KSUFans Archives

Sports => Snyder's Electronic Cyber Space World => Topic started by: The Kaiser on November 22, 2009, 09:39:07 AM

Title: what was the deal with the officiating?
Post by: The Kaiser on November 22, 2009, 09:39:07 AM
ESPN, the Cap Journal and Wichita Eagle all made remarks on how it was spotty favoring Nebraska.  I was listening to Greg Sharpe fake it and of course that whiney b*tch Matt Davison was slanting his remarks in his best Bob Davis impersonation.  Any insight appreciated.
Title: Re: what was the deal with the officiating?
Post by: dccat on November 22, 2009, 09:50:57 AM
I would agree that most of the calls were against us and some of them were questionable.  One of the holding calls was complete bullcrap, but after watching replays I realized we got away with a lot of holding.  The fact is, the refs didnt lose it for us.  Our team lost it.
Title: it is extremely
Post by: The Kaiser on November 22, 2009, 09:56:26 AM
unusual for a national pub to talk about penalties that way, hence why I asked. 

We were playing with house money.
Title: Re: what was the deal with the officiating?
Post by: dccat on November 22, 2009, 10:03:23 AM
i'm looking around trying to find articles talking about penalties right now.  THey usually dont talk about them because its pretty much in the network contracts that they dont criticize the ncaa.  The NFL is worse.  They hire commentators who are former coaches and players thinking they can provide insight, but they don't let them talk about anything that goes on behind the scenes because they know it would show situations along the lines of any given sunday.
Title: Re: what was the deal with the officiating?
Post by: 85catbacker on November 22, 2009, 11:28:52 AM
ESPN, the Cap Journal and Wichita Eagle all made remarks on how it was spotty favoring Nebraska.

And why shouldn't they.  Lets see:
2 phantom holding calls
Phantom PI call on Josh Moore (arm was around receiver but did not affect, impede, or alter WR route)
2 questionable roughing the passer on hard hits.  Foot had not even touched out of bounds before hit, and only one step after ball was released on the other. Apparently in FB now if you hit the QB hard it is a personal foul.
2 missed horse collar tackles on NU
Handslap by Suh to the head of Gregory that was not called.

Officiating didn't keep KSU out of the endzone or cause the missed FGs but it was definately some home cooking for NU. 
Title: Re: what was the deal with the officiating?
Post by: prplcat on November 22, 2009, 11:38:51 AM
I'll tell you what calls I thought were bullcrap, and if I am wrong please correct me, because I didn't get a good look at it, but how can your punter hobble off the field and the ref not call roughing the punter?  Also I thought the pass interference call was stupid, because he didn't hardly touch the guy.  If I remember right that sustained a drive that ended up in a score for them. 
Title: Re: what was the deal with the officiating?
Post by: Legore on November 22, 2009, 11:47:08 AM
I hardly ever complain about refs but it was bad in the first half.  Every drive we had pretty much ended because of a penalty that was a bad or marginal call.   The penalties almost got us blown out of the game early.  Wouldn't say it cost us the game because we survived it only being down 10-3.  Not sure it even changed the halftime score the big sack by Fitzgerald followed by the Hartman interception kind of bailed us out. 

The second half I thought the refs were fine they started lettting us play.   They did miss an obvious horse collar but I don't complain about that too much because I think it's a stupid rule anyway and it wasn't a dangerous play.  The late hit on the QB was marginal I probably wouldn't have called it but in these days of pussified football a lot of refs would call that one.   
Title: Re: what was the deal with the officiating?
Post by: EllToPay on November 22, 2009, 12:01:58 PM
ESPN, the Cap Journal and Wichita Eagle all made remarks on how it was spotty favoring Nebraska.

And why shouldn't they.  Lets see:
2 phantom holding calls
Phantom PI call on Josh Moore (arm was around receiver but did not affect, impede, or alter WR route)
2 questionable roughing the passer on hard hits.  Foot had not even touched out of bounds before hit, and only one step after ball was released on the other. Apparently in FB now if you hit the QB hard it is a personal foul.
2 missed horse collar tackles on NU
Handslap by Suh to the head of Gregory that was not called.

