Former head of pac-12 refs comments on Kevin Smith's catch.
No shit fuckhead. Who the fuck trained the current crop of idiots?
Comments
-
Agree. And what about that BS call on the clean hit during the kickoff return (or whatever return type it was)
-
Both of those calls were such homer calls. What bullshit. UW should lodge formal complaints to the conference, of course larry scott only cares about california schools so it'll be pointless.Your_Mom said:Agree. And what about that BS call on the clean hit during the kickoff return (or whatever return type it was)
-
The catch call was clear to me. But that kickoff return block call was the most pussified shit I had seen in a long time. But not to be outdone, Sark reclaims his perch with a nice end game cry.
-
All of this is true.greenblood said:The catch call was clear to me. But that kickoff return block call was the most pussified shit I had seen in a long time. But not to be outdone, Sark reclaims his perch with a nice end game cry.
The Pac-12 office confirmed the reversal today, because the ball hit the fucking ground.
-
The catch call the rule on reviews is it has to be conclusive.
Had they called it incomplete you guys would be correct. However, the call on the field was a completion. It wasn't conclusive evidence to over turn it.
Now did that cost UW the game? No it didn't. Would UW had won had they made that coach? Who really knows? It's not like the Huskies have Folk as their kicker so you still had a good 25 yards to go if not more to feel comfortable with the kick.
It is okay to say the call was wrong to overturn it AND point out that UW fucked themselves way before that call so it shouldn't have came down to that. -
For the 781st time, there is conclusive evidence of the football on the ground. That's conclusive evidence to overturn in this case.He_Needs_More_Time said:The catch call the rule on reviews is it has to be conclusive.
Had they called it incomplete you guys would be correct. However, the call on the field was a completion. It wasn't conclusive evidence to over turn it.
Now did that cost UW the game? No it didn't. Would UW had won had they made that coach? Who really knows? It's not like the Huskies have Folk as their kicker so you still had a good 25 yards to go if not more to feel comfortable with the kick.
It is okay to say the call was wrong to overturn it AND point out that UW fucked themselves way before that call so it shouldn't have came down to that.
-
More importantly if we complain about it online for another week or two they will overturn the game result, 2005seahawksFS
-
Reduce, reuse, recycle:
-
Bullshit. Your photo shows nothing, and frankly is awful. His left arm does not end at the elbow (as it seems to in your photo). And look at the right side of the football on the ground. That appears to be a glove underneath the ball. Third, the ball isn't even on the ground yet in your photo.TierbsHsotBoobs said:Reduce, reuse, recycle:
The referees on the ground had a much better vantage point than the idiots up in the booth who, at best, had this grainy photo to look at that proves nothing.
Lastly, I'll take the word of the former head of pac-12 referees over a guy that wants to say anything that "pleases" oregon fans. Just go to autzen and start sucking dicks for free. -
Passion said:
Bullshit. Your photo shows nothing, and frankly is awful. His left arm does not end at the elbow (as it seems to in your photo). And look at the right side of the football on the ground. That appears to be a glove underneath the ball. Third, the ball isn't even on the ground yet in your photo.TierbsHsotBoobs said:Reduce, reuse, recycle:
The referees on the ground had a much better vantage point than the idiots up in the booth who, at best, had this grainy photo to look at that proves nothing.
Lastly, I'll take the word of the former head of pac-12 referees over a guy that wants to say anything that "pleases" oregon fans. Just go to autzen and start sucking dicks for free.
-
If that picture shows nothing it is high time I pour gasoline over my head and light a match. It is amazing what people choose to see and not see. Part of the human condition.
The game didn't come to that play plenty of other factors. -
A lot of people, who are impartial, said there wasn't enough evidence to overturn the call.
Fuck ASJ for not catching it on 3rd down. Never should have gotten to 4th down. -
you know what everyone should forget about the call and moveon.org it. Doesn't matter.
