Way to go SEC Officials of Failure...

olpolecat

Member
Sep 24, 2019
230
245
43
Can’t blame it all on the refs. The reversed fumble was BS, but other than that OSU did not play a clean game.
 

olpolecat

Member
Sep 24, 2019
230
245
43
Clean game?
It's football, not the debate team.
I agree. But there are rules that players have to play with. When you don’t, you get a flag. OSU got way too many penalties last night and don’t even begin to tell me they were all BS. Both teams got away with a lot, with Pickens getting away with a BIG one. But the other ones were correct calls. Undisciplined.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cock In Space

OldWiseCock

Well-Known Member
Apr 3, 2019
2,995
2,795
113
Columbia
There were some strange calls last night - calls I had never seen before. For example, why is the rule different between a catch and a fumble recovery and a catch going out of bounds? I thought the controlling factor was whether the player had secure possession of the ball in both cases. The official who gives the commentary made it sound like a judgment call when he said he, "looks for whether the player makes a move with the ball."

There were a couple of other calls that seemed extraordinary.
 

tigertomreed

Member
Jul 9, 2019
42
39
18
31
Seneca, SC
There were some strange calls last night - calls I had never seen before. For example, why is the rule different between a catch and a fumble recovery and a catch going out of bounds? I thought the controlling factor was whether the player had secure possession of the ball in both cases. The official who gives the commentary made it sound like a judgment call when he said he, "looks for whether the player makes a move with the ball."

There were a couple of other calls that seemed extraordinary.
There absolutely were some strange calls. Even the clemson players acknowledged how big officiating was in this game.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cockofdawn

JandDSC

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Jan 8, 2004
4,104
2,036
113
There were some strange calls last night - calls I had never seen before. For example, why is the rule different between a catch and a fumble recovery and a catch going out of bounds? I thought the controlling factor was whether the player had secure possession of the ball in both cases. The official who gives the commentary made it sound like a judgment call when he said he, "looks for whether the player makes a move with the ball."

There were a couple of other calls that seemed extraordinary.
I agree - if he had been pushed out of bounds on that same play - it would have been ruled a catch so what was the difference between getting the ball knocked out??
 

OldWiseCock

Well-Known Member
Apr 3, 2019
2,995
2,795
113
Columbia
I agree - if he had been pushed out of bounds on that same play - it would have been ruled a catch so what was the difference between getting the ball knocked out??
From the replay it was obvious that it required some effort for the OSU player to rip it out of his hands. To me that would be proof he had possession. He was not bobbling the ball.
 

uscg1984

Well-Known Member
Mar 9, 2006
5,339
6,029
113
SW Montana
Can’t blame it all on the refs. The reversed fumble was BS, but other than that OSU did not play a clean game.
OSU had two legit, no-doubt TDs that were called back. Earlier in the game, the RB clearly had control of the football when he DOVE into the end zone for the TD. And, of course, the scoop and score where the receiver took 2 or 3 steps before he fumbled.

Remember when Hilinski was determined to have caught the pass when he attempted to bat down a deflected ball and it was ruled a fumble? His hands touched the ball maybe 1/10th of a second. Yet a Clemson receiver can take 2 or 3 steps and he's not considered to have made a football move? OSU should sue somebody.
 

Angel_Martin

Active Member
Feb 14, 2010
1,204
456
83
OSU had two legit, no-doubt TDs that were called back. Earlier in the game, the RB clearly had control of the football when he DOVE into the end zone for the TD. And, of course, the scoop and score where the receiver took 2 or 3 steps before he fumbled.

Remember when Hilinski was determined to have caught the pass when he attempted to bat down a deflected ball and it was ruled a fumble? His hands touched the ball maybe 1/10th of a second. Yet a Clemson receiver can take 2 or 3 steps and he's not considered to have made a football move? OSU should sue somebody.
I think you you have uncovered the answer. It’s not whether the player has possession or not, it’s what uniform the player is wearing and whether having possession benefits the money behind the uniform the player is wearing. That’s what the referees are reviewing for.
 

