Refs

[samspann1]

I have no idea.

Per the rule book, it was not legal.

You really aren't sure whether the push in the block was legal?

 

[Scooch]

No, actually I think that I specifically stated that the calls weren't the reason we lost the game. I'd be happy to cite that post for you to dispel this BS your slinging.

Listen Ryan, take it down a notch.

 

[OrangeDW]

I think you're a great poster, I think you are completely full of s*** on this particular point. Last year, in a important situation against Florida State, we didn't push the guy out of bounds to avoid the penalty. Instead of stepping out like he was politely supposed to, he ended up running up the sideline for 30 more yards, which cost us the game.

You can't have it both ways.

It’s absolutely absurd that you’re not allowed to play defense in that situation.

 

[Scooch]

Per the rule book, it was not legal.

You really aren't sure whether the push in the block was legal?

I didn’t notice the push to be honest.

 

[HRE Otto IV]

I’ve said repeatedly that the Shrader non-call was terrible.

I don't think it should have been called. But if you are going to be touchy a few plays earlier than you need to be consistent. IMO refs shouldn't make drive changing calls for bang bang plays.

 

[FllCrtPrss]

Again, we disagree. He was headed towards the sideline. He *may* have been turning upfield but Fuentes shoved him before he really squared up.

If you didn’t want a flag there that’s fine. I think it was a judgement call. The fact that they didn’t call one on Shrader later was bad, but it doesn’t mean the one on Fuentes was wrong in that moment.

Fuentes didn't even shove him. He bumped into him with a little help from a shove from behind by #64 on Clemson. He might not have even ran into him without that shove.

 

[RF2044]

It’s absolutely absurd that you’re not allowed to play defense in that situation.

Agree 100%. Which is why reference that Florida State play last year, which cost us the game.

 

[Cusefan69]

By the way on the roughing the QB call against us, was it me or did it look like Linton pulled a muscle or just stopped pursuing him from behind? Could not tell if he had an injury or what there. I bring it up because he is plenty fast enough pursuing a QB 99% of the time and usually gets him. Anyone else see that?

 

[RF2044]

Fuentes didn't even shove him. He bumped into him with a little help from a shove from behind by #64 on Clemson. He might not have even ran into him without that shove.

I think you're bringing up an important point. When the call was made against us, you can understand why. The defensive lineman shouldn't be there, it's tight roping the sidelines, etc. But Fuentes didn't hit him, he didn't even touch him. The quarterback fell down, and there was incidental contact. The flag was complete .

And I think it's much worse when a quarterback is passing the ball, versus running the ball. In our case, Shrader it already turn on the ball, was at the boundary, and got shoved forcefully out of bounds. It was exponentially worse than what fuenteus did, no flag. Complete horse .

 

[RF2044]

Listen Ryan, take it down a notch.

I'll be happy to take it down a notch But then don't make a false attribution about what I've said.

 

[Cusefan69]

Fuentes didn't even shove him. He bumped into him with a little help from a shove from behind by #64 on Clemson. He might not have even ran into him without that shove.

That Clemson guy did push him some, did not see that real time originally.

 

[Scooch]

I'll be happy to take it down a notch But then don't make a false attribution about what I've said.

I said if I was wrong then my bad. Relax

 

[samspann1]

That Clemson guy did push him some, did not see that real time originally.

It appears that the refs didn't see it either. If they had, they'd have surely called it...

 

[Scooch]

Fuentes didn't even shove him. He bumped into him with a little help from a shove from behind by #64 on Clemson. He might not have even ran into him without that shove.

If you guys think our endzone PI was BS then you can’t call that a “shove”.

 

[Orangeman]

Alford made one of the best catches I’ve ever seen a Syracuse player make and he’s mostly non-existent. I do not understand.

Its because our QB, who I love, is a one-read guy at this point

Or a structured read guy

Its fine but not optimal

 

[kcsu]

Spell out how we “probably win” if the PI call is not called.

5 letters: points

 

[djcon57]

5 letters: points

Am I being punked?

 

[Orangeman]

No one ever mentions calls that are in our favor. Every fan base on earth thinks the refs are biased and hate them. My Patriots won 6 Super Bowls and most of that fan base thought the NFL hated us and were trying to screw us via the refs in every game.

It’s such weak sauce. We lost because we played dumb and ineffective in the 2nd half. Period.

yes and no

NFL refs WERE in it for Patriots to build Kraft's franchise.

If they weren't they got caught cheating 2-3 other ways, factually, on the record

Point is, money HAS ruined the clean play out there

 

[FrancoPizza]

Listen, the refs had some home cooking. We’ve been over it. I don’t think it’s an ACC bias as much as it’s a home team bias.

But the bottom line is you have to expect some key calls to go against your team. In a tight game on the road it’s asking a lot for the officiating to be unbiased. At the end of the day all we had to do was score 7 pts in the second half and we came up empty. The offense was non existent. Heck, even if they just strung together a few first downs to give the D more rest that may have been enough.

I said going in we’d need a few breaks to have a chance. Well we got that and then some. Can’t put this on the officials. We put ourselves in a precarious position to let them decide the game.

 

[samspann1]

NC State fan chiming in

 

[OrangeDW]

 

[721Comstock]

That Clemson guy did push him some, did not see that real time originally.

Yeah, me neither.

So - the refs appanretly also missed that. Lovely.

I’m back to being really pissed about that all over again now.

 

[IthacaMatt]

I have a question about the offsides on the punt call that went against us.
For all my years, it seems to me that the defense had the option to make you kick it again from 10 yards further back, or they could take the play and decline the penalty.
I know that they tinker around with the rules all the time, but it makes no sense to me that the receiving team gets the benefit of the play AND the extra yardage for offsides added at the end of the play. It's like they get the benefit of both the play and the infraction. It never used to be that way. I think it's BS.

 

[Cusefan0307]

There were other plays to be made in the game, but either both out of bounds hits were roughing or neither was. It shouldn’t be that difficult to have some consistency.

I thought the roughing call and drop on 3rd down both probably helped decide the game.

 

[Chris02M]

I have a question about the offsides on the punt call that went against us.
For all my years, it seems to me that the defense had the option to make you kick it again from 10 yards further back, or they could take the play and decline the penalty.
I know that they tinker around with the rules all the time, but it makes no sense to me that the receiving team gets the benefit of the play AND the extra yardage for offsides added at the end of the play. It's like they get the benefit of both the play and the infraction. It never used to be that way. I think it's BS.

thats been the rule for a number of years