Today's officials

Believe me the refs didn't cost us the game but they sucked any way you cut it. Can Coaches request a review or is it called from the booth. The reason I ask is that the mark of Skov's was reviewed but the forward pass/lateral was not reviewed. Also the pass Switzer completed was not reviewed and both of those plays were not conclusive enough not to have warranted them. Also the marking of forward progress is not to the middle of the ball as someone keeps posting, marking the forward progress is always to the forward tip of the ball.
 
There were way more missed plays by the offensive players than the few "bad" calls you vaginas are crying about. How about we catch a long snap or make a better throw to a wide open receiver.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
77GTFan said:
I would agree there was helmet to helmet contact. But, Gotsis went straight up the middle and hit him without leading with the headgear. The QB just stayed in the pocket and faced up with Adam, thus the helmet to helmet. I think you march off the fifteen but do not eject. Gotsis did not target the player.
Click to expand...

That's not an option. Ejection is mandated.

steve adams said:
Believe me the refs didn't cost us the game but they sucked any way you cut it. Can Coaches request a review or is it called from the booth. The reason I ask is that the mark of Skov's was reviewed but the forward pass/lateral was not reviewed. Also the pass Switzer completed was not reviewed and both of those plays were not conclusive enough not to have warranted them. Also the marking of forward progress is not to the middle of the ball as someone keeps posting, marking the forward progress is always to the forward tip of the ball.
Click to expand...

Yes, the coach can request a review, but it's essentially a waste of a timeout. The booth reviews every play and will buzz down if they think it's even close. If they don't buzz down for more time, you can pretty much be sure they're not going to overturn it on a challenge.

I don't think I've ever seen a coaches' challenge in college work. Maybe there is one where the mistake was so obvious that the coach managed to initiate the challenge before the booth buzzed.
 
You don't ever see roughing the punter when the punter has picked up a bad/fumbled snap. He is a potential runner/passer at that point.

I don't think the targeting was a good call. Thats why they changed the rule to do the replay, to determine if it really appears intentional. There are a lot of cases where QBs are going into a slide and getting crunk because they initiated the change in position, not the tackler. Bad rule will continue to cause issues.
 
Anyone else notice the refs stopping a running down play clock to "clarify" something and then giving UNC a new 25?

One time was to tell everyone that the game clock was indeed correct. Play clock was under 10s, crowd is loud, UNC looks confused, whistles blow, ref explains that the clock is right, new 25.

At this point I was in a hazy cloud of rage so I'd like to make sure I wasn't hallucinating new play clocks. I'm pretty sure it happened one other time too, but my memory is... hazy.
 
ramblinwise1 said:
You don't ever see roughing the punter when the punter has picked up a bad/fumbled snap. He is a potential runner/passer at that point.

I don't think the targeting was a good call. Thats why they changed the rule to do the replay, to determine if it really appears intentional. There are a lot of cases where QBs are going into a slide and getting crunk because they initiated the change in position, not the tackler. Bad rule will continue to cause issues.
Click to expand...

This is untrue. You do see it. It happens when officials correctly apply the rules to protect the punter from having his leg jumped on.

The punter is the punter. Once he starts his punting motion which was well before the player got there and dived to block it.

Typically you don't see roughing because the punt is blocked. Ours wasn't.
 
andrew said:
Yes, the coach can request a review, but it's essentially a waste of a timeout. The booth reviews every play and will buzz down if they think it's even close. If they don't buzz down for more time, you can pretty much be sure they're not going to overturn it on a challenge.

I don't think I've ever seen a coaches' challenge in college work. Maybe there is one where the mistake was so obvious that the coach managed to initiate the challenge before the booth buzzed.
Click to expand...

Colorado challenged a non out of bounds call against Oregon,sat night that was overturned. I think coaches need to be more active in challenging calls against these bullshit Hurry Up No Huddle teams.
 
The replay looked like the punter was already being tackled as he kicked the ball. I would think since contact was already initiated before the kick, it wouldn't be roughing (similarly to a sack vs. roughing the passer). But I'm not referencing the rule book or anything.
 
The team was simply outplayed. Refs didn't cost us the game by a longshot. This team hasn't figured out how to adapt and overcome yet. Will be a long and disappointing season if they don't.
 
