"I'm not saying anybody's doing anything subversive or anything like that, (but) in my opinion (Moore's) foot clearly was on the line after he bobbled the ball. After he had possession, his left foot was in the air, his right foot was on the line," Johnson said.
I'm a little torn on these calls. Both, I think, were fairly ambiguous. For that reason, I think--and this might surprise you--we probably got luckier with the first call than the second. The first one was hard to call because it looked like the Vandy defender may have already been in the process of stripping Kenny Miles as Miles's elbow hit the ground. Given that the call on the field was fumble, I think Johnson is right to argue that the video evidence wasn't conclusive enough to overturn the call, which is what eventually happened. I would say the second call also shouldn't have been overturned because of inconclusive evidence, which in that case is what ended up happening. It looked to me like Moore's left foot was still on the ground as he gained possession of the ball, which I think is what the review focused on, unlike the dunces in the broadcasting box, who fixated on the right foot. Even the right foot, though, was questionable; it looked right on the line to me. Given the ambiguity, the right call was probably to go with what the stripes on the field decided on, which is what happened.
All of this is to say that I think we got a break on the calls, but more so because the officials weren't consistent in their interpretation of the requirement for conclusive evidence than because either call was actually very clear cut, as Johnson seems to believe.
P. S. In the spirit of full disclosure, I should say that I haven't watched any replays since Saturday night, so take my opinions with a grain of salt. I'm sure Johnson has watched them closer than I have.