Gaimcock

Well-Known Member
Nov 18, 1998
11,737
1,377
113
120
I think you you have uncovered the answer. It’s not whether the player has possession or not, it’s what uniform the player is wearing and whether having possession benefits the money behind the uniform the player is wearing. That’s what the referees are reviewing for.
All BS aside (and I made the original post out of sheer sarcasm in regards to The SEC Officials who sometimes Blatantly SUCK), the "seemingly" most money does "seem" to affect SEC Officiating (i.e. USC vs UF this past fall)!!!
 

Cock In Space

Member
Aug 31, 2019
571
478
63
Out there
I think you you have uncovered the answer. It’s not whether the player has possession or not, it’s what uniform the player is wearing and whether having possession benefits the money behind the uniform the player is wearing. That’s what the referees are reviewing for.
Refs are only human.....And humans support Dabo aka God on Earth.
 

DrMickey

Active Member
Sep 19, 2010
1,683
1,411
113
There were some strange calls last night - calls I had never seen before. For example, why is the rule different between a catch and a fumble recovery and a catch going out of bounds? I thought the controlling factor was whether the player had secure possession of the ball in both cases. The official who gives the commentary made it sound like a judgment call when he said he, "looks for whether the player makes a move with the ball."

There were a couple of other calls that seemed extraordinary.
I’ll play devil’s advocate on this one: I think it is the same on a catch going out of bounds because they will 1. Watch the feet on the sideline, and then 2. Make sure he kept possession as he fell to insure it was a legitimate catch.

Now personally, I think they got this one wrong, too. But there is more to the rule on going out of bounds.
 

castlesl

Member
Aug 4, 2006
437
458
63
OSU had two legit, no-doubt TDs that were called back. Earlier in the game, the RB clearly had control of the football when he DOVE into the end zone for the TD. And, of course, the scoop and score where the receiver took 2 or 3 steps before he fumbled.

Remember when Hilinski was determined to have caught the pass when he attempted to bat down a deflected ball and it was ruled a fumble? His hands touched the ball maybe 1/10th of a second. Yet a Clemson receiver can take 2 or 3 steps and he's not considered to have made a football move? OSU should sue somebody.
When he dove in the end zone, the ball bounced off the ground. It wasn’t like he possessed the ball before he broke the plane, he dove in the air, caught the ball in the air and did not maintain possession through the end of the catch. I thought that was a very clear no catch.
 

polo-loco

Active Member
Jan 13, 2005
1,398
2,083
113
I wonder if the sec officials know they're bad. We know it. Everyone who watches the games knows it. But they keep right on stinking year after year and nothing changes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: uscnoklahoma2

bc_cock

Member
Dec 28, 2001
36
57
18
I’ll play devil’s advocate on this one: I think it is the same on a catch going out of bounds because they will 1. Watch the feet on the sideline, and then 2. Make sure he kept possession as he fell to insure it was a legitimate catch.

Now personally, I think they got this one wrong, too. But there is more to the rule on going out of bounds.
The Clemson receiver
1. Took three ball controlled steps
2. Wasn’t falling
3. Didn’t lose control, it was stripped.
If that’s not a catch then what number of steps IS?
It needs to be spelled out in the rule book.

To be consistent, make it one foot, arm, hand, butt cheek for sideline (out of bounds) catches and the same for everything else. If not one, then two or three steps for everything. Pick a number and be consistent with ALL “catches”.

Take it out of the refs “opinion”.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DrMickey

JandDSC

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Jan 8, 2004
4,104
2,036
113
When he dove in the end zone, the ball bounced off the ground. It wasn’t like he possessed the ball before he broke the plane, he dove in the air, caught the ball in the air and did not maintain possession through the end of the catch. I thought that was a very clear no catch.
Using your logic - when a running back crosses the goal line and loses control over the ball - why is that still considered a TD and that catch wasn’t? Seen worse called a catch - dont believe it - just watch some of the taters replays - worse plays called a catch than that
 

Boom4life

Member
Oct 30, 2017
765
629
93
Using your logic - when a running back crosses the goal line and loses control over the ball - why is that still considered a TD and that catch wasn’t? Seen worse called a catch - dont believe it - just watch some of the taters replays - worse plays called a catch than that
Because the runner has the possession of the ball when he breaks the plane. A receiver however had to maintain possession through the ground. If he lands and the ball comes out it’s an incomplete pass therefore not a touchdown. The ball clearly came lose. Therefore that is not a touchdown. Also the targeting play per the rules was targeting. A player can not Lead and make contact with the crown of the helmet. Had nothing to do with where he his the qb. It had to do with how he hit him. Now we can argue all day if the rule sucks. Per the rule it was targeting.
 
