, and also LACKED control such that his but hitting the ground left the ball still unpossessed and live. Flat out contradiction.
As for (B) above, while it is a logical possibility, I'd say it would be the wrong call b/c officials have a systematicly spread disease of deficient discernment - they equate "control" or "possession" with something more like "safe" or "firm" control or possession. They overthink it, and by so doing, they then make it impossible, by defintion, to have tenuous control of a ball, but still real control, nonetheless. Mafah defintely had that ball in his (one) hand, or else he wouldn't have been able to perform a backwards pass with it. His possession was tenuous and dangerous and not "safe," but that doesn't mean he didn't possess it. That kind of distinction is lost on most officials.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Game Changer [1942]
TigerPulse: 96%
31
|
The backward pass the official referred to was
Dec 2, 2024, 11:08 AM
|
|
Cade’s toss, not Mafah’s. It was obvious from the first replay on tv that it was a fumble.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dynasty Maker [3283]
TigerPulse: 94%
34
|
I'm not so sure about that . . .
1
Dec 2, 2024, 11:33 AM
|
|
I'm not claiming you're wrong, but I have my doubts about that. All Cade did was trip and turn around and pitch it - and there was no fumble at that juncture. There was nothing at all confusing or controversial about that at all, so I'm not even sure why the officials would see a need to issue a ruling or statement about what Cade did, b/c it was entirely obvious and thus irrelevant to the issue of the ostensible turnover itself - which instead related to what Mafah did afterwards.
It was only Mafah's pitch that related to the question of the turnover, and that's why I'm skeptical as to whether their ruling was about what Cade did. I think the ruling was that Mafah threw a backwards pass (which is true).
But if you're right, and the ruling was about Cade's pitch, then that doesn't change the fact that by the time Mafah released the ball, his but was already on the ground.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Game Changer [1942]
TigerPulse: 96%
31
|
Its very simple. From the time Cade pitched it backwards,
Dec 2, 2024, 12:16 PM
|
|
no one had control until the Gamecock defender fell on it. Hence a fumble.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dynasty Maker [3283]
TigerPulse: 94%
34
|
But that's not true
1
Dec 2, 2024, 12:54 PM
|
|
A) Mafah had control. The only way anyone can argue that he didn't is if they're confusing or conflating "control/possession" with "secure" or "safe" control. Just because a guys is handling a ball carelessly or with one hand doesn't mean they don't actually have it. Mafah not only had it, but even when he hit the ground, it didn't immediately get jarred loose by ground contact ... it only went lose once he tossed it back, but by then he was already in the ground.
B) If Mafah never had control, then why did the refs even rule on a backwards pass regarding Cade? Absolutely no one was confused about what Cade did - it wasn't relevant to the call. All he did was pitch it, which was prior to every relevant aspect of the question of a possible fumble.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Game Changer [1942]
TigerPulse: 96%
31
|
Youre making this way more complicated than it is.
Dec 2, 2024, 1:08 PM
|
|
Also, according to the refs, Mafah never had control. So take it up with them. Backwards pitch, no control by anyone until the gamecock defender fell on it. Thus, a fumble. That was the ruling.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dynasty Maker [3283]
TigerPulse: 94%
34
|
I honestly don't think that I am . . .
2
Dec 2, 2024, 1:28 PM
|
|
I'm just trying to address all the aspects that the refs have put on it. I'm not the one that offered thee backwards pass as a rationale or relevant aspect of the decision. Me addressing what they brought up doesn't complicate anything at all. All I'm doing is explaining how their rational contradicted their decision.
And moreover, video doesn't show a lack of control. Mafah handled the ball carelessly, but he hit the ground with the ball still in hand (just one hand, but in hand and not loose, all the same) - and only after hitting the ground did he toss it. If he didn't have control, then the ball would have likely jostled loose when he hit the ground.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Game Changer [1942]
TigerPulse: 96%
31
|
Well according to the refs he didnt have control.
Dec 2, 2024, 1:51 PM
|
|
Take it up with them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dynasty Maker [3283]
TigerPulse: 94%
34
|
According to the video, he did ****
1
Dec 2, 2024, 1:58 PM
|
|
d
|
|
|
|
|
|
Game Changer [1942]
TigerPulse: 96%
31
|
That would be your opinion. The refs saw it differently.***
Dec 2, 2024, 2:05 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dynasty Maker [3283]
TigerPulse: 94%
34
|
No, that's their conclusion - but the video shows differently . . .
2
Dec 2, 2024, 2:19 PM
|
|
The fact that people differ on assessments and conclusions doesn't transform demonstrable observations into mere opinions. Sure, I have a different assessment of the proper ruling than the officials do, but the video simply doesn't support comport with theirs:
a) Mafah has the ball in hand as he hits the ground.
b) When he his the ground the ball does not jostle loose;
c) Mafah then pitches the ball. You can even see his hand motion in so doing, as distinct and after the contact between but and ground.
