Big 10 Refs

[forensicbuzz]

Not you again? Are fingerprints absolute mr forensics? How about the imprint a dog nose makes? No two are alike.

Really? The video doesn't lie. There was plenty to be really pissed about. That call was not it.

 

[Richland County]

Really? The video doesn't lie. There was plenty to be really pissed about. That call was not it.

You didn't answer my question about fingerprint. You know little about football and absolutes. Forensic my rear-end. LOL!!! You definitely aren't Qunicy.

 

[jgtengineer]

Sorry, but you're wrong. The Tech guy (#39) pushed the Vandy player in the small of the back. It wasn't a brush or incidental contact. he pushed him in the back and accelerated the contact with Stockton. Personally, I think the defender would have run into Stockton if he weren't touched, but that was negated when he got pushed. That was, unfortunately, the right call in that situation. You guys may not like that, but that was the right call.

We overcame that call. After punting, we held them and they punted back to us. We then threw a pick-6, which is on us.

The refs sucked. They blew a ton of calls. The lack of O-PI on the facemask call on Burrell was BS. Should have been offsetting. The lack of holding against Biggers when we got called for the PI in the redzone was attrocious. The punt...that was on us.

Your memory sucks the order of events was missed punt call we go 3 and out from the 2 punt it to them. They got what should have been 4 and out but get a phantom pi call on Tatum while the ball is going out of bounds then key gets a personal foul then they call us for a defensive hold then offsetting penalties on a Pavia scramble then they score. On the next drive after the kickoff we throw a pick... Not a pick 6. Quarter ends they score. We are driving rutherford fumbles... They score again on 4th down on a scramble. We start driving again it's 4th and 15 king scrambles for 14 starts to go down knee hits the ground 1 dives I to his back for a late hit (which they called a blindsided block somehow) and then they pick up a text book targeting foul (forcible contact to a defensiless player in the head and neck) due tonling being on the ground. Lightning delay

 

[chewybaka]

I agree with him here. He's entitled to his opinion. Silencing dissent is why we are here as a country.

Personally, I look at it like this. Agendas are very real. It's clear the Sec & Big 10 run college football.

There is NO WAY sankey would allow a sec team to get screwed like that without saying something. Jim Phillips is a figurehead and will never stand up the sec or big 10.

I saw a post that the calls were even but the calls that supposedly were make up calls against vandy happened after the game was relatively in hand. The egregious calls against Tech happened in the most critical part of the game. Sounds familiar---Athens 2024....

If you think refs don't have agendas, then I'm guessing you feel the government is out for your best interest or the medical community truly cares for your health vs a profit motive.

I don't blame the refs for the loss but it played a part. To me, this was a motivated Vandy team that didn't lose any starters to the portal and played like we were bama or tn tonight while Tech had four starters that contributed a lot to the 2024 season in Singleton, Lockett, Robinson, & Height out. That mattered a lot. Also, I'd point out that Malik likely wasn't practicing for a couple of weeks when he put himself in the portal so who knows how that affected him.

I do hope Key speaks out against this crap regarding the refs (Did you see how pissed Key was against the refs....Numerous f bombs dropped by the coach)...>I guess he sees it to...

"Hello I'm with your government... I'm here to help you.". RUN

 

[forensicbuzz]

Your memory sucks the order of events was missed punt call we go 3 and out from the 2 punt it to them. They got what should have been 4 and out but get a phantom pi call on Tatum while the ball is going out of bounds then key gets a personal foul then they call us for a defensive hold then offsetting penalties on a Pavia scramble then they score. On the next drive after the kickoff we throw a pick... Not a pick 6. Quarter ends they score. We are driving rutherford fumbles... They score again on 4th down on a scramble. We start driving again it's 4th and 15 king scrambles for 14 starts to go down knee hits the ground 1 dives I to his back for a late hit (which they called a blindsided block somehow) and then they pick up a text book targeting foul (forcible contact to a defensiless player in the head and neck) due tonling being on the ground. Lightning delay

You got me. I got the order wrong. I was going from memory instead of going back and looking at the video, like I did 30 times on the punt to see why they picked up the flag. Thanks for the recap.

