**** the refs

[ZRF]

Bump.

Un ******* believable how this always happens. We go to the replay, get the call wrong, and then somehow pretend the targeting that knocked the ball out didn't happen? What the **** are we even doing here?

You do realize that's a tough one to see/call due to the vantage point. And, to be honest, I think it was so much of a bang, bang play that the call should have stood as called on the field.

Dekkers made some mistakes, but on the overall played about as well as one would hope. Some brutal drops, most notably by Hutch, hurt our chances but that fumble was 1000% on him. He was better today but it's obvious he has issues playing to, through, and anticipating contact. He knew it was coming but instead of putting 2 hands on the football he UNNECESSARILY (key word) compromised his own safety by lowering his head/level. That A) opened up the chance of the fumble and B) could have resulted in him being hurt.

Instead of Campbell pissing and moaning about a missed call (it was...but he can't control that) why doesn't he work on preparing his players for situations and work on getting plays in so we don't have to waste timeouts? Watching him go apeshit after having his own team/players/coaches commit several mistakes feels like blatant subterfuge.

 

[ZRF]

Also - as bad as that was...

Texas gifted us 10 points in the first quarter. Had a wide open TD pass on 4th down and shanked a FG off the blocked punt. and of course the red zone pick likely takes points off the board. That right there is anywhere from a 13-17 point difference. The game is totally different if those 3 plays are made.

The refs are brutal. They were awful IMO. But any one or all of those plays happen and the game is likely very different which makes it hard for me to say it was fixed. Cause we go up 14-0 - IDK if the zebras matter.



The refs are terrible. No argument there - but we did not do ourselves any favors.

Can't control the refs. But we can control getting plays on the field in a timely matter, brutal drops, and poor tactical coaching decisions. I think Campbell should focus more on the latter as this team has all sorts of correctable issues.

 

[Rogue52]

Brett Yormark’s Big 12 is somehow dumber than Bob Bowlsby’s. Quite an accomplishment in a little over two months on the job.

 

[IceCyIce]

ISU gets a 15 yard penalty on a standard tackle on the QB and Dekkers gets smoked and not even reviewed, game is broke.

That was absolute *********, that is a normal football play. The fumble play I thought was correct, and no targeting. It's hard to tell but the defensive player is on his knees delivering the hit? it would be a tough call. I know its easy for me but in that situation YOU CAN NOT FUMBLE. GO DOWN and move forward. Hopefully HD learns from this and wins a few games the rest of the year.

 

[CYEATHAWK]

It may or may not have been targeting but it definitely warranted a review. (If that can actually be done.)

It can be done. That is how Freyler got booted in the Baylor game.

 

[Tailg8er]

I thought I was the only one who heard that. They then said the play stands and I cheered, yet we didn't have the ball.

Same here, heard they called him down on the field so cheered when he said call stands.. only to get f'd

 

[Raiders70]

I thought I was the only one who heard that. They then said the play stands and I cheered, yet we didn't have the ball.

Exactly..this is the ******** that we should be most upset about.

 

[StLouisClone]

Here's the other thing that the Refs got wrong on the supposed fumble by Dekkers. He was clearly on his way down to the ground. That makes him a "defenseless" player who gets extra protection. Any forcible contact to the head or neck area is supposed to result in a 15-yard penalty. When in question, the rulebook says "it is a foul."

College football targeting, explained: How controversial rule works, from penalty yardage to ejections | Sporting News

College football's targeting rule is one of the most intensely debated rules in organized sports. The Sporting News attempts to provide clarity about it.

www.sportingnews.com

 

[CYEATHAWK]

Here's the other thing that the Refs got wrong on the supposed fumble by Dekkers. He was clearly on his way down to the ground. That makes him a "defenseless" player who gets extra protection. Any forcible contact to the head or neck area is supposed to result in a 15-yard penalty. When in question, the rulebook says "it is a foul."

