Completely understand not seeing the ball. But the RO can see where he’s at and that he sure as hell isnt reaching the ball a yard and a half forward for the first. Ball was obviously where the runner was
FWST: Patterson rips officials for ‘poor decision’ on late call in TCU-Oklahoma game
- Thread starter TopFrog
- Start date
BrewingFrog
Was I supposed to type something here?
Zebra, good points. I stand corrected on the OU call (and, you too, FIL'95). However, on the Baylor call, it still rankles me that there was an official not 10 feet behind Duggan with his eyes on his feet and the sideline, and he called TD without hesitation. Replay overturned that with no hard evidence. I don't know the interplay between the Head Official and the Replay guy, but one would think in a situation like that with no clear evidence to overturn and a member of your Officials team with eyes directly on the play, that the Official on the field wouldn't stand up for his guy and against the shakiness of the reasoning for overturning the call.
Zebra Frog
KMA
And, you also make good valid points, that I tend to agree with, one of the reasons I'm beginning to like the NFL's replay process, even though every decision is made in NYC. They tend to favor the call on the field, where in college, they don't necessarily adhere to that.
Every conference fan thinks their officials are the absolute worst. Try reading an Aggie forum sometime, or any forum in the country whose team lost the previous weekend. KF.C is mild compared to some of them. And nothing anybody says or writes will change anything.
Pharm Frog
Full Member
Maybe someone can explain after an entire game of conservative spots including but not exclusive to slides one would pick that time to go and spot exceptionally pro-O AND not even call for a measurement before declaring it a first down.
Frog-in-law1995
Active Member
I agree. I am WAY more certain Hurts didn’t get the ball to the 42 than I am Duggan stepped out of bounds. Still don’t like the call on Duggan.
edit: well, don’t like either, but I can at least understand the Hurts call.
The Artist Formerly Known as PhormerPhrog
Full Member
How could we forget the classic move where the OU defender shoves the QB out of bounds and doesn't get a flag?
Christcu
Member
flyfishingfrog
Active Member
I don’t buy having to see the ball to overturn it
what you see is the defensive player making the tackle and the fact that he is a yard past the line for the first down
so unless Hurts has the superhero power of sticking his arms through another person and the ball is invisible - than it is literally impossible for the ball to be across the first down line to gain
if the rule truly states you have to see the ball - not the fact that no ball exists at the point of the first down- then we need to GPS the ball and start getting rid of officials since we don’t even need common sense anymore - just programmable decision rules
what you see is the defensive player making the tackle and the fact that he is a yard past the line for the first down
so unless Hurts has the superhero power of sticking his arms through another person and the ball is invisible - than it is literally impossible for the ball to be across the first down line to gain
if the rule truly states you have to see the ball - not the fact that no ball exists at the point of the first down- then we need to GPS the ball and start getting rid of officials since we don’t even need common sense anymore - just programmable decision rules
More Frogs the Better
Full Member
This is to me the definitive point. Blacklock making the tackle was in front of the line to gain when the contact was made. Hurts clearly was not initiating contact with Blacklock while reaching out and around with the ball and Blacklock clearly gave up no ground to Hurts so it is physically impossible for the ball to have crossed the line to gain. If it's not possible, then it didn't happen.
BrewingFrog
Was I supposed to type something here?
Beyond the craziness, there is an important point to be made: We are discussing some calls which were outcome-altering, and illustrating the shortcomings of the procedures, or indifference to the rules, or just bald-faced incompetence of the persons involved. It is hard for me to sit here and think that the Conference Head Cheese looked at the Tech-Baylor fiasco, or the TCU-Baylor fiasco and said, "Why, I'm proud of the way we handled that as a Conference!" My preference would be for him to mention to an underling, "Bring me the heads of all those involved."
Something ain't right. Fans can clearly see that the things they see with their own two eyes aren't matching up with what they are being told. That kind of situation turns people off and makes further engagement with the sport difficult. If the BIGXII is interested in expanding it's brand, then getting things of this sort right are important.
Frog-in-law1995
Active Member
And even if he did reach out to the 42 (which he didn’t), he wasn’t still reaching when forward progress was whistled, so he voluntarily gave up that extra foot or two. It’s not like the end zone where you just have to cross the plane once. There was enough info there to deduce with the appropriate degree of certainty that a reversal was warranted. The ref apparently believes that certainty requires actually “seeing” it.
COWTOWN FAN
Full Member
The NFL agreed today that the leg whipping of the Cowboys were bad calls but that does not change the outcome of the game. The Frogs have had bad calls this year that also could have changed the outcome of the game but after the game is over the winner still won and the loser was cheated. There should be a way to change the outcome of the game if bad officiating decided the winner
This is another thing that is completely ridiculous. How can you have someone who can come out and say that call was wrong the next day, but not someone in the booth who can do it during the game? This is not that hard to do!