Bottom line, as I’ve already said, the refs sucked. They blew a ton of calls that changed the complexion of the game. That is a travesty.

However, anyone that watches that punt and continues to say that our player didn’t push the defender in the back loses all credibility. The push, regardless of how hard it was, propelled the tackler into Stockton. Picking up the flag for interference was the correct call. BUT, if they pick up that flag, then there should have been a block-in-the-back penalty called on #39. I don’t know if that penalty could be declined since it’s a safety-related penalty.

 

[forensicbuzz]

You didn't answer my question about fingerprint. You know little about football and absolutes. Forensic my rear-end. LOL!!! You definitely aren't Qunicy.

Apparently, your question wasn’t clear. Are you referring to the discussion of Objectivism versus Subjectivism from a different thread? If so, you clearly didn’t understand the philosophic discussion well enough to enter a cogent argument. Your question was akin to “what if cat really spelled dog.” Not really a question worthy of an answer.

I’d venture to posit I’m more knowledgeable that you on most topics based on your posts here. I don’t know you, so that may not be true, but your posts represent you…so there is that.

You seem to rant and rail more than enter into discourse, which is telling. Your attempt to win the point by mockery is a bully’s technique and most, if not all, fonts on this forum see straight through you. Enjoy your Sunday. I hope you have a peaceful day.

 

[forensicbuzz]

You got me. I got the order wrong. I was going from memory instead of going back and looking at the video, like I did 30 times on the punt to see why they picked up the flag. Thanks for the recap.

Bottom line, as I’ve already said, the refs sucked. They blew a ton of calls that changed the complexion of the game. That is a travesty.

However, anyone that watches that punt and continues to say that our player didn’t push the defender in the back loses all credibility. The push, regardless of how hard it was, propelled the tackler into Stockton. Picking up the flag for interference was the correct call. BUT, if they pick up that flag, then there should have been a block-in-the-back penalty called on #39. I don’t know if that penalty could be declined since it’s a safety-related penalty.

The penalty for blocking in the back can be declined. Therefore the point is moot. However, the flag should have still been thrown.

 

[MWBATL]

However, anyone that watches that punt and continues to say that our player didn’t push the defender in the back loses all credibility. The push, regardless of how hard it was, propelled the tackler into Stockton. Picking up the flag for interference was the correct call.

Eh, you’re wrong. I’ve watched that replay numerous times, and you’d have to be Godzilla to be strong enough for the slight push 10 yards downfield from the punt receiver to “propel” the tackler into Stockton. The tackler used that push as his excuse and was seen laughing after the play with teammates about how he got away with something so blatant. Looks like he fooled you too. He also CLEARLY made NO EFFORT to miss Stockton, which would have been visible had he twisted to try to avoid the collision.

You’re wrong. ESPN called it the other way. Their former official who as on the call with them called it the other way. Pretty much everyone who looked at it seriously called it the other way. BUT, don’t let that stop you from claiming victory!

 

[jgtengineer]

You got me. I got the order wrong. I was going from memory instead of going back and looking at the video, like I did 30 times on the punt to see why they picked up the flag. Thanks for the recap.

Bottom line, as I’ve already said, the refs sucked. They blew a ton of calls that changed the complexion of the game. That is a travesty.

However, anyone that watches that punt and continues to say that our player didn’t push the defender in the back loses all credibility. The push, regardless of how hard it was, propelled the tackler into Stockton. Picking up the flag for interference was the correct call. BUT, if they pick up that flag, then there should have been a block-in-the-back penalty called on #39. I don’t know if that penalty could be declined since it’s a safety-related penalty.

I did that from memory seems odd to misremember something that didn't happen like a pick six. If they reviewed it they see the ball hits a vandy player and we get it at the 20 too either way it's a hose job

 

[forensicbuzz]

Eh, you’re wrong. I’ve watched that replay numerous times, and you’d have to be Godzilla to be strong enough for the slight push 10 yards downfield from the punt receiver to “propel” the tackler into Stockton. The tackler used that push as his excuse and was seen laughing after the play with teammates about how he got away with something so blatant. Looks like he fooled you too. He also CLEARLY made NO EFFORT to miss Stockton, which would have been visible had he twisted to try to avoid the collision.