  • Like
Reactions: olpolecat

Garnet Man

Well-Known Member
Feb 5, 2003
4,122
744
113
OSU had two legit, no-doubt TDs that were called back. Earlier in the game, the RB clearly had control of the football when he DOVE into the end zone for the TD. And, of course, the scoop and score where the receiver took 2 or 3 steps before he fumbled.

Remember when Hilinski was determined to have caught the pass when he attempted to bat down a deflected ball and it was ruled a fumble? His hands touched the ball maybe 1/10th of a second. Yet a Clemson receiver can take 2 or 3 steps and he's not considered to have made a football move? OSU should sue somebody.
Have to have control all the way through the catch to the ground. That did not happen so Incomplete pass is the correct call on the Dobbins reception in the endzone. On the fumble/nonfumble call, rules state have to make a football move. Never had possession long enough to make a football move. The official who was part of the broadcast team quickly identified that and called it correctly. I dislike Clemson as much as anybody else, but you allow a team to go 96 years on you in four plays you don't deserve to win.
 

fightingcock103

Well-Known Member
Jan 19, 2001
5,708
299
83
Because the runner has the possession of the ball when he breaks the plane. A receiver however had to maintain possession through the ground. If he lands and the ball comes out it’s an incomplete pass therefore not a touchdown. The ball clearly came lose. Therefore that is not a touchdown. Also the targeting play per the rules was targeting. A player can not Lead and make contact with the crown of the helmet. Had nothing to do with where he his the qb. It had to do with how he hit him. Now we can argue all day if the rule sucks. Per the rule it was targeting.

Crown doesn't mean what you think it means though.
 

olpolecat

Member
Sep 24, 2019
230
245
43
Because the runner has the possession of the ball when he breaks the plane. A receiver however had to maintain possession through the ground. If he lands and the ball comes out it’s an incomplete pass therefore not a touchdown. The ball clearly came lose. Therefore that is not a touchdown. Also the targeting play per the rules was targeting. A player can not Lead and make contact with the crown of the helmet. Had nothing to do with where he his the qb. It had to do with how he hit him. Now we can argue all day if the rule sucks. Per the rule it was targeting.
Some of y’all need to read this post until you understand
 
  • Like
Reactions: Walhalla Wildman

fightingcock103

Well-Known Member
Jan 19, 2001
5,708
299
83
Have to have control all the way through the catch to the ground. That did not happen so Incomplete pass is the correct call on the Dobbins reception in the endzone. On the fumble/nonfumble call, rules state have to make a football move. Never had possession long enough to make a football move. The official who was part of the broadcast team quickly identified that and called it correctly. I dislike Clemson as much as anybody else, but you allow a team to go 96 years on you in four plays you don't deserve to win.
And "football move" is meaningless, it means whatever they want it to mean to justify the outcome they want. Same with "Launching". It's impossible to "make a football move" without "lowering your head" and "launching".
 

Boom4life

Member
Oct 30, 2017
765
629
93
Crown doesn't mean what you think it means though.
Oh I understand it very well. Crown of the helmet is defined as the area of the helmet above the face guard to the center of the top of the head. Think male patterned baldness. That is exactly the portion of the helmet that he hit the QB with.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FJRTiger

kidrobinski

Active Member
Dec 5, 2015
1,118
1,241
113
When he dove in the end zone, the ball bounced off the ground. It wasn’t like he possessed the ball before he broke the plane, he dove in the air, caught the ball in the air and did not maintain possession through the end of the catch. I thought that was a very clear no catch.
What!?! Nonsense.

