The Refs

[augustabuzz]

I have asked myself, for years, whether refs take money to lean one way or another, in games. I see way too many games where one team gets called for the slightest thing and another one can do anything short of performing an atomic elbow to the QBs head. This spills over into all sports. I have watch many games where I am left scratching my head.

It was well stated earlier in the thread, The closer you get to the action, the faster the action appears.(Paraphrased)

 

[augustabuzz]

He did make a fair catch signal, but he didn't catch the ball. He picked it up off the ground after it had rolled 15-20 yards.

That's the reason I thought it was a muff and he clearly gave himself up at the 1 yard line. The ref should've blown the whistle.

 

[Milwaukee]

I have asked myself, for years, whether refs take money to lean one way or another, in games. I see way too many games where one team gets called for the slightest thing and another one can do anything short of performing an atomic elbow to the QBs head. This spills over into all sports. I have watch many games where I am left scratching my head.

It absolutely goes on. There are rogue officials out there that are crooked, just like any other profession on the planet.

How an NBA Referee Got Rich From Betting On His Own Games

Referees are trusted with maintaining the integrity of a sport, but Tim Donaghy bet on his own NBA games.

www.sportscasting.com

 

[ramblinwreckguru]

I don't know what you guys think, but those officials at the ucf game were as biased towards another team as I can ever remember.

 

[augustabuzz]

I don't know what you guys think, but those officials at the ucf game were as biased towards another team as I can ever remember.

It appears pervasive throughout their conference.

 

[ncjacket79]

That's the reason I thought it was a muff and he clearly gave himself up at the 1 yard line. The ref should've blown the whistle.

It couldn’t be a muff because he didn’t touch it until he picked it up. He signaled a fair catch but on a kick off you have to catch it or it’s a live ball. If he was giving himself up he needed to take a knee.

 

[ramblinwreckguru]

It couldn’t be a muff because he didn’t touch it until he picked it up. He signaled a fair catch but on a kick off you have to catch it or it’s a live ball. If he was giving himself up he needed to take a knee.

He didn't take a knee because he thought he was still getting the ball on the 25.

 

[ncjacket79]

He didn't take a knee because he thought he was still getting the ball on the 25.

I get that. But someone suggested he should have been ruled down because he “gave himself up” by standing there. My point was since he had the rule wrong he needed to take a knee to be considered down.

 

[augustabuzz]

It couldn’t be a muff because he didn’t touch it until he picked it up. He signaled a fair catch but on a kick off you have to catch it or it’s a live ball. If he was giving himself up he needed to take a knee.

I thought he touched it on about the 20.

 

[LongforDodd]

I watched the game yesterday after taping recording it and had the luxury of rewinding. After doing so about a dozen times, I believe the refs made the wrong call. The Duke player attempted to evade our guy, was initially touched by our guy almost at the plane of the endzone, and carried the ball into the endzone. Any forward progress was stopped in the endzone. Should have been a safety.

 

[RonJohn]

I watched the game yesterday after taping recording it and had the luxury of rewinding. After doing so about a dozen times, I believe the refs made the wrong call. The Duke player attempted to evade our guy, was initially touched by our guy almost at the plane of the endzone, and carried the ball into the endzone. Any forward progress was stopped in the endzone. Should have been a safety.

The key there is "almost at the plane of the endzone". From every angle I saw during the TV broadcast, you couldn't say for certain if he was in front of or on the goal line when he was contacted. The point at where he was contacted is the point of forward progress by definition. To overturn the call, or even just to prove that the call was wrong, you need an angle the can show where the ball was in relation to the goal line when he was contacted.

 

[LongforDodd]

The key there is "almost at the plane of the endzone". From every angle I saw during the TV broadcast, you couldn't say for certain if he was in front of or on the goal line when he was contacted. The point at where he was contacted is the point of forward progress by definition. To overturn the call, or even just to prove that the call was wrong, you need an angle the can show where the ball was in relation to the goal line when he was contacted.

It's not just where initial contact/touch was made, is it? But where the contact is more of a controlling action? The Duke guy retreated into the end zone with the ball but the initial contact was more of a "reach out and touch someone" type of contact.

 

[RonJohn]

It's not just where initial contact/touch was made, is it? But where the contact is more of a controlling action? The Duke guy retreated into the end zone with the ball but the initial contact was more of a "reach out and touch someone" type of contact.

This is just at first contact. The GT player wraps up the Duke player and pulls him into(or further into) the end zone. I can't tell from that angle if the ball is on top of or in front of the goal line. Gary Patterson (who made the call) is standing on top of the goal line, so he should have a good angle. If a defensive (kick coverage) player makes contact with a ball carrier and pushes him backwards, the ball is spotted at the point of contact. Even if the ball carrier was moving in a backwards direction when he was contacted.

I thought it was a safety during the game, and I still think it was a safety. However, I have not seen an angle that I can draw a line on and say for absolutely sure that the ball broke the plane of the goal line.

 

[LongforDodd]

This is just at first contact. The GT player wraps up the Duke player and pulls him into(or further into) the end zone. I can't tell from that angle if the ball is on top of or in front of the goal line. Gary Patterson (who made the call) is standing on top of the goal line, so he should have a good angle. If a defensive (kick coverage) player makes contact with a ball carrier and pushes him backwards, the ball is spotted at the point of contact. Even if the ball carrier was moving in a backwards direction when he was contacted.

View attachment 9529

I thought it was a safety during the game, and I still think it was a safety. However, I have not seen an angle that I can draw a line on and say for absolutely sure that the ball broke the plane of the goal line.

The ref is right on the goal line.

 

[RonJohn]

The ref is right on the goal line.

Yes, which means he has a much better angle than any camera that I have seen.