Big 10 Refs

[iceeater1969]

Not to mention the fact that the Vandy player literally wrapped up and drove through the would be ball carrier. Not only was he not pushed, but took multiple steps and hit Stockton like he was a tackling dummy.

Why was our blocker even trying to extend his arm in middle of their hunners back.
He was beaten by gunner as he went buy him at start of play.
Then gunner significantly out ran him.
As gunner slowed down our player put hand on the gunner.
Ref saw gunner doing good, our player doing bad, and putting hand on back = penalty.

 

[Richland County]

Why was our blocker even trying to extend his arm in middle of their hunners back.
He was beaten by gunner as he went buy him at start of play.
Then gunner significantly out ran him.
As gunner slowed down our player put hand on the gunner.
Ref saw gunner doing good, our player doing bad, and putting hand on back = penalty.

He was giving maximum effort? I was told waffle house!!

 

[AugustaSwarm]

Why was our blocker even trying to extend his arm in middle of their hunners back.
He was beaten by gunner as he went buy him at start of play.
Then gunner significantly out ran him.
As gunner slowed down our player put hand on the gunner.
Ref saw gunner doing good, our player doing bad, and putting hand on back = penalty.

and then the gunner takes 2-3 steps, lowers his upper body and makes a textbook tackle like he's hitting a tacking dummy. it's water under the bridge at this point, but everyone (apparently including the broadcast team and their rules analyst) complained that this was a blown call. It's only when you slow it down and watch the replay over and over again that you convince yourself that he was pushed into the returner.

 

[stinger78]

Why was our blocker even trying to extend his arm in middle of their hunners back.
He was beaten by gunner as he went buy him at start of play.
Then gunner significantly out ran him.
As gunner slowed down our player put hand on the gunner.
Ref saw gunner doing good, our player doing bad, and putting hand on back = penalty.

Ever heard of a review? Was that a reviewable call? The ball potentially touching the gunner was….

 

[GTpdm]

and then the gunner takes 2-3 steps, lowers his upper body and makes a textbook tackle like he's hitting a tacking dummy. it's water under the bridge at this point, but everyone (apparently including the broadcast team and their rules analyst) complained that this was a blown call. It's only when you slow it down and watch the replay over and over again that you convince yourself that he was pushed into the returner.

You forgot to add, “and ignore the laws of physics…”

 

[stinger78]

You forgot to add, “and ignore the laws of physics…”

They’re all relative….

 

[AugustaSwarm]

You forgot to add, “and ignore the laws of physics…”

and the gunner made absolutely no effort to avoid to hitting Stockton...in fact, he doubled down and made a classic tackling dummy hit. Even if the touch on his back propelled him forward, why did he lower his head and complete a tackle - complete with arm wrap and all the trappings of a player who was...blocked?

 

[stinger78]

and the gunner made absolutely no effort to avoid to hitting Stockton...in fact, he doubled down and made a classic tackling dummy hit. Even if the touch on his back propelled him forward, why did he lower his head and complete a tackle - complete with arm wrap and all the trappings of a player who was...blocked?

Almost like he was barely touched.

 

[GT33]

Almost like he was barely touched.

or not touched at all. Let's all keep blaming the GT player, that's what our team wants.

 

[jojatk]

Almost like he was barely touched.

Right on. I am still mystified that anyone would be blaming #39 in Gold and White for that. The refs just messed that up every which way possible.

 

[Root4GT]

Right on. I am still mystified that anyone would be blaming #39 in Gold and White for that. The refs just messed that up every which way possible.

39 did push the player in the back. I don’t believe it caused the kick interference but it should have been a penalty on its own merit.

 

[Bogey]

I don't understand how fans, who supposedly root for us, cannot recognize the bias of the refs in favor of our opponents, particularly in our last 2 games.

 

[bobongo]

39 did push the player in the back. I don’t believe it caused the kick interference but it should have been a penalty on its own merit.

I don't know whether the little push should have been viewed as meriting a penalty or in any way caused the interference, but I do know how it would have been viewed by Tech fans if the shoe were on the other foot. I think we all do, were we being honest. I'm biased for the Jackets, but I understand the basis on which this particular call was made, be it right or wrong. It just isn't the egregious travesty of justice portrayed. It was a borderline call we unfortunately didn't get in our favor. But if the uniforms were reversed, I believe most of us would be accentuating the push instead of turning a blind eye to it.