-
Passion's dooging it up for reals today.Passion said:
Bullshit. Your photo shows nothing, and frankly is awful. His left arm does not end at the elbow (as it seems to in your photo). And look at the right side of the football on the ground. That appears to be a glove underneath the ball. Third, the ball isn't even on the ground yet in your photo.TierbsHsotBoobs said:Reduce, reuse, recycle:
The referees on the ground had a much better vantage point than the idiots up in the booth who, at best, had this grainy photo to look at that proves nothing.
Lastly, I'll take the word of the former head of pac-12 referees over a guy that wants to say anything that "pleases" oregon fans. Just go to autzen and start sucking dicks for free. -
Mental masturbation - games over and we lost
-
Passion, frankly not your best effort. You have brought a much higher level of discussion then this. We all have our days!
-
Exactly. Why would an impartial observor - who also had access to the video and still shots - say that the evidence was inconclusive?HeretoBeatmyChest said:A lot of people, who are impartial, said there wasn't enough evidence to overturn the call.
-
TierbsHsotBoobs said:
Reduce, reuse, recycle:
Too gummyTierbsHsotBoobs said:Reduce, reuse, recycle:
-
In that photo it looks like the foot of an ASU player could be underneath the ball.
-
For the 781st time, you fail to acknowledge the standard of review. The ruling was a catch, so unless you can indisputably prove 1. where his right hand was, and 2. that he did not have control of the ball as the ball touched the ground -- you have no ground to stand on. None. I know your schtick on here is to be the raging sexually frustrated negative nancy, but you come across stupid here dude. Sorry.TierbsHsotBoobs said:
For the 781st time, there is conclusive evidence of the football on the ground. That's conclusive evidence to overturn in this case.He_Needs_More_Time said:The catch call the rule on reviews is it has to be conclusive.
Had they called it incomplete you guys would be correct. However, the call on the field was a completion. It wasn't conclusive evidence to over turn it.
Now did that cost UW the game? No it didn't. Would UW had won had they made that coach? Who really knows? It's not like the Huskies have Folk as their kicker so you still had a good 25 yards to go if not more to feel comfortable with the kick.
It is okay to say the call was wrong to overturn it AND point out that UW fucked themselves way before that call so it shouldn't have came down to that. -
I'm with you, Passion. Clearly not enough to overturn it. A grainy shitty photo. IF his right hand was under the ball, that would be a catch. Since you can't tell from ANY angle, then there is not enough evidence to overturn. The fact they can not see the underside of the ball and where the hand position is PROVES there is not enough evidence to overturn because they DO NOT KNOW whether the hand was there or not. Given the ruling on the field was a catch, they must see evidence that it was not and the footage does not prove this.The video has to PROVE that the ball hit the ground without his hand underneath it. SIMPLE FACT.
-
That picture just before it hits the ground. Trust me, it gets there. I just don't have a picture THAT good of it.Passion said:
Bullshit. Your photo shows nothing, and frankly is awful. His left arm does not end at the elbow (as it seems to in your photo). And look at the right side of the football on the ground. That appears to be a glove underneath the ball. Third, the ball isn't even on the ground yet in your photo.TierbsHsotBoobs said:Reduce, reuse, recycle:
The referees on the ground had a much better vantage point than the idiots up in the booth who, at best, had this grainy photo to look at that proves nothing.
Lastly, I'll take the word of the former head of pac-12 referees over a guy that wants to say anything that "pleases" oregon fans. Just go to autzen and start sucking dicks for free.