You’re wrong. ESPN called it the other way. Their former official who as on the call with them called it the other way. Pretty much everyone who looked at it seriously called it the other way. BUT, don’t let that stop you from claiming victory!

I agree it didn’t cause the contact, as I’ve said previously. But that’s not the rule. He pushed him in the back and that push contributed to the contact. He extended his arm and that is a penalty. It’s not like PI where it’s a judgement call. There is no need to continue litigating this. We don’t have to agree.

 

[forensicbuzz]

I did that from memory seems odd to misremember something that didn't happen like a pick six. If they reviewed it they see the ball hits a vandy player and we get it at the 20 too either way it's a hose job

Are you saying the ball hit the Vandy player before Stockton and therefore should have been dead? That was never a point I commented on.

 

[stinger78]

I agree it didn’t cause the contact, as I’ve said previously. But that’s not the rule. He pushed him in the back and that push contributed to the contact. He extended his arm and that is a penalty. It’s not like PI where it’s a judgement call. There is no need to continue litigating this. We don’t have to agree.

Boy, you’re backing up fast!
The nudge from 5+ yards away was not determinative. The Vandy player continued to tackle to the ground the Tech PR who had never touched the ball. That’s defensive holding. From that distance out, he has to try to avoid contact. He didn’t. Made no effort, and was laughing on the way back to the sideline.

 

[stinger78]

I agree it didn’t cause the contact, as I’ve said previously. But that’s not the rule. He pushed him in the back and that push contributed to the contact. He extended his arm and that is a penalty. It’s not like PI where it’s a judgement call. There is no need to continue litigating this. We don’t have to agree.

If it didn’t cause the contact, then it’s simply a block in the back. Then you see the gunner’s foul more clearly.
That should have been the call: GT clip, VU defensive holding. Offsetting penalties. Replay down.

 

[UgaBlows]

Let it go guys, the refs sure didn’t help our cause, but we lost because of the two back to back turnovers and an inability to stop the forward pass, or a running QB

 

[forensicbuzz]

If it didn’t cause the contact, then it’s simply a block in the back. Then you see the gunner’s foul more clearly.
That should have been the call: GT clip, VU defensive holding. Offsetting penalties. Replay down.

I’m confused. What play are you talking about? Or what part are you calling holding on Vandy?

 

[stinger78]

I’m confused. What play are you talking about?

You know what I’m talking about. The punt… and the ball never hit Stockton. He never touched it. What are you talking about?

 

[forensicbuzz]

You know what I’m talking about.

What part are you calling Vandy holding? When did GT clip?

 

[stinger78]

What part are you calling Vandy holding? When did GT clip?

When a defensive player (VU gunner) tackles an offensive player (GT PR) without him having touched the ball, that is defensive holding.

If you consider the gunner was propelled into the PR by an offensive player, then it is disregarded. But the gunner was not. He was, however, blocked (slightly) in the back. That’s a penalty. So is defensive holding.

 

[forensicbuzz]

When a defensive player (VU gunner) tackles an offensive player (GT PR) without him having touched the ball, that is defensive holding.

Okay. That’s not a holding penalty (interference) and a block in the back is not clipping. Clipping is below the waist. But I understand what you’re talking about now. I disagree with your take.

 

[stinger78]

Okay. That’s not a holding penalty (interference) and a block in the back is not clipping. Clipping is below the waist. But I understand what you’re talking about now. I disagree with your take.

I used clipping because it’s shorter. Typing on my phone is a PIA. Same idea.

It’s not a holding penalty *only* if you consider that the block in the back caused the contact. It did not. You said it yourself earlier a couple of ways.

So what happened is the gunner got pushed weakly in the back and proceeded to tackle the PR, of his own initiative, who never touched the ball. You may not call that holding but the rules disagree.
Anyway, you know my point, and you’re not going to agree. Perfectly fine.