When one announcer tells stories about being recruited by Leach and the studio guys say Purdy could start for Alabama.....A&T.....
I should just listen to the Cyclone Radio Network
Let’s talk about the refs
- Thread starter Knownothing
- Start date
When one announcer tells stories about being recruited by Leach and the studio guys say Purdy could start for Alabama.....A&T.....
I should just listen to the Cyclone Radio Network
I found that one really odd as well. It’s almost as if the replay official didn’t see the last angle where it showed him clearly in and handing the ball to the umpire. No way that should’ve been a “call stands.”
A solution to that is to mandate the language, so the official has to say either "call on the field is overturned" or "call on the field stands." Eliminate "confirmed." Confirmed vs. Stands makes it sound like there are two levels of "certainty."
Last night it made them seem pretty blind or even corrupt that his entire body being in the end zone when he came down couldn't "confirm" a TD.
Sometimes I wonder if the replay review process uses the right terminology and the official who calls it out says it wrong. Kind of like the telephone game.
Yawn. Refs make bad calls in every game. The missed false start was the only obvious bad call IMO. The 2nd targeting call I didn't like, but if Purdy takes that hit I sure most Clone fans would think it was targeting.
We beat ourselves - the turnovers and false starts were the reason we lost.
We beat ourselves - the turnovers and false starts were the reason we lost.
Definitely a flawed system that needs work.
I have reservations about NFL replay, but it has improved since the early years of under-the-hood-for-eternity. CFB review process is intrusive to game-flow, and results are inconsistent -- time spent on reviews outweighs benefit of making an accurate call. (CBB has a similar problem with "go to the monitor" thing, I'll get into that some other time.)
Think about this: What if last night's game was played in the pre-review era? We'd question a few on-field calls, for sure. Would we be scrutinizing it to this extent, even if most of the real-time officiating decisions went the same way, positively or otherwise?
It overshadowed a competitive game with a lot of memorable moments, even thought ISU didn't win.
I think everyone agrees with this. The question that a lot of people struggle with is the lack of reviews or explanation for the decision. Fans are left with only questions.
There were numerous calls that were questionable and ISU was on the opposite end of those.
FIFY.
Regarding the second targeting call, and maybe it's been mentioned before, but I have to wonder if Minshew's helmet had stayed on if targeting would have been called. It feels like one of those classic plays that looks more brutal and violent than it actually was.
He took a few hits similar to that during the season that didn't get called. We didn't like it.
Last edited:
I understand that the officials on the field will miss calls, but the review official should not. Review official should be evaluated on a game-to-game basis and evaluated on their performance. If you miss a call or numerous calls, you shouldn't be allowed in this position.
Clarification on my previous post: I don't suggest eliminating replay review. Changes in the system are necessary, and rule-makers need to analyze what works and what doesn't, then make adjustments.
Yea I struggle with helmet to helmet automatically being a penalty. The QB was scrambling as a runner and IMO not defenseless. Also difficult for a DL in confined space to not make a tackle where the head leads.
Interesting 5 page thread on the ISU game from the Oklahoma board. Encouraging to see knowledgable, third party perspectives that align with ours.
https://www.dirtburglars.com/forum/...otball/224484-alamo-bowl-clones-vs-the-pirate
https://www.dirtburglars.com/forum/...otball/224484-alamo-bowl-clones-vs-the-pirate
They already broke the story ealier this year where a review was decided by a Pac XII suit. He apparently still had the pgone number.
I guess most OU fans are "weak minded victims" in their view of ISU football as well:
"I found it humorous that on the review of Purdy's sneak at the end the ref "the call stands" instead of "confirmed". There wasn't any question it was a TD...just like the catch they blew earlier. What a horrible officiating crew"
I think maybe you mean "comforting to my sensibilities".
There's nothing "common sense" about only calling false starts on one team while allowing the other team to break the rules or requiring nine steps for a catch. Those things are the opposite of common sense.
Common sense says to call false starts on both teams when they happen. Common sense says two and half steps with the ball and then coming down to the ground in the middle of the field is a catch. Common sense says when a QB is on both knees with the ball it's a sack, not an incompletion. I could go on. Absolutely nothing about that officiating crew said "common sense".
Have to disagree on calling the Butler end zone non PI correct. A competent official should have been on top of the call as soon as the DB grabbed and held Butler's arm. You don't wait and see if the catch is made anyway or ignore it if Butler pushes back to free himself from the hold. Just another of many examples of the crew either not watching what is happening or being too indecisive to make the call when they should have.