Terry McAuley on CNY Central

[RICuse44]

He didn't hit him in the head.

It was a good play, unless we have decided to play flag football. Keon was merely trying to separate the receiver from he ball. He actually had a pretty good game.

 

[PoppyHart]

He didn't hit him in the head.

You are likely right. But they can't review whether the hit was to the head, and it was clearly a judgment call. But it definately does not have to be helmet to helmet.

 

[PoppyHart]

You love being devil's advocate tonight. That was not a hit to the head

I just hate bitching about the refs. It ruins sports for me.

My 2nd favorite team, Chelsea, got two extremely controversial calls against them against Man U last week, and I'm not crying about it. You have to expect that judgment call are going to go the wrong the way.

 

[Rocco]

I just hate bitching about the refs. It ruins sports for me.

Well they ruined the game today!!!!

 

[PoppyHart]

Well they ruined the game today!!!!

If we win and the refs suck, it's tainted. If we lose and the refs suck, it's corrupt or ruined.

So I prefer to ignore them.

 

[Rocco]

If we win and the refs suck, it's tainted. If we lose and the refs suck, it's corrupt or ruined.

So I prefer to ignore them.

Pretty safe to say they are out against SU regardless of the actual outcome of the game. That is the problem.

 

[CNYCentralCuse]

Give it some time to load--it's still in the process but here's the link to the full interview with McAuley, should be up in roughly a half hour:

http://www.cnycentral.com/sports/story.aspx?id=821186

Would've gotten it posted sooner, but a crazy day between SU and the Section III championships!

 

[Orijinal]

Dudes, the "targeting" call came after a Cinci first down. Not a difference maker.

 

[Orangello]

This is actually really easy. Never ever ever ever schedule another game with this joke of a conference. Done.

 

[Rocco]

Dudes, the "targeting" call came after a Cinci first down. Not a difference maker.

Yeah, the 15 yards tacked on don't matter either I guess.

 

[PeteCalvin]

You are likely right. But they can't review whether the hit was to the head, and it was clearly a judgment call. But it definately does not have to be helmet to helmet.

It wasn't to the head. It was shoulder to chest. Even the announcer said it was the wrong call. There is no other way to make that hit.

 

[Orangello]

If he had hit that kid in the head he would have been carted off of that field. No way.

 

[PoppyHart]

It wasn't to the head. It was shoulder to chest. Even the announcer said it was the wrong call. There is no other way to make that hit.

It likely wasn't to the head, but I certainly wouldn't use the judgment of the announcers as confirmation. They were clueless on the rules all game long and only served to fuel the fire.

 

[upperdeck]

really if we had the head Ref on that was a time to also ask what happened on the review of the rutgers blown call as well..

explain to me how the head of officials is not watching games on game day but traveling? shouldnt that be his day to be working? the replay clearly shows SU getting the ball within 3-4 seconds of diving on it.. how much clearer can it get.. and they never blew the whistle so the ball was live on the recovery which is how it always happens.

 

[Cuseregular]

Give it some time to load--it's still in the process but here's the link to the full interview with McAuley, should be up in roughly a half hour:

http://www.cnycentral.com/sports/story.aspx?id=821186

Would've gotten it posted sooner, but a crazy day between SU and the Section III championships!

thanks Niko, you handled a delicate situation really well. That said the guy is full of BS at least certainly with the first one. Needed video evidence of the ball coming out...check. Needed video evidence of it being recovered...check and seen easily on the angle from behind when he rolls over.

The other one confuses me. No touchback and the offenses ball because the ball came back in the field of play? Umm I don't think it did as it never hit inbounds after hitting the goal line. I thought in reading the rules that makes it a touchback. And then he says that if the ball is fumbled in the endzone the offense could fumble it forward and still get a TD. Thought that was illegal now too.

Regardless that guys sounded suspect at best. Thanks for letting us in on that though

 

[rrlbees]

If we win and the refs suck, it's tainted. If we lose and the refs suck, it's corrupt or ruined.

So I prefer to ignore them.

I usually ignore them too. Unless it is criminal. Today was criminal.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2

 

[PoppyHart]

thanks Niko, you handled a delicate situation really well. That said the guy is full of BS at least certainly with the first one. Needed video evidence of the ball coming out...check. Needed video evidence of it being recovered...check and seen easily on the angle from behind when he rolls over.

The other one confuses me. No touchback and the offenses ball because the ball came back in the field of play? Umm I don't think it did as it never hit inbounds after hitting the goal line. I thought in reading the rules that makes it a touchback. And then he says that if the ball is fumbled in the endzone the offense could fumble it forward and still get a TD. Thought that was illegal now too.

Regardless that guys sounded suspect at best. Thanks for letting us in on that though

I think the Stabler rule only prevents fumbling forward on 4th down.

 

[CNYCentralCuse]

It was delicate, I can't come off as the biased "homer" reporter...while also making sure the questions that need to be answered were asked.

I do agree, I was perplexed beyond ability to respond almost when I said...(paraphrasing) the fumble was kind of behind the play, and only the Syracuse player was nearby and he answered...at that point...that he didn't really see it.

 

[upperdeck]

one other part about the fumble.. there was video evidence it crossed the goal line.. there was evidence it was fumble , can anyone show evidence that it was completely out of the endzone when it went out of bounds? they only ruled it didnt hit the pilon. there was not any angle that showed it got completely out of the endzone when it went out of bounds . you can assume it did because it missed the goal line.. but he just said you cant assume the fumble recovery..

 

[upperdeck]

It was delicate, I can't come off as the biased "homer" reporter...while also making sure the questions that need to be answered were asked.

I do agree, I was perplexed beyond ability to respond almost when I said...(paraphrasing) the fumble was kind of behind the play, and only the Syracuse player was nearby and he answered...at that point...that he didn't really see it.

great that you actually got him to return the call.. but you really need to get him back on again after they actually grade the film.. ask him why he isnt watching the games on game day if his job is to be the head official. and ask him about the rutgers call as well.

 

[TheCusian]

I think they call the BE commish when reviewing our calls.

"How bout this one?"
"Yep."
"Are you sure? It's pretty obvious?!"
"We can't let them get anywhere near our precious automatic bid. We only have 2 more if these. Inflating our old Conference USA teams is the only chance we have at being relevant at all."
"Yes sir."

 

[orangepassion]

Thanks for calling him, Niko

 

[orangepassion]

Based on what that guy said, there would rarely ever be a fumble.

 

[anglerman]

If we win and the refs suck, it's tainted. If we lose and the refs suck, it's corrupt or ruined.

So I prefer to ignore them.

Hey look man the fumble call in the first half was beyond incompetent. There was some definite bias in that call. There's simply no way it wasn't a fumble. It was a very simple black and white call. The second fumble was a judgement call that could have gone either way. This referee made bias calls in both situations. So it's just fine to bitch about the refs. They do effect the outcome of a game. This time they were just awful.

 

[anglerman]

It likely wasn't to the head, but I certainly wouldn't use the judgment of the announcers as confirmation. They were clueless on the rules all game long and only served to fuel the fire.

No I think you're the only one that's clueless.