Terry McAuley on CNY Central

[anglerman]

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.

Yes it was a judgement call and it was a wrong one so your point is moot. Just admit the ref made a mistake and it cost Syracuse.

 

[SUMBA]

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 job Niko, thanks for posting. I can sympathize with the inability of the reply official to overturn the calls on the field. However, I think the explanation on the first fumble is total BS. That being said, the calls on the field were egregious and changed the entire game. I also don't believe that there is no bias against us. I am not saying there is a concerted effort to cost us games but human nature is such that there is almost certainly a bias.

 

[CusefanATL]

There was NO whistle on the first fumble. The announcers had the same question, cued up their replay for the viewers, and remarked there was never a whistle. Then they said it should SU ball.

clear as day
the sky is blue
death and taxes
les miles trick plays

that call was the worst of all time. no one can change my mind. there simply is no need to try to make excuses for that call. The big east needs to apologize, admit that they want syracuse to suffer and we can all move on happy.

 

[alphaorange]

I hated both calls but the 2nd call was correct, in retrospect. Yes, it was a fumble. Yes, it went in the end zone. At that point it is still simply a live ball in the field of play. The play will end when the ball goes out of the field of play, or is recovered. If it goes out of bounds in the end zone, it is a touch back. If it is recovered in the end zone, it is either a TD or a touch back. If it goes into the end zone and then back onto the field of play, it is still a live ball. It could have landed in the middle of the end zone, bounced back onto the field and then out of bounds and it still would be out of bounds to the team that last possessed it. It clearly hit the line, then bounced back behind the pylon and out of bounds...correct call. The ONLY thing that can be disputed is if it hit the pylon on the way out. If it did, touch back, SU ball at the 25.

 

[OrangePA]

It was Eskridge, but still. That was a bogus call. Lead with his shoulder, hit the receiver in the shoulder, but decked him. Crazy call. Can't hit anymore apparently.

I figured it was because he launched.

 

[qdawgg]

Based on what that guy said, there would rarely never be a fumble.

Fixed

 

[Blaster]

I figured it was because he launched.

i didnt like the call but him leaving his feet i think makes it a penalty so i am somewhat ok with it

 

[PoppyHart]

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

The announcers did not know the rules on at least 3 plays

1. 1st Quarter fumble: If it's NOT ruled a fumble on the field, then you need visual proof of the person picking up the ball in the pile. If it is ruled a fumble on the field, you don't need that proof. They did not know this. (This was the least severe of their sins, as you could argue that the SU player dove right in and picked up the ball. But nevertheless, they did not know the actual rule.)
2. Targeting play: They insisted that you had to lead with the head, and seemed to think leaving your feet was necessary. Neither is a requirement.
3. Goalline play: They insisted that hitting the goalline was sufficient to make it a touchback. It's not. It's where it goes out of bounds. It could have gone 5 yards into the end zone and spun back like tiger woods wedge and still not have been a touchback.

The announcers botched all three of the rules and exacerbated the bitching. If it makes you feel better to be on the wrong side with the refs, fine. But strength in numbers is a mirage of you're actually incorrect.

 

[PoppyHart]

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.

The issue was about the recovery, not whether he lost possession before going down.

 

[Capt. Tuttle]

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

and the Stabler rule is NFL. I think it is related to game time, not downs.

Sent from my Vortex using Tapatalk 2

 

[storange]

The issue was about the recovery, not whether he lost possession before going down.

On point 1 then i have to ask how three or four officials couldn't see the player dive on the ball they were all within 10 ft and it was clear it had popped out of the pile , it was a bizarre call ....there were many

 

[upperdeck]

there are many examples of fumbles being called on review where you cant clearly see on camera who recovered but the refs can tell who had the ball and when the the fumble call is reversed they give it to the team.
why does a fumble review have a different fumble recovery rule

in any case the replay shows an immediate recover by Su so the ref screwed it up.

 

[TheCusian]

I know I'll probably get derided for conspiracy theories, but this game was just one more in a series of "weighted" games against us.

Last years BBall game at Providence and the NCAA game vs. Ohio State come to mind. I wouldn't be shocked to see more if this in the next game. Too much at stake for the new craptastic BE.