Is PJ's explosion about the refs on Youtube?

unforgiven108 said:
What exactly is your definition of 'outcome'? Mine is winning or losing.

It appears, and I may be WAY off here, that you are implying that the play in question caused us to win the game. And if that play is taken out, we don't win the game. I get your argument that we got points on the play, and take that play (and the points which isn't necessarily true) away and we would have 'lost the game'.

But I'm saying you can't claim that play affected the outcome of the game, because the outcome of the game was 3 FULL quarters away with lots of time in between to change the outcome.
Click to expand...

All I'm saying is that we got four extra points there that we probably shouldn't have, and since we only won by three naturally people are going to talk about that play a lot, and they wouldn't talk about it nearly as much had we won by 20. It's all the talk(and not just from fans, but from coaches and media too) that caused the ACC to give a ruling.

If those two helmet-to-helmet calls were taken away against ND and VT, we don't necessarily win either of those games. However, because those games were close, people continue to focus on those calls and whether they were correct or not, because we know that with them we definitely didn't win; had they been properly officiated though, everything would have changed and maybe we win. Had we lost to ND by 21 and there was a bad helmet to helmet call, no one would even remember it.
 
unforgiven108 said:
I remember this as one of the WORST bits of officiating I have ever seen. The refs apparently DON'T whistle the play dead when pulling and pushing GT players out of a pile, and then let UGAg player run it in for a TD?

That play still gets me steamed up.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g9g9OUUib18&feature=related
Click to expand...

Yes. If we had lost by 30, it probably wouldn't get you as steamed up, which is my point :p. Not that the refs every said anything about that either....
 
gth816f said:
All I'm saying is that we got four extra points there that we probably shouldn't have, and since we only won by three naturally people are going to talk about that play a lot, and they wouldn't talk about it nearly as much had we won by 20. It's all the talk(and not just from fans, but from coaches and media too) that caused the ACC to give a ruling.

If those two helmet-to-helmet calls were taken away against ND and VT, we don't necessarily win either of those games. However, because those games were close, people continue to focus on those calls and whether they were correct or not, because we know that with them we definitely didn't win; had they been properly officiated though, everything would have changed and maybe we win. Had we lost to ND by 21 and there was a bad helmet to helmet call, no one would even remember it.
Click to expand...

I guess I just disagree. I haven't seen any Clemson fans that think that play changed the outcome of the game at all. I think if the role was reversed, I still wouldn't think that non-call was that big of a deal, because 3 quarters took place after that.

Both the helmet to helmet calls you referenced came LATE in the game when they have MUCH more impact on the true outcome of the game.

But I digress, you have valid points, I feel I have valid points, I'll leave it at that. :)
 
gth816f said:
Yes. If we had lost by 30, it probably wouldn't get you as steamed up, which is my point :p. Not that the refs every said anything about that either....
Click to expand...

Actually it still gets me steamed up because my UGA wife and I got in a minor argument because of that one play.

She was laughing at how mad I got. That's the only reason I still remember it.

Not because I think we would have won if not for that call. :)
 
unforgiven108 said:
I guess I just disagree. I haven't seen any Clemson fans that think that play changed the outcome of the game at all. I think if the role was reversed, I still wouldn't think that non-call was that big of a deal, because 3 quarters took place after that.

Both the helmet to helmet calls you referenced came LATE in the game when they have MUCH more impact on the true outcome of the game.

But I digress, you have valid points, I feel I have valid points, I'll leave it at that. :)
Click to expand...

I have. A Clemson fan asked on Dinich's blog if the game's result would actually be reversed.

She pointed out that Clemson ALSO had a technically illegal play that was not called (on the same rule) and that game outcomes were not reversed based on evaluation of calls after the fact.

I think the disconnect you two have in the discussion is you are reading "affected the outcome" as meaning "would have changed the outcome". But the play absolutely MAY have changed the outcome.

I get your point too. I have little sympathy for anyone complaining about a call if they have an opportunity to make it irrelevant.

The infamous fumble in the endzone by UGA against us is an example. If that play ended the game then I could sympathize more with complaints. But given that it only took us to overtime then they had an equal opportunity to win the game. (Even if it ended the game I would have little sympathy given that I remember plenty of incidents that DIDN'T go our way in that game and in previous games. You can't reverse one call in isolation.)
 
WracerX said:
What good does it do you to make a big announcement about piss poor first-down clock management? It just tells everyone in the country that your refs can't hand even the most basic calls. That won't help the image of the conference.
Click to expand...

Why should anybody apologize for anything? Its a national obsession.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top