**** the refs
- Thread starter CoKane
- Start date
Could not agree more with this and have been saying that for years. Watch any game with bad officiating and an engaged home crowd. There is a ton of booing and online whining. That's part of understanding the game and being emotionally invested.
Now.......HFCS. You must understand that when the other team does something against the rules, that possibly knocks you out for a few seconds OR gives them an illegal advantage, you have to be 150% better than them because...... because......
I don't know, I'm not a ref apologist, so I can't make that much crap up. I don't know how people don't believe that didn't have anything to do with us not having a chance to tie or win the game. Sure we made mistakes during the game, but we had a chance to win it on the last drive and were making pretty good progress too.
If you think the fact that we were coming from behind and needed to score to win the game, then I give you 300 examples of when other teams have done that us and you'd say its because they were the better team, they showed more grit, they always play close and pull it out in the end.
The refs are not good, they call inconsistently, and I believe they have a bias toward schools that are supposed to be better (OK and all Texas schools.) We'll see if when we get schools from other parts of the country if not every freekin;' official doesn't have a TexASS accent.
End of rant.
No Statefan, it's not like the officials only job is to keep an even playing field by keeping teams and player from gaining advantages by breaking the rules.
There is the whole concept of spotting the ball in the wrong location that they have to concentrate on as well.
Last edited:
Over and over I have been told that intent doesn't mean anything on both targeting and flagrant fouls. "The officials don't know what is going on inside their heads, " so all they can do is see something like the tackler not keeping their head up in good tackling form OR some dude's head whipping back (1/2 the time faking it). The intention has nothing to do with it and I think you know that.
It's just a rule made to ask the tacklers to keep their head up instead of using their helmet as a weapon or part of the tackling form. You're supposed to be able to see the guy you are tackling, once you can't, you're pretty much using your helmet as a weapon. It's not called consistently and that's the main problem here. It would be nice to take a few times for all the times we give.
A Lot of guys would get thrown out if was called to the letter, but maybe that needs to happen to get the technique and game safer.
Really, that has been part of the rules since the late 70s with spearing basically being a slightly different version of the same thing WITHOUT all the nuances of where'd he hit him, was the player defenseless, etc.
This is well said. By rule, there are “targeting” calls missed all the time throughout the game. I see them throughout the course of the Saturday slate of games every single week.
What irks me the most is this wasn’t a meaningless play in a game where the play didn’t matter. This was a penalty that resulted in the loss of possession which ended the game. It was incredibly important and completely missed.
I even remember one of the announcers said “oh, that’s targeting….” right after the hit happened. It’s usually called, if not reviewed, when it’s that blatant.
The overwhelming majority of people believe it was targeting. Those that don’t are either Texas fans, Iowa fans, hate the targeting rule so much that it clouds their judgement, or think ISU should play mistake free football every week and thus not allow officiating to dictate any aspect of the games.
Do I believe the refs are against ISU, no I do not. But I will say that the refs rarely give ISU the benefit of doubt, like UT and OU get in games or KU in BB. They get the call because refs think they have better players, while ISU is just happy to be on the field with them.
My problem with the calls on Saturday is that they called roughing the passer on ISU, I get, trying to protect the QB, but then when its Dekker, he does not get the benefit of doubt being the QB. Either call both of them, or neither of them, it does not matter, but we have had calls that went against ISU this year, that if we had UT or OU on the front of the jersey, would not have been called.
My problem with the calls on Saturday is that they called roughing the passer on ISU, I get, trying to protect the QB, but then when its Dekker, he does not get the benefit of doubt being the QB. Either call both of them, or neither of them, it does not matter, but we have had calls that went against ISU this year, that if we had UT or OU on the front of the jersey, would not have been called.
Im still not clear what McLaughlin did wrong on his hit. I agree with those saying that football is rough and some roughness is necessary.
I kinda dont blame Dekkers for not sliding in that situation too. The past couple weeks have been some QB injuries coming from QBs hitting the back of their heads against the ground. Makes you wonder if you’re not better off finishing your run hard instead of leaving yourself defenseless
I kinda dont blame Dekkers for not sliding in that situation too. The past couple weeks have been some QB injuries coming from QBs hitting the back of their heads against the ground. Makes you wonder if you’re not better off finishing your run hard instead of leaving yourself defenseless
McLaughlin didn’t do anything wrong. It was the wrong interpretation of the call. He just tackled the QB. The NFL has already revisited this and are changing the force of emphasis after the Tom Brady debacle last week.
just. . . raise his head.
Dekkers knew he was about to get tackled, wrapped up the ball and started curling up--essentially giving himself up for just whatever his forward momentum was going to gain.
This is the reason that "defenseless player" is subjective and not an exhaustive list. What Dekkers did there made him defenseless. Not immune to hits/tackling, mind you -- that's what sliding is for.
I think you're more angry that rules exist to protect players for some reason, as this one is pretty cut and dry targeting, by both the letter of the rule and the spirit.
You mean the play where his own lineman pulled him forward illegally?
That one was bad, but more understandable at least than the lack of targeting on Dekkers.
Guess I forgot that that happened or didn't realize it!
LOL - gave himself up. He's running forward and goes down because he's tackled. His forward progress is only stopped because the DB hits him.
That's fine if you want the texas DB to raise his head higher than inline with his body, provided you supported the targeting on Freyler.
What I hate about the rule is that there are constantly more dangerous actions taken by tacklers and ball carriers that are ignored or called based on dumb luck, which usually means a runner going down and taking what would've been a tackle to the midsection and making it "forcible contact to the head or neck.