And he caught the ball, THEN dove in the air. Sheesh. Were you the guy in the booth last night lol.
 

kidrobinski

Active Member
Dec 5, 2015
1,118
1,241
113
Some of y’all need to read this post until you understand
Because the runner has the possession of the ball when he breaks the plane. A receiver however had to maintain possession through the ground. If he lands and the ball comes out it’s an incomplete pass therefore not a touchdown. The ball clearly came lose. Therefore that is not a touchdown. Also the targeting play per the rules was targeting. A player can not Lead and make contact with the crown of the helmet. Had nothing to do with where he his the qb. It had to do with how he hit him. Now we can argue all day if the rule sucks. Per the rule it was targeting.
False; there's more to it than that. ALL criteria for the nuances of the targeting definition are supposed to be met, or the replay officials are supposed to leave the player in the game. There has been waaay over use/overreaction/whatever in regard to what the rule is as published.

The fumble/scoop... please. There is NO WAY that's not a cut and dried fumble for chrissakes.
 

Boom4life

Member
Oct 30, 2017
765
629
93
False; there's more to it than that. ALL criteria for the nuances of the targeting definition are supposed to be met, or the replay officials are supposed to leave the player in the game. There has been waaay over use/overreaction/whatever in regard to what the rule is as published.

The fumble/scoop... please. There is NO WAY that's not a cut and dried fumble for chrissakes.
No we’re did I talk about the fumble scoop, it’s the one call that was iffy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: boykinlp

castlesl

Member
Aug 4, 2006
437
458
63
What!?! Nonsense.

And he caught the ball, THEN dove in the air. Sheesh. Were you the guy in the booth last night lol.
Funny how the rule official, both commentators and alas the refs in the replay booth all thought it was incomplete once reviewed.

Had he caught the ball before the Endzone, established control and then dove into the end zone and fumbled when he hit the ground, it would have been a TD. He never posses the ball to establish possession in the field of play, so the catch had to survive the ground and it didn’t.
 

OldWiseCock

Well-Known Member
Apr 3, 2019
2,995
2,795
113
Columbia
I’ll play devil’s advocate on this one: I think it is the same on a catch going out of bounds because they will 1. Watch the feet on the sideline, and then 2. Make sure he kept possession as he fell to insure it was a legitimate catch.

Now personally, I think they got this one wrong, too. But there is more to the rule on going out of bounds.
The only thing they check is whether a foot came down in bounds and the receiver had secured the football. In the case of staying in bounds they look to see if the receiver made a movement after he had control of the ball. If it is knocked out before that it is an incomplete pass - according the rule interpretation last night.
 
  • Like
Reactions: A_F_Deerhunter

cock83

Member
Nov 21, 2010
115
79
28
On the blown fumble catch he actually had it so long that he started to bring it to his body then DECIDED to stop continuing bringing it to his body. The call was total shit and funny that the points taken off the board were exactly the difference in the game.
 

SCsandlapper

Active Member
May 27, 2010
1,012
409
83
Can’t blame it all on the refs. The reversed fumble was BS, but other than that OSU did not play a clean game.
Interesting the TV consultant official called both reversals just as the replay officials did. Close calls, but when overtuned, tells me they understand the rules and called it like they saw it. The slo-mo we see on TV is not a good way to make judgement and that's why replay officials have both slo-mo and live speed at their disposal in these calls.
 
  • Like
Reactions: olpolecat

Walhalla Wildman

New Member
Dec 4, 2011
7
4
3
Interesting the TV consultant official called both reversals just as the replay officials did. Close calls, but when overtuned, tells me they understand the rules and called it like they saw it. The slo-mo we see on TV is not a good way to make judgement and that's why replay officials have both slo-mo and live speed at their disposal in these calls.
Worth remembering:

ESPN's in-house rules expert Dave Cutaia noted during the broadcast that officials watch replays in real time, and as such, it did not appear as if Ross had a strong enough possession for a fumble to occur. He simply did not make a "football move" with the ball beyond getting two hands on it for a moment.

ALL of the replays were watched in "real time" and Dave Cutaia agreed with EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FJRTiger

stnbooth

Active Member
Dec 4, 2013
1,468
712
113
Interesting the TV consultant official called both reversals just as the replay officials did. Close calls, but when overtuned, tells me they understand the rules and called it like they saw it. The slo-mo we see on TV is not a good way to make judgement and that's why replay officials have both slo-mo and live speed at their disposal in these calls.
We all know that the in studio rules consultant is always right. Florida definitely didn't hold...