 

[RonJohn]

I don't understand how fans, who supposedly root for us, cannot recognize the bias of the refs in favor of our opponents, particularly in our last 2 games.

I think this method of discussion, or argument, is just endemic on society today. (or at least internet and social media society) If someone says that the refs cost GT opportunities to win the game, other people hear - "The GT players played a perfect game, the coaches called a perfect game, the only reason that GT lost was because of the refs". They then argue strongly that the refs did not cause the loss, which comes across as - "The refs played zero part in the loss, it was 100% on the players and coaches".

Thirty years ago, if discussing something like this while sitting drinking coffee or a beer, it would have evolved. --"The refs blew those calls" --> "Yes, but the players came out flat in the first half, and should have been up at half time" --> "Yes, that is true, but it ticks me off that the refs took away opportunities while GT was making a comeback" --> "I agree with you there".

Now on the internet, you are almost required to join the 100% refs' fault, or the 100% players' fault tribe and argue vehemently for your tribe regardless of what the actual truth is.

With regard to the mutt game, I have to say that I do believe the game was 100% lost because of the officials. If they had not missed the targeting call, GT could have run a lot more time off the clock and most likely won the game. If they had not called the phantom PI call, the mutts would not have scored and GT would have had the ball. Once again they would have most likely won the game.

 

[stinger78]

I think this method of discussion, or argument, is just endemic on society today. (or at least internet and social media society) If someone says that the refs cost GT opportunities to win the game, other people hear - "The GT players played a perfect game, the coaches called a perfect game, the only reason that GT lost was because of the refs". They then argue strongly that the refs did not cause the loss, which comes across as - "The refs played zero part in the loss, it was 100% on the players and coaches".

Thirty years ago, if discussing something like this while sitting drinking coffee or a beer, it would have evolved. --"The refs blew those calls" --> "Yes, but the players came out flat in the first half, and should have been up at half time" --> "Yes, that is true, but it ticks me off that the refs took away opportunities while GT was making a comeback" --> "I agree with you there".

Now on the internet, you are almost required to join the 100% refs' fault, or the 100% players' fault tribe and argue vehemently for your tribe regardless of what the actual truth is.

With regard to the mutt game, I have to say that I do believe the game was 100% lost because of the officials. If they had not missed the targeting call, GT could have run a lot more time off the clock and most likely won the game. If they had not called the phantom PI call, the mutts would not have scored and GT would have had the ball. Once again they would have most likely won the game.

Certain calls happen at critical times and change outcomes. Other calls just allow a team an opportunity to change an outcome.

It is interesting to me that the 2 most critical calls jn that game, the tip ball on the PI and the target, were never fully reviewed. I doubt the tip/PI would have been changed. I do think the target would have been and GT likely would have won in regulation.

However, GT still had about 4 chances to win and failed to do so.

 

[RonJohn]

Certain calls happen at critical times and change outcomes. Other calls just allow a team an opportunity to change an outcome.

It is interesting to me that the 2 most critical calls jn that game, the tip ball on the PI and the target, were never fully reviewed. I doubt the tip/PI would have been changed. I do think the target would have been and GT likely would have won in regulation.

However, GT still had about 4 chances to win and failed to do so.

Even if the ball wasn't tipped, there wasn't PI on that play. You can say that GT failed in some opportunities to win the game. But on two opportunities to win the game they did in fact win the game, but it was taken away by bad calls. I think that is a big difference between the mutt game and the bowl game.

 

[forensicbuzz]

I don't understand how fans, who supposedly root for us, cannot recognize the bias of the refs in favor of our opponents, particularly in our last 2 games.

I don't think anyone is arguing against that. I think there are specific plays that people disagree about or some (inexplicably, to me) are saying the bias in calls weren't the ultimate reason we lost, but I don't think anyone has said that there wasn't an obvious bias in officiating, at least not that I have seen.

 

[stinger78]

Even if the ball wasn't tipped, there wasn't PI on that play. You can say that GT failed in some opportunities to win the game. But on two opportunities to win the game they did in fact win the game, but it was taken away by bad calls. I think that is a big difference between the mutt game and the bowl game.

Yes, but you cannot review a PI call, IIRC. That was my contention.