So it's not just a hazy matter of opinion. The video shows the three things above. If one wants to argue that hitting the ground with the ball in hand and then subsequently throwing it without dropping it anywhere in between constitutes "not having possession," then they have a different problem than a mere difference of opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Game Changer [1942]
TigerPulse: 96%
31
|
You could stop right at your bullet A.
Dec 2, 2024, 2:44 PM
|
|
They said Mafah never had control. You may think he did, but that’s not what they saw.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dynasty Maker [3283]
TigerPulse: 94%
34
|
But the problem is precisely the difference
1
Dec 2, 2024, 3:23 PM
|
|
between what they saw and what they said. I don't deny what they said, nor what they said they saw. But what they saw, is manifestly not what they said.
In other words, they saw Mafah with control of the ball, but because they can't draw a distinction between one handed-control and "non-possession," they said they saw something that the video proves they didn't.
And no, I really don't think stopping at point A can be supported. B & C, if true, reinforce that A was not just a fleeing moment before the ball was jostled lose. If the ball had jostled lose at the B &C points, then you could argue by rule that the ball "didn't survive the ground" bit. So, all three points are necessary.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dynasty Maker [3283]
TigerPulse: 94%
34
|
meant "fleeting" ****
Dec 2, 2024, 3:23 PM
|
|
d
|
|
|
|
|
|
Game Changer [1942]
TigerPulse: 96%
31
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dynasty Maker [3283]
TigerPulse: 94%
34
|
B & C are very relevant . . .
1
Dec 2, 2024, 4:40 PM
|
|
There's two problems with what you're saying. First the video establishes that (A) - that Mafah had the ball at some point is, so that part is true. So any presumption on the part of the officials that we can dispense with that and therefore B&C as well, is fighting against the video evidence.
and Secondly, given the way officials assess pass completions, B & C are of necessity relevant- as one of the things they assess is whether the ball "survives the ground." I don't like that rule, but it is something they've put in there and accentuated over the years. Part of whether or not some one "established control" is, according to that philosophy, proven by whether or not the ball is jostled lose by the player's contact with the ground. Both B & C relate to that. So, if the officials are looking at that aspect, then it's very relevant. If they aren't, then the only other relevant aspect is the fact that Mafah had the ball with one hand prior to hitting the ground.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Game Changer [1942]
TigerPulse: 96%
31
|
Good lord. What part about the refs determined that
Dec 2, 2024, 4:48 PM
|
|
Mafah never had control can you not grasp? You may think the video shows he had control, but that’s not what the officials determined.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dynasty Maker [3283]
TigerPulse: 94%
34
|
You're confusing two distinct points I'm making
Dec 2, 2024, 5:46 PM
|
|
I've already said that if they determined that, then they are wrong about it, as the video shows otherwise. You seem to think my statement about them being wrong is equivalent to denying that they ruled that way. But those are not the same thing.
I already said up front that I was not entirely sure if the backwards pass ruling was about Cade's pitch or Mafah's. If it was Mafah's then they made an inconsistent and self-contradictory ruling. If it was as you say, Cade's pitch, then they made a flatly incorrect ruling as shown by the video. That's not a denial that they ruled that way, it's a conditional statement about the incorrectness of it if they did. There's no misunderstanding on my part.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Game Changer [1942]
TigerPulse: 96%
31
|
Hopefully some of the other posts in this thread
Dec 2, 2024, 5:50 PM
|
|
can clear it up for you, because I give up.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dynasty Maker [3283]
TigerPulse: 94%
34
|
It's not confusion
1
Dec 2, 2024, 5:57 PM
|
|
it's just disagreement.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ultimate Tiger [33776]
TigerPulse: 100%
56
Posts: 14280
Joined: 2014
|
Re: Exactly . . . it was the wrong call . . . objectively so.
Dec 2, 2024, 2:04 PM
[ in reply to Exactly . . . it was the wrong call . . . objectively so. ] |
|
Mafah rally didn’t perform a backwards pass. At best he pushed the ball in the general direction of the WR. If he had control of the ball it would have come a lot closer to his target.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dynasty Maker [3283]
TigerPulse: 94%
34
|
I don't think so . . .
Dec 2, 2024, 2:25 PM
|
|
the assumption that control only exists when a throw is reasonably close to a target isn't really accurate in all circumstances. I agree that it is certainly is the norm that it would be accurate when they have control, but by no means always. Plays go awry for a variety of reasons and can result in errant throws, errant pitches, and so forth, b/c of a players position, momentum, angle of throw, splitting their attention between what they're doing and a defender, etc. etc. etc. It's not necessarily the case that an errant throw or toss can't happen even when there was prior control.
Mafah made a really bad decision trying to toss it back b/c he wasn't physically in a position to do it accurately - so it was a bad decision for that reason, and the results reflected that. But he did try.
