Refs

[OrangeDW]

Wait wait…we won a game on TAUNTING CALLS and NOW the game is stupid? Of course it’s stupid. That’s built in

A head butt during dead ball time is fair grounds. Hell, it’s basically targeting, no?

 

[CuseFaninVT]

Anyone see the touchdown gifted to Purdue vs Wisconsin tonight? Not sure how that one could possibly been upheld, but the ref said there wasn’t enough evidence to overturn. Ridiculous.

 

[samspann1]

Anyone see the touchdown gifted to Purdue vs Wisconsin tonight? Not sure how that one could possibly been upheld, but the ref said there wasn’t enough evidence to overturn. Ridiculous.

I don't know the play you're referring to, but the team that was scored on should have done something differently to prevent being hosed by the refs.

 

[djcon57]

I don't know the play you're referring to, but the team that was scored on should have done something differently to prevent being hosed by the refs.

Wisconsin still won.

 

[Scooch]

And that’s another thing….so what if our guy jumped the gun on harmlessly shoving him out of bounds instead of walking on eggshells and “shadowing him” and giving him 10 free yards?? It’s such a stupid way to run a game….all kinds of violence on every play, but gently shove a guy out of bounds to make sure he doesn’t sneak up the sideline for a big play, and it’s a game changer??! Huh? For what?

Thought the point of the rule was to prevent cheap shots? This was not a cheap shot. If the guy isn’t clearly out of bounds, then refs….don’t be stupid and let football be football.

It’s the rule. We can hate it, but it’s the rule.

 

[RF2044]

It’s the rule. We can hate it, but it’s the rule.

Then the rule should have been applied equally to both teams, when our quarterback got hit out of bounds after a throw.

In terms of rule interpretation, I actually think it's worse when a guy makes a throw and then gets hit out of bounds, then when someone barely touches someone who's running out of bounds.

 

[Scooch]

Was the push in the back legal?

I have no idea.

 

[OrangeDW]

It’s the rule. We can hate it, but it’s the rule.

Not really. You can push a guy that’s in bounds, out of bounds.

 

[CuseFaninVT]

Wisconsin still won.

Yup, that play did not have an impact on the outcome at all.

 

[Scooch]

Then the rule should have been applied equally to bull teams, when our quarterback got hit out of bounds after a throw.

In terms of rule interpretation, I actually think it's worse when a guy makes a throw and then gets hit out of bounds, then when someone barely touches someone who's running out of bounds.

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

 

[RF2044]

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

Well then, there we are.

The obvious rule that you're clamoring for was applied to the home team, but not to the visiting team on a more blatant violation. Agreed?

 

[Scooch]

Not really. You can push a guy that’s in bounds, out of bounds.

No that’s not the rule. The rule is that if a QB is determined to be giving himself up as he runs to the sideline you can’t hit him.

You disagree that he was giving himself up. That’s fine.

 

[RF2044]

No that’s not the rule. The rule is that if a QB is determined to be giving himself up as he runs to the sideline you can’t hit him.

You disagree that he was giving himself up. That’s fine.

Remember Florida State last year?

 

[Scooch]

Well then, there we are.

The obvious rule that you're clamoring for was applied to the home team, but not to the visiting team on a more blatant violation. Agreed?

I get that some people are mad. I just don’t think the refs are the primary reason we lost. You disagree.

 

[Scooch]

Remember Florida State last year?

Geez man, yes, there are bad calls that have hosed us. What prize are you trying to win here?

 

[OrangeDW]

No that’s not the rule. The rule is that if a QB is determined to be giving himself up as he runs to the sideline you can’t hit him.

You disagree that he was giving himself up. That’s fine.

I don’t see how he was giving himself up? He was running down the sideline. If nobody pushed him out, who knows? He might’ve been able to tight rope it?

 

[RF2044]

I get that some people are mad. I just don’t think the refs are the primary reason we lost. You disagree.

That's straw man BS. "Primary" lol.
I think we had a million chances, and didn't capitalize. But I also think bad calls greatly benefited Clemson, and gifted them points.

 

[Scooch]

I don’t see how he was giving himself up? He was running down the sideline. If nobody pushed him out, who knows? He might’ve been able to tight rope it?

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.

 

[OrangeDW]

That's straw man BS. "Primary" lol.
I think we had a million chances, and didn't capitalize. But I also think bad calls greatly benefited Clemson, and gifted them points.

They were absolutely dead in the water on offense until that play. That’s why it was 3rd and 25. That’s why the quarter was almost over and they hadn’t scored.

We might’ve won 21-10 without it. Who knows?

 

[Scooch]

That's straw man BS. "Primary" lol.
I think we had a million chances, and didn't capitalize. But I also think bad calls greatly benefited Clemson, and gifted them points.

Didn’t you say in a thread tonight that the calls were the main reason why we lost? I could’ve sworn you did. If not my bad.

 

[RF2044]

Geez man, yes, there are bad calls that have hosed us. What prize are you trying to win here?

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.

 

[HRE Otto IV]

It’s the rule. We can hate it, but it’s the rule.

The intent of the rule is to prevent cheap shots and protect the player. That was a bang bang play today. We need to know the down and distance and not leave it in the hands of the refs because they get it wrong more often than not. And if that were a RB no way they throw the flag.

 

[Scooch]

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.

Full of ? Take it easy.

 

[RF2044]

Didn’t you say in a thread tonight that the calls were the main reason why we lost? I could’ve sworn you did.

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.

 

[tino]

Can’t call that false start on Vett on the head bob. All he did was lift his head, then look down. No one on the Clemson D even moved. But the flag came out. Then the very next play, the Clemson D actually lined up in the neutral zone. No flag.

L

Whether or not there are bad calls isn’t something I disagree with though (in that environment I’d be surprised if the refs weren’t one sided tbh) but if the point is that one call “changed the game” that’s either BS or speaks to a terminal case of the football team being softer than wet toilet paper.

2 bad calls the hit out of bounds by syr and the no call on the hit out of bounds by clemson...without those terrible calls. We win