It sure did look like that guy fumbled the ball and we recovered it. I have no idea why a line judge 25 yards away blew the play dead. The guy definitely wasn't down--still reaching and stretching on top of a pile....
Printable View
It sure did look like that guy fumbled the ball and we recovered it. I have no idea why a line judge 25 yards away blew the play dead. The guy definitely wasn't down--still reaching and stretching on top of a pile....
Were these SEC refs?
Worst blatant call of the night.
Yes SEC refs.
There were many, many, questionable calls and non calls.
The refs were....not good. But, they were SEC refs and their jobs depend on "helping" the SEC....
But, in the end, the refs did not alter the outcome. We lost because of our crappy defense, and last night, the special team failure on the blocked PAT. That by itself, was a 3-point swing (59-57....hello!) and then forced us to chase 2-pt conversions, on which we failed twice. That's a total of 3 pts off the board for us, and an additional 2 pts for them.....a 5-point swing.
Everything else being equal, if all PATs are made, including their one miss, Tech wins 60-58.
Couldn't see crap from the other end of the stadium. The replay they showed on the tiny-tron, just showed a dog pile.
EXACTLY. I said that block PAT was going to be crucial when it happen. No one believe me. I knew we could come back and rattle off two or three touchdowns in a matter of minutes.Quote:
Originally Posted by dawg80
How many times did we not convert a 4th down when we were in field goal range?
I didn't count, but I remember being mad about it.
I'm so mad at the NFL, now those replacement refs are back to screwing up college ball! However, some of this loss is on the playcalling. I know we have a passing offense but would it hurt just to line up traditionally on 3rd and 4th and short. That just kills me being in the shotgun on those type of plays! That eliminates quarterback sneaks and running backs over the top.
No Division I refs worked as replacements in the No Fun League.Quote:
Originally Posted by oletimer
The goal line no-fumble call was clearly the worst call of the night. Even the spot was not close to the right place when A&M ran the next play...should have been inside one foot instead of fully at the 1. But dogpile calls like that are always going to be the hardest to overturn without a direct overhead camera angle. Just like if the call had been fumble it wouldn't have been overturned either.
The only way it could have been overturned was that the ball was loose prior to the line judge calling the play over. He should have gotten it right to begin with. There really is no excuse, in my opinion, that he called the play over while the back was clearly attempting to break the plane of the goal line. That play alone could have been a 14 point swing. But what ultimately cost us the game was the inability to contain their QB.Quote:
Originally Posted by RealityCheck
That was a terrible call...
Trying not to remember those parts of the game.Quote:
Originally Posted by SixWings
Those refs were terrible!!! They sustained 3 aTm drives: called a completion on third down, that wasn't, the unnecessary roughness call (after the receiver touched the ball) and the "horse collar" call that wasn't. Cost us 17 points because it sustained 3 drives.
The completion call was the only questionnable one of those three, and there was not enough evidence to come close to overturning that one.Quote:
Originally Posted by bluegrass dawg
The unnecessary roughness was a high hit on a defenseless player that was never called 10 years ago and is always called now. I hate the rule, but Johnson made contact above the shoulders. The horsecollar call clearly was a horsecollar...can't grab inside the uniform collar in back and tug with it as Butler did.
Keep in mind that I'm not sure about about the wind which was coming in 15-20 mph the whole night.Quote:
Originally Posted by SixWings
1st quarter
4th and 4 from the 39 (would be 56 yard attempt) - turnover on downs
2nd quarter
4th and 3 from the 37 (54 attempt) - turnover on downs
4th and 6 from the 33 (50 attempt) - Converted: FG 2 plays later (end of half)
3rd quarter
4th and 2 from the 34 (51 attempt) - turnover on downs
4th and 2 from the 19 (36 attempt) - converted: TD 3 plays later.
Doc, the wind was closer to a constant 35 to 40 MPH all night.
Rule of Thumb: a full sized flag will completely unfurl at 35 MPH.
Now there's a fun fact! Impress your friends next time you see a flag unfurling in a stiff breeze :rolleyes:.Quote:
Originally Posted by CARTEK
Now there is something you don't see everyday: unfurl and stiff in the same sentence :D
A&M had a 3rd and 9 and Manziel scrambled. They called a "continuous hands to helmet" call on Vince Cano before the play ended. Manziel picked up the 1st down anyway, but Cano never touched the guys helmet. At no point was Cano's hands on the guy's helmet.... never! And he was effectively blocked out of the play anyway. I think they had their mind made up that they were going to call a personal foul on that play before the play started.
