This will be the third time that MSU influences how a college game is played

I've said something similar before, but holy crap just think about it--all if this recent (albeit at times, shady) success against Michigan and they're still just little brother. Example #687,365 as to why MSU has rightfully earned the nickname.

What's funny is that only the MSU fanbase at large would think that the whole "little brother" thing has anything to do with football or sports in general. I mean yeah, Mike Hart officially said it back in 2007, but everyone else but them has known it to be true for many many decades and it goes so much deeper than sports. It's a culturally-ingrained inferiority-complex (little brother syndrome) that manifests as obnoxious, douche-baggy behavior like you mentioned--combing the internet for "disrespekt" because they still don't feel validated after a shallow win against Michigan.

It's not complicated.  The video from different cameras is time-synced.  The replay officials find the best angle for determing when the fumble occured.  Then they find the best angle to show when his shin was down.  Then they check the times to see which one happened first.  Done.

There doesn't need to be, and often won't be, a single camera angle that shows the best view of both the fumble and the player being down, but all FOX shows are the non-time-synced view from multiple angles.  Unless you've seen the angles the replay officials used, along with the time stamps of each, you are not in any position to determine if the call was correct.

That being said, I think measuring to fractions of a second  on reviews when basic stuff like spotting the ball is only accurate to like 2 feet, and holding by offensive linemen isn't called like 4/5 times, with little rhyme or reason for why it is called the other 1/5 times, is silly.  I'd prefer it if replay were used to overturn egregiously bad calls, rather than very close calls.

As me and my mates walked out of the stadium on Saturday, with the catcalls, slurs and human physique-bending analogies ringing in my ears, it occurred to me just HOW MUCH we live in their heads, rent free.  The poorest losers they are, I thought, until hearing them made me smile over and over. They can't let go, they will never be able to let go, even in victory they are defeated. This was the first loss for me out of 4 I attended at spartan stadium, so previous to this I had never really understood the depth of jealousy and envy that exists in that fanbase. It is incomprehensible unless you experience it.  It made us laugh so much that they became infuriated with us laughing back at them, and then I knew we had the ultimate power over them. We may lose the game from time to time, but the war has already been won. Go Blue!

I don’t think there is any doubt what they said. The question is, what video angle gives the evidence beyond any doubt to prove that’s the case and overturn the call?

None of the angles Fox aired had the ball visible at the point his shin touched. Still frames since then actually show the ball is loose when the shin is down.

So the question remains, what evidence did the booth use to overturn the call?

This sport will continue to get bumps and bruises in critical moments like this one until the process adds accountability after the fact - and for all players, coaches, and fans involved i don’t think that’s asking too much.

Accountability brings improvement and that should be something all parties want. 

They can obviously say whatever they want.  It will never happen, but I'd like to see them provide a still frame shot (or a series of time synced still shots), that shows the moment where his shin hit the ground and he had control.

I'm also confused by the pass that may have hit the ground and was ruled a catch.  It looked like it had been ruled a no catch by the officials on the field.  But, it seemed like coming out of replay the ref implied the original ruling was a catch.  So, what was the original ruling? And, if it was originally ruled a no catch, on what basis was it overturned?

OK but not only did we never see a clear view of the ball from any angle, what we could see made it appear like the ball was knocked loose on initial contact, then appeared briefly pinned against his leg (when the shin was down), and fully came loose upon hitting the ground. In these situations, usually the initial time at which the ball comes loose and the carrier starts losing control is when the fumble is considered a fumble by review...we may not have a clear way to discern this (perhaps he did have enough control of the ball to be considered "down" when the shin touched) but that's why it should have stayed with the call on the field. 

Yes. A written report in color would be great. Being snarky because you were snarky. ;)

I chose the wrong word. It is just easy to say whatever the hell they want but you are taking 7 points off the board. Need a better process. That explanation may have satisfied you, it didn't satisfy me.

thing is we didn't see a view of that, as soon as he was hit the ball started moving down his body, he had LOST control of it and it was on the way out. 

to me that is a fumble just like if you get hit from behind and your arm moves forward AFTER contact it should be a fumble not an incomplete pass because we have all seen the QB throw his arm forward trying to get teh refs to buy he was throwing it. 

he was hit, the ball was coming loose so it doesn't matter where his shin hit, play it in slow motion and don't stop it and you can see the hit caused the ball to move downward and keep moving downward until it shot out. 

Crazy thing is the refs on the field called it right and replay botched it, obviously others agree or they wouldn't be making it a point of emphasis. 

If ever there was a time for this team to pull out a "pissed off Ohio State after a loss blows out the next team" kinda game, this is it.  Time to prove we really were the better team Saturday and now we're out for blood