Purdue Postgame Party... | Page 20 | Syracusefan.com

Purdue Postgame Party...

storange said:
I get that the play is over when whistle blows but how many times do we see refs trying to sift through a pile of bodies to see who has the ball , unless we had a quick whistle , that would be understandable, refs “ sorry we screwed up”
Expand...
Look, I was as pissed as anyone else that Purdue got to keep the ball.

But I like to understand how things work and try to explain them if I can because things are usually more complicated than "the refs suck", especially given how complex the rule book is and how fast the sport moves.
 
007 said:
The head official overruled the call and he could only do so if he thought Purdue had possession. It's the only way that he can make that call. Of course, he then reviewed his own call on replay.
Expand...
Agreed.

But he overruled the official right on top of the play that you could very clearly see was trying to discern possession, and he signaled us, then the head official signaled Purdue.

I don't actually think the head official ever saw Purdue have possession. But that was the call on the field, and there wasn't indisputable evidence to overturn. Had the call been Syracuse and it went to review, it would have stayed Syracuse's ball.

The only way that ends up being recovered by Purdue is if the Purdue ball was the ruling on the field that went to review. And that's what happened.
 
LeMoyneCuse said:
Look, I was as pissed as anyone else that Purdue got to keep the ball.

But I like to understand how things work and try to explain them if I can because things are usually more complicated than "the refs suck", especially given how complex the rule book is and how fast the sport moves.
Expand...
I appreciate what you're trying to do, but I think the head official actually did just suck on this one.
 
texascpa said:
8 of 25 QBs in the upper right hand quadrant are ACC QBs. We are as strong or stronger as a conference in QBs than we were last year, even though the national narrative is we aren't as strong.
Expand...
It's almost reflexive with the talking heads- like pulling teeth to say the ACC looks strong.
The B1G can look like horse manure against us, but what'll you'll hear about is Clemson/FSU maybe UM, but no real recognition of a strong middle tier in the league. It's tiresome.
 
LeMoyneCuse said:
Look, I was as pissed as anyone else that Purdue got to keep the ball.

But I like to understand how things work and try to explain them if I can because things are usually more complicated than "the refs suck", especially given how complex the rule book is and how fast the sport moves.
Expand...
Yep , I understand your ur just taking the mature approach, I still think they blew it and as everybody on this board knows , I am totally impartial !!!!
 
DoctorBombay said:
It's almost reflexive with the talking heads- like pulling teeth to say the ACC looks strong.
The B1G can look like horse manure against us, but what'll you'll hear about is Clemson/FSU maybe UM, but no real recognition of a strong middle tier in the league. It's tiresome.
Expand...
Is the middle tier of the ACC strong though? I'm not really seeing a juggernaut conference. I don't think any of the conferences look all that imposing really.

Weirdly enough despite all their turmoil, the Pac-12 might be the toughest.
 
OttoinGrotto said:
Agreed.

But he overruled the official right on top of the play that you could very clearly see was trying to discern possession, and he signaled us, then the head official signaled Purdue.

I don't actually think the head official ever saw Purdue have possession. But that was the call on the field, and there wasn't indisputable evidence to overturn. Had the call been Syracuse and it went to review, it would have stayed Syracuse's ball.

The only way that ends up being recovered by Purdue is if the Purdue ball was the ruling on the field that went to review. And that's what happened.
Expand...
Yup. You were wondering what he "saw" to make that call. The ONLY thing he could have seen, or believed that he saw, was possession for Purdue or the play being dead before the fumble. Once he overruled the call in favor of Purdue, the burden of "conclusive" video evidence came into play. And the HO was the arbitrator of that decision at both ends - the authority to overrule the initial call and the authority to determine that the evidence was inconclusive.

To be clear, I thought he blew the initial call.
 
stuckinbig11 said:
UNC is not that good
Expand...
Their D looks vastly improved Minnesota and South Carolina are pretty good programs to dominate. App St game is always close when they play them. No fall off from Maye.