There's a field level slow motion video of the hit on Swopes posted on the Rivals sight. I think it clearly shows that contact was made with the shoulder pad to Swopes' chest. The concussion was a result of his head hitting the ground. It was a BS, sissy call that negated a momentum changing play.
As has been explained it was a "defenseless player" call, not a "head to head" call. This call is being made more and more even though it's impossible for a player to stop himself in mid-air once he commits to a tackle.Quote:
Originally Posted by dogbone
I agree once the decision is made it's very hard to pull up. But if he wouldn't have tried to decapitate that guy he looked like he might have had a Pick. That ball was poorly thrown.Quote:
Originally Posted by maddawg
Do they make that call on a (legal) blindside block? I haven't seen it if they have. I can't see the difference. It was an otherwise perfectly clean, legal hit. I'm not really arguing the point as much as I am the rule and how it's applied.
That's the problem with the rule. It's not black and white. Way too much judgement involved. The worst thing about that call to me was how late the flag came in.Quote:
Originally Posted by dogbone
I understand one of the facemask calls on us against Maziel was a good call too, but the flag was very late coming in. I HATE a late flag.
Any player trying to catch a ball could be considered "defenseless." The intention of the rule, as I understand it, is to protect players from getting hit while they are attempting to make a play on a ball that is beyond their grasp. Swope actually had the opportunity of catching that ball had CJ not hit him. It was not helmet-to-helmet and a clean hit. I actually think they made the call because the receiver appeared injured.
As for the fumble--there is a possibility that it just broke the goal line but if it did, the rb did NOT have control of it. The ball was knocked lose as he was stretching it out. The line judge was initially ruling that the ball didn't cross the line by spotting it at the 6 inch line. He appeared foolish as he was running up to spot the ball when he realized the other officials were acting like it was a fumble/recovery--that's when he began blowing his whistle and marking his spot. He was not in position to rule on the fumble and basically screwed it up.
Both of those calls were big. I'm not saying we would've won otherwise, but they were significant blunders....
And after further review, the Lucas pick six should have been called back by a facemask on Manziel as he was throwing the pass.
My first guess after that pick six was that Tech should not have gone for two with 12 minutes left in the game. The odds of making two 2s in a row are very low, so getting 15 points from those two TDs should have been the call...got too greedy there.
Kick that point to make it 46-45 and Tech still could have gone for two after the last TD even if A&M had made the extra point on its last TD. With the A&M miss, a kick could have tied it at 59.
Too much retrospection, imo. I don't think many coaches would pass on the chance to tie that late in a game. As for the facemask on Manziel--Cameron was also grabbed on his facemask as he was being sacked earlier. I don't think either call was a facemask penalty because they weren't really pulled, just contact to the mask...Quote:
Originally Posted by RealityCheck
With Tech's offense, 12 minutes left is not late in the game. 6 minutes left...different story.
The chart says down 10 after a TD in the 4th quarter (like 46-36) you go for two...nothing to lose...that was absolutely the right call.
Down 2 after the second TD (46-44) with still 12 minutes and a guaranteed two possessions (and three as it turned out) left, it was too big a gamble to risk the bonus point scored after the Dixon facemask TD. The interception and near 2-point return dented Tech's momentum. And the risk of going down 9 later was greater than the reward of tying the game at that point. Shouldn't have had to count on getting an A&M missed extra point to stay in the game at the end.
I took the decision to keep going for 2 as a vote of lost confidence in Nelson. I'm no gambler, so after we made the first one, I'd have stuck with the surer point until later in the game when it really is desperation time.Quote:
Originally Posted by RealityCheck
However, I'd chalk this up to differing philosophies rather than a coaching error.
I thought Michael's forward progress was stopped, which was why it was not a fumble.
On one of the threads on here, someone said their friend in the replay booth said he scored a TD on the play, but they were not asked to review that.
I thought that in college ball, the booth could call for a review without a challenge from a coach. If someone in the replay booth thought they saw a TD on the play, why did the booth not initiate the review of the TD?Quote:
Originally Posted by Beergut