College football targeting, explained: How controversial rule works, from penalty yardage to ejections | Sporting News

College football's targeting rule is one of the most intensely debated rules in organized sports. The Sporting News attempts to provide clarity about it.

www.sportingnews.com

And now we know why they didn't want to review the play.

 

[quasistellar]

That was absolute *********, that is a normal football play. The fumble play I thought was correct, and no targeting. It's hard to tell but the defensive player is on his knees delivering the hit? it would be a tough call. I know its easy for me but in that situation YOU CAN NOT FUMBLE. GO DOWN and move forward. Hopefully HD learns from this and wins a few games the rest of the year.

that was absolutely, objectively, Targeting. crown of helmet into dekkers’ helmet while he’s already being tackled. It’s the exact kind of play that targeting is meant to penalize. The fumble (if it was supposed to be called that on the field, which who the **** knows), was close but honestly not overturnable either way it was called IMO.

ISU did themselves no favors in the margins, but that was 100% targeting, and the officials blew it.

 

[isuno1fan]

Refs were fine.

 

[Bubbahotep]

Refs were fine.

Average big 12 refs is what you mean, so they sucked ass.

 

[IceCyIce]

that was absolutely, objectively, Targeting. crown of helmet into dekkers’ helmet while he’s already being tackled. It’s the exact kind of play that targeting is meant to penalize. The fumble (if it was supposed to be called that on the field, which who the **** knows), was close but honestly not overturnable either way it was called IMO.

If ISU would have been called for targeting in that situation we would have been pissed too. The biggest issue is the inconsistcy of targeting. Hopefully they review this AGAIN over the offseason and treat it like a technical foul in Basketball. Grade 1 and 2 with malace your out of the game. on every single of the 15 targeting calls ISU has had against them in the last 5 years a grade 1. 15 yeards and stay in the game.

 

[LAClone]

Big 12 refs are bad and they should feel bad.

 

[Urbandale2013]

If ISU would have been called for targeting in that situation we would have been pissed too. The biggest issue is the inconsistcy of targeting. Hopefully they review this AGAIN over the offseason and treat it like a technical foul in Basketball. Grade 1 and 2 with malace your out of the game. on every single of the 15 targeting calls ISU has had against them in the last 5 years a grade 1. 15 yeards and stay in the game.

It was textbook. Stop trying to make yourself feel better.

 

[sunset]

Jamie should go nuclear but he won’t. If our athletic department isn’t going to do anything about it then fans just need to learn to sit back and take it. Ridiculous, but it is what it is. Big 12 will never let ISU be a top dog.

 

[jsb]

Jamie should go nuclear but he won’t. If our athletic department isn’t going to do anything about it then fans just need to learn to sit back and take it. Ridiculous, but it is what it is. Big 12 will never let ISU be a top dog.

I'm not against this. But we didn't like it when he did it with the last coach.

 

[jcisuclones]

Has it been mentioned that this was the same officiating crew we had vs Iowa?

 

[quasistellar]

If ISU would have been called for targeting in that situation we would have been pissed too. The biggest issue is the inconsistcy of targeting. Hopefully they review this AGAIN over the offseason and treat it like a technical foul in Basketball. Grade 1 and 2 with malace your out of the game. on every single of the 15 targeting calls ISU has had against them in the last 5 years a grade 1. 15 yeards and stay in the game.

pissed, yes, but it would have been the right call. I would have been more pissed that a player had to miss the next game than at the call.

 

[clonehome]

If ISU would have been called for targeting in that situation we would have been pissed too. The biggest issue is the inconsistcy of targeting. Hopefully they review this AGAIN over the offseason and treat it like a technical foul in Basketball. Grade 1 and 2 with malace your out of the game. on every single of the 15 targeting calls ISU has had against them in the last 5 years a grade 1. 15 yeards and stay in the game.

Problem is that ISU gets called for targeting if we were on defense. I don’t think there is any doubt.