Froggy Style
Active Member
I prefer Gary not control time outs and when to go for two or what the OC calls for plays...which means he basically only the DC and Scouting director.
Definitely needs a new OC or he shouldn’t be HC either.
FWST: Patterson rips officials for ‘poor decision’ on late call in TCU-Oklahoma game
- Thread starter TopFrog
- Start date
Definitely needs a new OC or he shouldn’t be HC either.
Froggy Style
Active Member
More excuses. The offense sucks.
Fire Cumbie and get back on track.
Fire Cumbie and get back on track.
More Frogs the Better
Full Member
Exactly but some people have decided upon a narrative and they’re going to stick to it. It’s no different that what Riley does at OU running the offense and hiring a guy to run the defense except that he got rid of his dead weight and acquired someone to do it competently.
froginmn
Full Member
That's been a big part of the problem. HCGP wants a ball control offense to complement his defense. That hasn't worked.
Mean Purple
Active Member
No, not great odds. BUT, that is, oddly enough, the types of situations when the Frogs actually start getting to the zone.
Mean Purple
Active Member
I am glad to see GP step up and rip them for their horrible calls. Should have been more vocal about the wrongly overturned TD in OT against BU.
Moose Stuff
Active Member
Yesterday you got me with rape. Today it’s murder.
Mean Purple
Active Member
Patterson closed by saying the calls weren’t “the difference in the ballgame.”
GP is being nice on this when it comes to the baylor game. It most certainly was the difference in that ball game. Baylor won in that OT, when we would have either won with a 2 point or gone on to the next OT. So it was the difference in the ballgame. Same for Tech when bu fumbled in OT against them.
OU, yeah, we would have had another shot. But for BU, it was the difference.
GP is being nice on this when it comes to the baylor game. It most certainly was the difference in that ball game. Baylor won in that OT, when we would have either won with a 2 point or gone on to the next OT. So it was the difference in the ballgame. Same for Tech when bu fumbled in OT against them.
OU, yeah, we would have had another shot. But for BU, it was the difference.
BrewingFrog
Was I supposed to type something here?
Two calls, both "reviewed" by BIGXII assigned replay Officials. In both cases, the Baylor call and the OU call, the Replay Official "saw" something that was not there. In the case of the Baylor call, the on-field Official had a perfect eyeball view of the sideline and ruled it a TD. Now, as we are lectured each and every time a call is reviewed by the TV commentators, to overturn a call on the field, there must be "clear and irrefutable evidence." As so many have noted in the Baylor case, there was no clear evidence. No clear picture of Max's foot out of bounds. No camera angle got a picture directly down the line, only angles that didn't show one thing or another. Yet, in spite of this absence, the Replay Official ruled Max out and took a TD off the board. This judgement flies in the face of the clear language of the rule, and makes the idea of "video review" actually "getting things right" just ridiculous. The fact that it magically helped the Conference's lone undefeated team stay that way, well...
In the OU case, Hurts was short of the line to gain. Clearly and without doubt. Numerous replays, with good angles, showed just how clearly he was short of the line. It wasn't even close. Yet, upon "review", the Replay Official magically saw something that wasn't there, and confirmed the bad call on the field.
I know that many people cannot abide the idea that the Officials might be crooked, or that the BIGXII has little, if any, integrity in these matters. Yet, when such things as these two incidents happen, how is one to come to the conclusion that they just "goofed up" in making such calls? Occam's Razor tells us that "the simplest explanation is generally the best." I don't know who is choosing the Replay Officials, but that office needs a thorough house-cleaning...
In the OU case, Hurts was short of the line to gain. Clearly and without doubt. Numerous replays, with good angles, showed just how clearly he was short of the line. It wasn't even close. Yet, upon "review", the Replay Official magically saw something that wasn't there, and confirmed the bad call on the field.
I know that many people cannot abide the idea that the Officials might be crooked, or that the BIGXII has little, if any, integrity in these matters. Yet, when such things as these two incidents happen, how is one to come to the conclusion that they just "goofed up" in making such calls? Occam's Razor tells us that "the simplest explanation is generally the best." I don't know who is choosing the Replay Officials, but that office needs a thorough house-cleaning...
The Frog to be Named Later
Active Member
There will be a 30 for 30 on this someday. Well maybe not, because ESPN is also part of the evil empire.
Zubaz
Member
I argued it wasn't highway robbery to rule Duggan out against Baylor, but I 100% agree that Hurt is among the worst calls you'll ever . Worse than bad. It was baffling. It was OU onside kick recovery against Oregon levels of criminal. As I said in the game thread, this gave a lot of ammo to the tinfoil crowd, and the rest of us can't really say anything other than "Yeah, it was a bad call".
The only thing I would point out is that it wouldn't have been near as egregious if they had ruled Hurts before he was stripped a few drives earlier, and they let that call stand giving the ball to TCU. That was definitely the right call, but if there there really was a league-office bias by OU, they certainly would have overturned that one as it was a lot closer than "Dude is 1.5 yards short and we said he got it".
Frog-in-law1995
Active Member
They didn’t confirm the first down against OU. The call stood.
BrewingFrog
Was I supposed to type something here?
In spite of clear, and irrefutable evidence to the contrary.
Frog-in-law1995
Active Member
Disagree that it was 100% irrefutable, but regardless, that’s not my point. My point was that the replay official didn’t see something that wasn’t there. He just didn’t think it was a 100% certainty that Hurts didn’t get the first down (likely because there was no camera angle that showed the ball at Hurts’ farthest point forward). I still think it was enough to overturn despite the language of the rule, though.
Zebra Frog
KMA
Nobody is going to like this, but........
In both those plays at OU the replay official didn't have a shot of the ball. When this occurs, about the only thing the RO can do is let the play stand.
Dean Blandino, the guru of replay in the NCAA initially commented that Duggan's play should be a stand and said so in the broadcast, I think. However, a couple of days later he said after analyzing it, there was enough evidence to put him OB.
If you want to criticize somebody on the OU play, it's the onfield official that ruled it a first down, not the RO.
In both those plays at OU the replay official didn't have a shot of the ball. When this occurs, about the only thing the RO can do is let the play stand.
Dean Blandino, the guru of replay in the NCAA initially commented that Duggan's play should be a stand and said so in the broadcast, I think. However, a couple of days later he said after analyzing it, there was enough evidence to put him OB.
If you want to criticize somebody on the OU play, it's the onfield official that ruled it a first down, not the RO.
Zubaz
Member
Is the standard really "We don't know that he doesn't have Spacejam arms" to let a call stand? We couldn't see the ball, true, but we could see his body AND his arms. Unless he has 4 ft forearms, it would have been physically impossible for the ball to cross the first down given where he was. That seems to be pretty "irrefutable.
jake102
Active Member
Zebra - I get what you're saying, but there's one GIANT problem. Dean Blandino spent days analyzing the Baylor spot... the replay officials have 1-2 minutes to decide if there's anything they see in that time that can change their mind irrefutably (the same time Blandino had on the broadcast).
I'm also 100% positive Hurts didn't make the first down. Like it's not even the slightest doubt in my mind. I think Duggan likely stepped out at the 6, although really tough to tell
It was a terrible on-field call but once I saw the replay I pretty much expected it to stand. As you said, there wasn't a good angle and while he definitely looked like he was short, there was kind of a huge mass of guys that made it hard to figure out exactly where the ball was when forward progress was stopped. Do I think he was short? Absolutely. But without being able to see the ball it's hard for an official to overturn. If it was ruled short that would have stood too.