They get a bye while we play Clemson the week before I don't think that works to our advantage at all. They might play down against Pitt next weekend but I can't see them losing. Gotta keep it close and hope Mac Brown does something stupid he seems to gift the opponent a couple close games every year without fail.
 
TheHaze315 said:
Absolutely. It’s always been a massive gripe of mine in all the fanbases of the teams I support. If you’re not completely and unequivocally positive about the team, you’re seen as negative. It’s almost as if you’re not allowed to mention where the team could be better or where they struggled, you have to stay quiet or just say how great everything is. Really weird mindset to have.
Expand...
Meh, it's what fans do... I'm guilty as charged myself sometimes.
It's mostly a matter of timing more than anything else. IMO, it's counterintuitive to gripe too much, minutes after a good road win vs a sold out B1G team... on national TV.
Can't blame folks for wanting to savor the feeling for a minute, before delving into all the various areas left for improvement. And doing so doesn't necessarily mean you didn't notice those areas either.
 
Last edited:
007 said:
Yup. You were wondering what he "saw" to make that call. The ONLY thing he could have seen, or believed that he saw, was possession for Purdue or the play being dead before the fumble. Once he overruled the call in favor of Purdue, the burden of "conclusive" video evidence came into play. And the HO was the arbitrator of that decision at both ends - the authority to overrule the initial call and the authority to determine that the evidence was inconclusive.

To be clear, I thought he blew the initial call.
Expand...
The only thing I think he saw might have been the leg cradle, and a Purdue guy dive at that. But there's just no way he actually saw a Purdue player with hands around the ball, because at no point did it appear that ever happened.
 
UpstateSM said:
I wanted him to score because Walters took a timeout for no reason. They had a chance to call the game and chose not to. And they had a very dirty tackle on Alford in the first half. The kid gator rolled him when he was already clearly down. You don't do that.

I'd have run it up.
Expand...
Yeah Alford was pretty lucky on that to walk away and surprised something wasn't called out during the game. It was the same guy who targeted GS on the one play and I am pretty sure hit helmets with GS on another play GS ran and slid. Definitely some bullshit happening on the field yesterday.
 
LeMoyneCuse said:
It's not who comes out of the pile with the ball. It's who is perceived to have the ball when the play is blown dead.
Expand...
I understand the rule. But what official saw something that indicated that Purdue had the ball.

The closest official calls it SU. The second official vibes running in from 25 yards away to overrule….based on what?

Officials blew the call. I get those who miss things….but when you making stuff up…
 
007 said:
The head official overruled the call and he could only do so if he thought Purdue had possession. It's the only way that he can make that call. Of course, he then reviewed his own call on replay.
Expand...
This^^^
He overruled the initial call, and there wasn't enough on replay to reverse. The issue isn't the outcome, imo- it's what did he think he saw to overrule the other guy, who was in a much better position. That's it in a nutshell.
 
SUskibum said:
We won by 15 on the road, at night to a good big ten team in our first P5 game of the year and thats your post?
Expand...
Context. Purdue will win 4-6 games, and we won by 2 scores despite getting 4 turnovers.
 
OrangeFoo said:
Context could have easily been 3 but Shrader did the classy thing. Also could have been more if weren’t for the refs and the PI non-call in the end zone and the BS interception call.

Woulda… shoulda… coulda….
Expand...
All correct.
 
UpstateSM said:
I wanted him to score because Walters took a timeout for no reason. They had a chance to call the game and chose not to. And they had a very dirty tackle on Alford in the first half. The kid gator rolled him when he was already clearly down. You don't do that.

I'd have run it up.
Expand...

And the TO was weird considering they played with no urgency when they were down 2 scores.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

E
Can't find the Virginia postgame presser video
Replies
9
Views
670
mark79
mark79
Consigliere
    • Like
Louisville Watch Party
Replies
7
Views
544
Eric15
Eric15

Forum statistics

Threads
167,694
Messages
4,721,253
Members
5,915
Latest member
vegasnick

Share this page

Online statistics

Members online
58
Guests online
1,797
Total visitors
1,855
Totals may include hidden visitors.


Top Bottom