Officiating didn't keep KSU out of the endzone or cause the missed FGs but it was definately some home cooking for NU. 

dude, he bumped him before the ball got there. blatant PI.
Title: Re: what was the deal with the officiating?
Post by: WillieWannabe on November 22, 2009, 12:04:06 PM
I'll tell you what calls I thought were bullcrap, and if I am wrong please correct me, because I didn't get a good look at it, but how can your punter hobble off the field and the ref not call roughing the punter?  Also I thought the pass interference call was stupid, because he didn't hardly touch the guy.  If I remember right that sustained a drive that ended up in a score for them. 

he didn't get hit in the plant foot. Otherwise it woulda been 15 yards.
Title: Re: what was the deal with the officiating?
Post by: thehusker1 on November 22, 2009, 12:17:51 PM
ESPN, the Cap Journal and Wichita Eagle all made remarks on how it was spotty favoring Nebraska.

And why shouldn't they.  Lets see:
2 phantom holding calls
Phantom PI call on Josh Moore (arm was around receiver but did not affect, impede, or alter WR route)
2 questionable roughing the passer on hard hits.  Foot had not even touched out of bounds before hit, and only one step after ball was released on the other. Apparently in FB now if you hit the QB hard it is a personal foul.
2 missed horse collar tackles on NU
Handslap by Suh to the head of Gregory that was not called.

Officiating didn't keep KSU out of the endzone or cause the missed FGs but it was definately some home cooking for NU. 
Learn football before you comment, you can swat the ball all you want, but the hand cannot be on the receiver, it doesnt matter if it impedes the receiver's progress or not.
Title: Re: what was the deal with the officiating?
Post by: CatsNChiefs on November 22, 2009, 12:25:05 PM
ESPN, the Cap Journal and Wichita Eagle all made remarks on how it was spotty favoring Nebraska.

And why shouldn't they.  Lets see:
2 phantom holding calls
Phantom PI call on Josh Moore (arm was around receiver but did not affect, impede, or alter WR route)
2 questionable roughing the passer on hard hits.  Foot had not even touched out of bounds before hit, and only one step after ball was released on the other. Apparently in FB now if you hit the QB hard it is a personal foul.
2 missed horse collar tackles on NU
Handslap by Suh to the head of Gregory that was not called.

Officiating didn't keep KSU out of the endzone or cause the missed FGs but it was definately some home cooking for NU. 
Learn football before you comment, you can swat the ball all you want, but the hand cannot be on the receiver, it doesnt matter if it impedes the receiver's progress or not.

Wrong, apparently you've never heard of hand fighting.  And his right hand barely even touched him.  Learn football before you comment.
Title: Re: what was the deal with the officiating?
Post by: Gimmered on November 22, 2009, 12:31:37 PM
Maybe this will help you understand the Horse collar rule.

Rogers Redding, NCAA football secretary-rules editor and coordinator of football officials for the Southeastern Conference, said the horse-collar ban may result in fewer back injuries.

"What we're hearing from trainers and physicians is we're getting some back injuries when the ball carrier is immediately snapped to the ground by being jerked quickly," he said. "If the ball carrier is grabbed by the shoulder or jersey and just ridden to the ground over a couple of yards, that's not going to be a foul."


It was taken from here.

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=3544920
Title: Re: what was the deal with the officiating?
Post by: CatsNChiefs on November 22, 2009, 12:36:33 PM
Maybe this will help you understand the Horse collar rule.

Rogers Redding, NCAA football secretary-rules editor and coordinator of football officials for the Southeastern Conference, said the horse-collar ban may result in fewer back injuries.

"What we're hearing from trainers and physicians is we're getting some back injuries when the ball carrier is immediately snapped to the ground by being jerked quickly," he said. "If the ball carrier is grabbed by the shoulder or jersey and just ridden to the ground over a couple of yards, that's not going to be a foul."


It was taken from here.

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=3544920


He threw him down backwards by the pads retard.
Title: Re: what was the deal with the officiating?
Post by: Gimmered on November 22, 2009, 01:34:28 PM
Maybe this will help you understand the Horse collar rule.

