-
Follow us on Twitter @buckeyeplanet and @bp_recruiting, like us on Facebook! Enjoy a post or article, recommend it to others! BP is only as strong as its community, and we only promote by word of mouth, so share away!
- Thread starter Coleman Bazen
- Start date
Again, if you're saying targeting calls get fucked up, duh. So is your argument that they should've fucked this one up?
Upvote
0
lowbuck
mark it zero
Anyone got a clip of the roughing the kicker replay? When they showed the replay it looked like running into the kicker, like Olave pulled up and didn't made forceible contact with either leg and the kicker carried into Olave. Either way it was a bad call to go for a block in that situation so we fucked ourselves but the difference between a 1st down and 5 yard penalty would have been huge.
We fucked ourselves on a number of occasions that could have been the difference in this game but it still isn't any consolation to it appearing like all of breaks in the officiating were one sided.
The ironic thing is the one thing I can recall going our way with the officiating was when the booth stopped to review the pass to the 5 yard line and over turned it to a completion. But had they not stopped the play JK would have likely ran for a TD on the play they blew dead and instead we settled for a FG on the series.
If the rest of the game played out the same if the TD happens (who knows though) we are kicking a FG to win the game at the end instead of throwing for end zone.
Oh well, now just hoping Clemson comes home with a LSU cleat stuck in their ass.
We fucked ourselves on a number of occasions that could have been the difference in this game but it still isn't any consolation to it appearing like all of breaks in the officiating were one sided.
The ironic thing is the one thing I can recall going our way with the officiating was when the booth stopped to review the pass to the 5 yard line and over turned it to a completion. But had they not stopped the play JK would have likely ran for a TD on the play they blew dead and instead we settled for a FG on the series.
If the rest of the game played out the same if the TD happens (who knows though) we are kicking a FG to win the game at the end instead of throwing for end zone.
Oh well, now just hoping Clemson comes home with a LSU cleat stuck in their ass.
Upvote
0
dragurd
Head Coach
Every bounce seemed to go Clemson's way and we still could have won it in the end. Dabo had some Les miles sacrifice to demons luck to win that game. Dropped 2 TD's settled for fieldgoals. Ball hits clemson on last punt but bounces right to him. Another TD overturned. 15 pts left on the field. The punt block that turned into another 7. That's 22... etc etc
Upvote
0
billmac91
Head Coach
This encapsulates it for me. It’s a hard spot to put a 210 lb DB in...he’s coming on a slot blitz against a 6’6” QB who is considerably heavier, and the rules of the game have also taken his best option away, which is tackling low at his knees.
I’m ultimately just disappointed Shaun missed a majority of that game. I don’t think nationally, people understand how severe that call was to our chances. There’d be more focus/outrage if it was Chase Young....because he’s a star. Nationally, Wade isn’t a household name, and he’s just a slot CB....sucks you lost a DB and gave up a TD in the process, but move along. The average viewer doesn’t realize Wade’s availability has a more dramatic impact on our calls/gameplan than Young. Our defense was stout until his ejection and fell apart after.
It’s irritating me pretty badly. Not because I think they got the call wrong (by letter of the law I believe it was targeting but I also believe rule should be changed). It irritates me because you saw an OSU defense suffocating Clemson and physically dominating them.....until Wade is ejected. My irritation is in the congratulatory comments to Clemson about their “will” and “toughness”....pick any other defensive player on our team to eject, including Chase, and I think we continue to dominate. OSU was the better team. Because one of the most versatile (and somehow under the radar) DB’s we’ve ever had was ejected and changed how we could play, opened that game up for Clemson.
I’ve heard the commentary after the game about how “momentum changing” it was.....yeah, I agree. But fuck the momentum of the individual play....did you see what this defense was doing to them prior to the ejection and what happened the remainder of the game? OSU was a significantly better team. They lost because of a pretty shitty rule that almost everybody universally agrees sucks (that a targeting is immediate ejection). Clemson won because of targeting IMO, and I’ll never feel differently.
Upvote
0
MGMT
Legend
Thisnisnt direcred at anyone but I’m just thinking aloud:
I refuse to blame the refs — absolutely refuse. Dobbins had so much real estate in front of him had he caught that screen; he also couldn’t come down with a touchdown pass. Olave and Fields — has they had better chemistry maybe they don’t miscommunicate on the final INT.