Which former head of Pac-12 refs was it? Cutaia? He was the fucktard referee in charge on the field for the Oklahoma-Oregon fiasco. That guy is the former head of officiating for a reason. -
The side view angle shows the ball between his arms. You add up the two angles and you can clearly conclude that Smith did not have control of the ball before hitting the ground. When you go to the ground in the act of completing a catch, you MUST keep the ball off the ground.Gladstone said:
For the 781st time, you fail to acknowledge the standard of review. The ruling was a catch, so unless you can indisputably prove 1. where his right hand was, and 2. that he did not have control of the ball as the ball touched the ground -- you have no ground to stand on. None. I know your schtick on here is to be the raging sexually frustrated negative nancy, but you come across stupid here dude. Sorry.TierbsHsotBoobs said:
For the 781st time, there is conclusive evidence of the football on the ground. That's conclusive evidence to overturn in this case.He_Needs_More_Time said:The catch call the rule on reviews is it has to be conclusive.
Had they called it incomplete you guys would be correct. However, the call on the field was a completion. It wasn't conclusive evidence to over turn it.
Now did that cost UW the game? No it didn't. Would UW had won had they made that coach? Who really knows? It's not like the Huskies have Folk as their kicker so you still had a good 25 yards to go if not more to feel comfortable with the kick.
It is okay to say the call was wrong to overturn it AND point out that UW fucked themselves way before that call so it shouldn't have came down to that.
I know officiating a lot better than you ever will. At this risk of going full Fleenor, I worked at least half a dozen games and two Pac-12 scrimmages with the line judge from this game when I was a football official. He made the best call he could in real time. I certainly don't blame him for that call.
The replay system is there to ensure the right outcome. It worked correctly in this case, which the Pac-12 confirmed this afternoon.
I know it's fun to use officiating as an excuse when your team loses. Coogs like LanceUppercut have been doing it for a decade and Seattle fans are still bitter about Super Bowl XL. In this case, you idiots are just plain wrong. -
Those people don't know football officiating.HeretoBeatmyChest said:A lot of people, who are impartial, said there wasn't enough evidence to overturn the call.
Fuck ASJ for not catching it on 3rd down. Never should have gotten to 4th down.
You're right about ASJ by the way. -
And bingo was his. Name. Oh.Gladstone said:For the 781st time, you fail to acknowledge the standard of review. The ruling was a catch, so unless you can indisputably prove 1. where his right hand was, and 2. that he did not have control of the ball as the ball touched the ground -- you have no ground to stand on. None. I know your schtick on here is to be the raging sexually frustrated negative nancy, but you come across stupid here dude. Sorry.
-
I don't have to prove where his right hand was. He went to the ground without keeping the ball off the ground.TTJ said:
And bingo was his. Name. Oh.Gladstone said:For the 781st time, you fail to acknowledge the standard of review. The ruling was a catch, so unless you can indisputably prove 1. where his right hand was, and 2. that he did not have control of the ball as the ball touched the ground -- you have no ground to stand on. None. I know your schtick on here is to be the raging sexually frustrated negative nancy, but you come across stupid here dude. Sorry.
Rule 2-4-3-a:
a. To catch a ball means that a player:
1. Secures control of a live ball in flight with his hands or arms before
the ball touches the ground
The side view shows the ball is not secure and the rear view angle shows the ball touching the ground.
Fuck off. -
The picture fails to capture the emotion of the game at that particular moment in time.
-
Yep. When the emotion matters, throw the rulebook out.topdawgnc said:The picture fails to capture the emotion of the game at that particular moment in time.
It works great for the NBA.
-
Need to change your name to whoooshTierbsHsotBoobs said:
Yep. When the emotion matters, throw the rulebook out.topdawgnc said:The picture fails to capture the emotion of the game at that particular moment in time.
It works great for the NBA. -
I was adding on to your Sarkasm with my Sarkasm.topdawgnc said:
Need to change your name to whoooshTierbsHsotBoobs said:
Yep. When the emotion matters, throw the rulebook out.topdawgnc said:The picture fails to capture the emotion of the game at that particular moment in time.
It works great for the NBA.
Nothing is great about the NBA.
![[Deleted User]](https://wb.vanillicon.com/b14605887e2b6b59902271a0095c9265_100.png)
![[Deleted User]](https://w0.vanillicon.com/0207c5b8d9863e3a221f61582bd6bfa3_100.png)