Rogers Redding, NCAA football secretary-rules editor and coordinator of football officials for the Southeastern Conference, said the horse-collar ban may result in fewer back injuries.

"What we're hearing from trainers and physicians is we're getting some back injuries when the ball carrier is immediately snapped to the ground by being jerked quickly," he said. "If the ball carrier is grabbed by the shoulder or jersey and just ridden to the ground over a couple of yards, that's not going to be a foul."


It was taken from here.

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=3544920


He threw him down backwards by the pads retard.


Ummm no he didn't. Henery clocked him. Good god you are dumber then toast.
Title: Re: what was the deal with the officiating?
Post by: Maccat on November 22, 2009, 02:06:28 PM
Maybe this will help you understand the Horse collar rule.

Rogers Redding, NCAA football secretary-rules editor and coordinator of football officials for the Southeastern Conference, said the horse-collar ban may result in fewer back injuries.

"What we're hearing from trainers and physicians is we're getting some back injuries when the ball carrier is immediately snapped to the ground by being jerked quickly," he said. "If the ball carrier is grabbed by the shoulder or jersey and just ridden to the ground over a couple of yards, that's not going to be a foul."


It was taken from here.

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=3544920


He threw him down backwards by the pads retard.


Ummm no he didn't. Henery clocked him. Good god you are dumber then toast.

We will stop whining about the horse collar calls when Neb. fan stop whining about Crouch's face mask call back in '98 (which will never happen)
Title: Re: what was the deal with the officiating?
Post by: Gimmered on November 22, 2009, 02:10:02 PM
Maybe this will help you understand the Horse collar rule.

Rogers Redding, NCAA football secretary-rules editor and coordinator of football officials for the Southeastern Conference, said the horse-collar ban may result in fewer back injuries.

"What we're hearing from trainers and physicians is we're getting some back injuries when the ball carrier is immediately snapped to the ground by being jerked quickly," he said. "If the ball carrier is grabbed by the shoulder or jersey and just ridden to the ground over a couple of yards, that's not going to be a foul."


It was taken from here.

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=3544920


He threw him down backwards by the pads retard.


Ummm no he didn't. Henery clocked him. Good god you are dumber then toast.

We will stop whining about the horse collar calls when Neb. fan stop whining about Crouch's face mask call back in '98 (which will never happen)


No problem. The only difference is the face mask should have been called.
Title: Re: what was the deal with the officiating?
Post by: CatsNChiefs on November 22, 2009, 02:16:16 PM
Maybe this will help you understand the Horse collar rule.

Rogers Redding, NCAA football secretary-rules editor and coordinator of football officials for the Southeastern Conference, said the horse-collar ban may result in fewer back injuries.

"What we're hearing from trainers and physicians is we're getting some back injuries when the ball carrier is immediately snapped to the ground by being jerked quickly," he said. "If the ball carrier is grabbed by the shoulder or jersey and just ridden to the ground over a couple of yards, that's not going to be a foul."


It was taken from here.

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=3544920


He threw him down backwards by the pads retard.


Ummm no he didn't. Henery clocked him. Good god you are dumber then toast.

Toast?  Argue all you want, it's on video record, backwards is relative to the player, not field orientation cornhole.
Title: Re: what was the deal with the officiating?
Post by: Gimmered on November 22, 2009, 03:02:37 PM
Maybe this will help you understand the Horse collar rule.

Rogers Redding, NCAA football secretary-rules editor and coordinator of football officials for the Southeastern Conference, said the horse-collar ban may result in fewer back injuries.

"What we're hearing from trainers and physicians is we're getting some back injuries when the ball carrier is immediately snapped to the ground by being jerked quickly," he said. "If the ball carrier is grabbed by the shoulder or jersey and just ridden to the ground over a couple of yards, that's not going to be a foul."


It was taken from here.

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=3544920


He threw him down backwards by the pads retard.


Ummm no he didn't. Henery clocked him. Good god you are dumber then toast.

Toast?  Argue all you want, it's on video record, backwards is relative to the player, not field orientation cornhole.


Post the video and lets take a look.