Allowing that Lawrence TD run isn’t acceptable either. I guess I’m just hung up on so many other things. Hurts because it was right there and at times it literally slipped through our fingers.
I refuse to blame the refs — absolutely refuse. Dobbins had so much real estate in front of him had he caught that screen; he also couldn’t come down with a touchdown pass. Olave and Fields — has they had better chemistry maybe they don’t miscommunicate on the final INT.
Allowing that Lawrence TD run isn’t acceptable either. I guess I’m just hung up on so many other things. Hurts because it was right there and at times it literally slipped through our fingers.
Upvote
0
I’d like to hear the replay officials explanation for how the fumble scoop td was “indisputably “ not that.
Upvote
0
1926Buckeyes
Head Coach
Still with the targetting. JFC.
It comes down to "Hahaha, yes the rule is trash, but by the 'letter of the law' (oh wait, it's a complete judgement call) it was technically targetting because the crown, and the levels of their heads, and the lowering of their heads. See I'm right haha, are you crying yet? Hahaha!"
Except it wasn't called on the field. It wasn't even obvious what they were looking at on real-time replay when they showed it over and over. I actually thought they were trying to call something on Chase.
If as a ref you can't separate a DB trying to sack a 6'6 QB and making a tackle and guys purposely launching themselves at receivers or runners' heads, then you should quit or retire. Don't agree? Well too bad, cause it's my interpretation of the rule.
Just hope all the rule experts are right now going back and marking down the misses by the refs, because of they had replayed Brownings sack and used their same magical thinking, he's gone. Werner's gone too. And at least a few Clemson guys too. There was helmet crown contact on multiple tackles there. But they didn't arbitrarily replay those and arbitrarily decide to enforce a rule.
Because the ugly truth is, no, the ref didn't 'have to mess up the call' on purpose when watching replay. He could've used the same judgement used to buzz down to replay it and understood that any helmet to helmet contact during a tackle is not exactly the same and isn't all targetting. Because we're not 4th graders who have zero understanding of nuances and can tell that there are shades of grey on every review or play.
All I want now is every single defensive play replayed and reviewed. 9 hour games, at least 10 expulsions on each side per game. And then we'll still have people defending it because, hey, it's the rule and as thinking humans we're just powerless to interpret, judge, or change anything. Except literally everything that led to them making the initial call or reviewing it in the first place.
It comes down to "Hahaha, yes the rule is trash, but by the 'letter of the law' (oh wait, it's a complete judgement call) it was technically targetting because the crown, and the levels of their heads, and the lowering of their heads. See I'm right haha, are you crying yet? Hahaha!"
Except it wasn't called on the field. It wasn't even obvious what they were looking at on real-time replay when they showed it over and over. I actually thought they were trying to call something on Chase.
If as a ref you can't separate a DB trying to sack a 6'6 QB and making a tackle and guys purposely launching themselves at receivers or runners' heads, then you should quit or retire. Don't agree? Well too bad, cause it's my interpretation of the rule.
Just hope all the rule experts are right now going back and marking down the misses by the refs, because of they had replayed Brownings sack and used their same magical thinking, he's gone. Werner's gone too. And at least a few Clemson guys too. There was helmet crown contact on multiple tackles there. But they didn't arbitrarily replay those and arbitrarily decide to enforce a rule.
Because the ugly truth is, no, the ref didn't 'have to mess up the call' on purpose when watching replay. He could've used the same judgement used to buzz down to replay it and understood that any helmet to helmet contact during a tackle is not exactly the same and isn't all targetting. Because we're not 4th graders who have zero understanding of nuances and can tell that there are shades of grey on every review or play.
All I want now is every single defensive play replayed and reviewed. 9 hour games, at least 10 expulsions on each side per game. And then we'll still have people defending it because, hey, it's the rule and as thinking humans we're just powerless to interpret, judge, or change anything. Except literally everything that led to them making the initial call or reviewing it in the first place.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Yea but they are just protecting players from brain injuries!!!! By always ejecting the defensive player.....even if the offensive player decides to dip his head creating the helmet to helmet contact at the last second.
Upvote
0