Tackled in end zone, no safety?

[An-Cap Frog]

The larger question is why do refs belong to any one conference?

 

[Tyson]

What was the over/under on the game?

 

[An-Cap Frog]

What was the over/under on the game?

62.5

 

[Wexahu]

Acknowledged, but I'll bet it does make a difference to the morale of those defensive men, who felt they'd earned a safety.

I honestly doubt it made a bit of a difference to the morale of the defensive men. It was probably an "aw man, that was a safety!" and then they moved on.

If that was a TCU QB instead of an opponent QB, that non-review would have never been mentioned.

 

[Deep Purple]

I honestly doubt it made a bit of a difference to the morale of the defensive men. It was probably an "aw man, that was a safety!" and then they moved on.

Yes, "I doubt" is your most often-used phrase on this board. Well, doubt all you want. Doesn't change the fact of the matter.

If that was a TCU QB instead of an opponent QB, that non-review would have never been mentioned.

Possibly, but plenty here would have candidly admitted, "We caught a break. That was a safety." It's happened plenty of times before when the Frogs had uncalled PIs, holding, etc.

 

[Wexahu]

Yes, "I doubt" is your most often-used phrase on this board. Well, doubt all you want. Doesn't change the fact of the matter.


Possibly, but plenty here would have candidly admitted, "We caught a break. That was a safety." It's happened plenty of times before when the Frogs had uncalled PIs, holding, etc.

The fact of the matter? What fact? That it hurt their morale? That's an opinion.

So what? Breaks are caught all the time, on both sides. Refs are human. Big deal.

 

[Zebra Frog]

some more info, and then maybe we can let this thread die a natural death.
It’s true that there are a pre-determined number of breaks per quarter. It is normally 3-4-3-4, but this is determined by tv. The breaks are done by the Producer of the broadcast. Once the get their breaks for that quarter in, they seldom air another commercial until the next quarter. If they are done, that is when the R will announce that it’s a 30-second timeout and they don’t go to a break. Sometimes they will have a “floater” that they will use in the 4th quarter.

Replay officials have been made VERY aware to not have any unnecessary stoppages, which is why the safety wasn’t reviewed.

If it had been TCU that had the ball, it still wouldn’t have been reviewed. Yes, it is a reviewable play, but forward progress being ruled can take replay out of it.

 

[GenXFrog]

some more info, and then maybe we can let this thread die a natural death.
It’s true that there are a pre-determined number of breaks per quarter. It is normally 3-4-3-4, but this is determined by tv. The breaks are done by the Producer of the broadcast. Once the get their breaks for that quarter in, they seldom air another commercial until the next quarter. If they are done, that is when the R will announce that it’s a 30-second timeout and they don’t go to a break. Sometimes they will have a “floater” that they will use in the 4th quarter.

Replay officials have been made VERY aware to not have any unnecessary stoppages, which is why the safety wasn’t reviewed.

If it had been TCU that had the ball, it still wouldn’t have been reviewed. Yes, it is a reviewable play, but forward progress being ruled can take replay out of it.

Thanks for sharing the wisdom. Appreciate you wading back in again.

 

[froginmn]

The fact of the matter? What fact? That it hurt their morale? That's an opinion.

So what? Breaks are caught all the time, on both sides. Refs are human. Big deal.

Pretty sure the "fact of the matter" is that Deep "will bet" that it matters to the players...

 

[Paint It Purple]

I honestly doubt it made a bit of a difference to the morale of the defensive men. It was probably an "aw man, that was a safety!" and then they moved on.

If that was a TCU QB instead of an opponent QB, that non-review would have never been mentioned.

Agree. They knew it was a safety. They got to do what I have deemed the Elephant Dance. Or, the "Dance of the TCU Titans"

 

[Paint It Purple]

 

[Eight]

By being discussed.

We've had threads on this board about latest movies, favorite beers, great TV shows and all manner of assorted crap. And you're complaining about an authentic football thread?

if this is an authentic football thread anthracite is a school color

 

[bmoney214]

Yes, I was poking fun at the sheer volume of media breaks we've seen this year.

That damn espn+ game

 

[Eight]

dam does show a great burst of quickness coming around the edge and oyewale destroys the smu right guard when he crashes down inside to set up dam looping around for the sack. very well run stunt.

​

 

[Frog-in-law1995]

Gonna get piled on for this, but that play was WAY closer than anybody on here is admitting. QB was already retreating, but Williams clearly got to him before he was in the end zone and helped push him back. But even if the QB’s retreat into the end zone was more under his own power than not (and I concede that looked to be the case, but not sure it matters) it still appears as though he may have reached the ball back over the goal line before being spun back by Williams. In any event, it certainly wasn’t the worst call Dykes has ever seen. That honor probably goes to the phantom fair catch signal that nullified what looked to be a return TD against OU last year.

 

[TopFrog]

Respectfully disagree. They didn't fail to call it correctly; they opted not to spend time confirming whether the on field call was correct.

The length of baseball games has shrunken greatly, and many people (including me) love it. Lengthening a football game to confirm near the end of a blowout that the runner got the ball out of the end zone is dumb (whether he tried to run after forward progress is stopped wouldn't be reviewable).

I feel the defense earned that safety and should have been rewarded. A review was warranted.

What if it was a TD at the goal line? Would we just not review it? No.

 

[TopFrog]

dam does show a great burst of quickness coming around the edge and oyewale destroys the smu right guard when he crashes down inside to set up dam looping around for the sack. very well run stunt.

​

OK, it was likely not a safety. Still think it deserved a review. Would hate for a defense or player to not get something that is meaningful.

 

[CountryFrog]

Gonna get piled on for this, but that play was WAY closer than anybody on here is admitting. QB was already retreating, but Williams clearly got to him before he was in the end zone and helped push him back. But even if the QB’s retreat into the end zone was more under his own power than not (and I concede that looked to be the case, but not sure it matters) it still appears as though he may have reached the ball back over the goal line before being spun back by Williams. In any event, it certainly wasn’t the worst call Dykes has ever seen. That honor probably goes to the phantom fair catch signal that nullified what looked to be a return TD against OU last year.

But just sticking the ball back over the goal line for a split second doesn't mean it wasn't a safety.

I do agree though that both of the call/no call against OU last year were more egregious. The phantom fair catch and the no call on the clear DPI. In fact I'd say the no call last week against Houston on the DPI against Wiley that resulted in the pick was worse than this call imo. But this one was still a really bad call.

 

[Frog-in-law1995]

But just sticking the ball back over the goal line for a split second doesn't mean it wasn't a safety.

It does if he didn’t just reach it out and voluntarily pull it back. Looks to me like in the QB’s effort to get out of Williams’ grasp after going into the end zone, the ball may have crossed back over the goal line right before Williams slung the QB around back deeper into the end zone. Forward progress would then mean no safety.

But I really think the forward progress call was based on the QB’s position when first contacted by Williams, before he ever went into the end zone.

 

[CountryFrog]

It does if he didn’t just reach it out and voluntarily pull it back. Looks to me like in the QB’s effort to get out of Williams’ grasp after going into the end zone, the ball may have crossed back over the goal line right before Williams slung the QB around back deeper into the end zone. Forward progress would then mean no safety.

But for it to cross BACK over the goal means it was behind the goal line to start with. And if he was being contacted by the defender at that time then the fact that the ball momentarily may have crossed back over the goal line is irrelevant since it was the offensive players own momentum that was taking him back.

If you're an offensive player and you cross into the end zone with the ball but then reach the ball back across to the other side of the goal line then it's still a TD.