From 12:04 and following you can even see the motion of his hand - after his hip and knee were on the ground, of him tossing that ball backwards. But since his arm was on the ground, he couldn't put his shoulder into it and pitch properly. It was a hand-toss, but it was at least that. The ground didn't jar it loose.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kPtnnAhAdL8
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [44486]
TigerPulse: 100%
57
Posts: 11681
Joined: 2015
|
Re: The "Mafah didn't secure it" was BS. He had it with one hand trying to lateral
1
Dec 2, 2024, 11:07 AM
[ in reply to The "Mafah didn't secure it" was BS. He had it with one hand trying to lateral ] |
|
Had a SC fan mention this morning that he thought the call was iffy. Being in the stands I could not really understood what had happened but my first impression was it was a fumble.
Plenty of opportunities to overcome that regardless.
They squibbed kicked one to us; I’m thinking they thought they were not be able to stop us and dang if we did not capitalize on that gift.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tiger Spirit [9787]
TigerPulse: 100%
44
Posts: 13196
Joined: 2000
|
my comment to the room during the game - after the call was reversed...
2
Dec 2, 2024, 10:45 AM
|
|
if that "pitch" from Mafah had resulted in player catching the ball and running for a TD - you can bet your sweet ### he would have been ruled "down" after review
Note: There were some more colorful expletives thrown in that I will not repeat here
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ultimate Clemson Legend [102411]
TigerPulse: 100%
64
Posts: 98929
Joined: 2009
|
Sure, I'll give you a legitimate explanation.
1
Dec 2, 2024, 10:49 AM
|
|
Clemson is leaving the ACC and retribution from a woman scorned is severe.
Having a play recalled after the ball is snapped for the following play is unprecedented. A whistle after the following play is unheard of.
I liken this to the tragedy of Colorado getting a fifth down in a game and scoring the go ahead touchdown on that fifth down. That resulted in the AP voting Colorado co-NCs with GT.
I don't know how many might remember that event but it was purebullchit incompetence by the officials just as was the antics we saw Saturday.
I could see a targeting call made but giving the ball over to the other team shows emotional motivations.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dynasty Maker [3283]
TigerPulse: 94%
34
|
I agree w/ you to a T, except for
Dec 2, 2024, 10:51 AM
|
|
the part about us leaving the ACC . . . weren't the officials an SEC crew? They could have their own motivations related to conference affiliation, but it wouldn't be retribution from the ACC.
Otherwise, right on.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ultimate Clemson Legend [102411]
TigerPulse: 100%
64
Posts: 98929
Joined: 2009
|
The booth overturned the play.
Dec 2, 2024, 10:54 AM
|
|
Unless I'm still drunk the visiting team furnishes the on field officials and the home team furnishes the booth.
That makes it even worse for the SEC officials let us play through the following play.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dynasty Maker [3283]
TigerPulse: 94%
34
|
Ah, ok. I gotcha. Good point. ***
Dec 2, 2024, 11:09 AM
|
|
d
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [3677]
TigerPulse: 100%
35
|
How many times have you seen a team run to
1
Dec 2, 2024, 11:19 AM
|
|
the line to get the next play off to avoid replay?
Thousands. But we weren’t in a hurry because the ref blew the play dead. Whether it was a fumble or not is irrelevant. The officiating crew blew it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Commissioner [1208]
TigerPulse: 100%
27
|
Re: Can someone explain the Mafah fumble. I was at game...
Dec 2, 2024, 1:19 PM
|
|
I thought Mafah was down before the backward pass. It was a terrible call by the coaches, but it should have been Clemson's ball at the spot Mafah went down. The one that really had me perplexed was the Wesco reception on the sideline. How they overturned that, I don't know.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [6705]
TigerPulse: 100%
41
|
Re: Can someone explain the Mafah fumble. I was at game...
Dec 2, 2024, 1:28 PM
|
|
The referees said that Mafah never took possession of the ball. It was a backwards pass to Mafah that he never took possession of so it was a fumble by Cade not Mafah. Doesn’t matter that he was down because the ball was still live. It was a backwards pass.
I’m not saying I agree with it, but this was the explanation
|
|
|
|
|
|
Varsity [114]
TigerPulse: 42%
11
|
I read that Beamer paid off the refs with $500,000
Dec 2, 2024, 4:16 PM
|
|
He is hoping for a pardon from the president.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2470]
TigerPulse: 94%
32
|
Re: Can someone explain the Mafah fumble. I was at game...
2
Dec 2, 2024, 7:02 PM
|
|
The refs miss handled this sequence of two plays in multiple ways. Really really poor officiating.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Freshman [-96]
TigerPulse: 21%
-1
|
Re: Can someone explain the Mafah fumble. I was at game...
2
Dec 3, 2024, 1:34 AM
|
|
He didnt have full possession when he went down and there’s nothing in the rule book that says you can’t review a play during the middle of the next play. Go cry some more tater
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 60
| visibility 9007
|
|
|
50
