Media crushes officiating after controversial calls in Fiesta
SEC Football Officials ABSOLUTELY SUCK AND SWALLOW!!!
SEC Football Officials ABSOLUTELY SUCK AND SWALLOW!!!
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Can’t blame it all on the refs. The reversed fumble was BS, but other than that OSU did not play a clean game.
Clean game?
It's football, not the debate team.
There absolutely were some strange calls. Even the clemson players acknowledged how big officiating was in this game.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??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.
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.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??
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.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.
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)!!!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.
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.
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.
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.
The Clemson receiverI’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.
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 thatWhen 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.
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.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
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.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.
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.
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.
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.
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.Crown doesn't mean what you think it means though.
What!?! Nonsense.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.
Some of y’all need to read this post until you understand
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.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.
No we’re did I talk about the fumble scoop, it’s the one call that was iffy.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.
What!?! Nonsense.
And he caught the ball, THEN dove in the air. Sheesh. Were you the guy in the booth last night lol.
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.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.
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.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.
We all know that the in studio rules consultant is always right. Florida definitely didn't hold...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.
Typically, those who can't, go in studio.We all know that the in studio rules consultant is always right. Florida definitely didn't hold...