Nawaab said:
I think Gotsis deserved a 15 yard penalty, but his hit did not call for an ejection, because there was no malicious intent on his part. He didn't have control of his body, and he's responsible of the consequences of that. Unfortunately, the refs had no choice according the rules, so it is what it is. The rule should be changed, but it was called correctly as is.
Click to expand...

this is so ironic because last yr the refs did NOT call a roughing penalty on Gotsis in a key int play in VT game-I thought at time this will even out sometime

the VT fans were complaining after the game on it
 
I've blamed the refs before, but for this game, bitching about the refs is Beamer-esque. Other teams, once they learn cut blocks aren't illegal chop blocks, swear our blocks are 9:30 or 2:30 illegal blocks (only 10 to 2 cut blocks are allowed). Tunnel or bubble screens will get the benefit of the doubt even if an OL is 3.5 yards.

The exact rule is confusing. This answer says there's no exception for screen passes, but I think the rule says the rule only applies when there's a pass across neutral zone. So a tunnel screen, which is always caught behind LOS, cannot have an ineligible receiver downfield.

http://sports.stackexchange.com/questions/8549/what-is-meant-by-ineligible-receiver-downfield

As far as the targeting call, it comes down to "life isn't always fair." It wasn't fair either that we had a long pass called back because #75 lost his feet. And unfair calls are sometimes in our favor. For when #75 lost his feet, he didn't mean to block defenders in coverage, which is what the rule is there to prevent. But it's hard to write the ineligible receiver downfield rule to read the mind of OL. So the hard and fast three yards rule is used.

To prevent head-to-head contact, you've got this draconian ejection rule. But, IIWII. The call in the Duke game was far more questionable, since the DB lead with his shoulder.
 
The bad call (ejection of Gotsis) was effectively a bad call against us for EVERY SINGLE DEFENSIVE SNAP the rest of the game.

The refs bent Tech over big time yesterday and it's why GT lost.
 
wesleyd21 said:
The bad call (ejection of Gotsis) was effectively a bad call against us for EVERY SINGLE DEFENSIVE SNAP the rest of the game.

The refs bent Tech over big time yesterday and it's why GT lost.
Click to expand...


It wasn't a bad call. It was (and still is) a poorly written rule.
 
wesleyd21 said:
The bad call (ejection of Gotsis) was effectively a bad call against us for EVERY SINGLE DEFENSIVE SNAP the rest of the game.

The refs bent Tech over big time yesterday and it's why GT lost.
Click to expand...

We were up 21-0 and ended up losing. CPJ's disastrously-bad, predictable playcalling was far more of a factor than some zebra's bad call.
 
wesleyd21 said:
Should've been a no call. There's been several hits like that all over the country where no flag is thrown.
Click to expand...

Not really. I was wasting time watching a nothing game on Friday night, I think UConn vs. BYU, and there was a call almost exactly like the call on Gotsis. Light head-to-head contact on the QB, but head-to-head contact nevertheless.
 
I should really try harder to not get so angry at the officials.

[y]XnQ-5uFuDtc[/y]

I had a wake-up call when the little kids near me started shouting, "You suck, ref!" and saying, "Daddy, that ref's an asshole."

I apparently made an impression and I'm sorry for my reprehensible behavior.
 
floridajacket said:
I've blamed the refs before, but for this game, bitching about the refs is Beamer-esque. Other teams, once they learn cut blocks aren't illegal chop blocks, swear our blocks are 9:30 or 2:30 illegal blocks (only 10 to 2 cut blocks are allowed). Tunnel or bubble screens will get the benefit of the doubt even if an OL is 3.5 yards.

The exact rule is confusing. This answer says there's no exception for screen passes, but I think the rule says the rule only applies when there's a pass across neutral zone. So a tunnel screen, which is always caught behind LOS, cannot have an ineligible receiver downfield.

http://sports.stackexchange.com/questions/8549/what-is-meant-by-ineligible-receiver-downfield

As far as the targeting call, it comes down to "life isn't always fair." It wasn't fair either that we had a long pass called back because #75 lost his feet. And unfair calls are sometimes in our favor. For when #75 lost his feet, he didn't mean to block defenders in coverage, which is what the rule is there to prevent. But it's hard to write the ineligible receiver downfield rule to read the mind of OL. So the hard and fast three yards rule is used.

To prevent head-to-head contact, you've got this draconian ejection rule. But, IIWII. The call in the Duke game was far more questionable, since the DB lead with his shoulder.
Click to expand...

Pedantic asshat, I already said I misnamed the exact play. Nick Saban complained about it too and college football is rife with it. It's the quick pass over the LOS with lineman down field. Usually they throw it to Switzer. They did it on 2nd and 10 for a big gain with lineman 7 yards downfield.

Please show the replay of the exact play from the UCONN game would love to see it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top