Jump to content

Things I Think I Saw: AU vs Arkansas State


JMR

Recommended Posts

I think you answered your own question, '72. Best five, and Golson and Leff don't run very well. FWIW, I thought all five improved from Clemson game to Arky State game. Just gotta keep improving.

Link to comment
Share on other sites





5 minutes ago, JMR said:

I think you answered your own question, '72. Best five, and Golson and Leff don't run very well. FWIW, I thought all five improved from Clemson game to Arky State game. Just gotta keep improving.

10-4 and thank you for your answer.  That would make sense then, for sure.  I have heard enough about Leff that that is not surprising but I didn't really think of Golson as not being able to handle Guard (especially since he handled center admirably enough).

With that said, yessir, game 2 from game 1 was marked improvement and I'm happy about that.  I suspect they'll REALLY grow up this week!

War Eagle!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, WarTiger said:

I absolutely agree.  From an officials standpoint the official responsible for the motion man is the one on the side of the field the player initially lines up.  He keeps that motion man until he either resets or the snap, and that's even if he motions all the way across the field.   The right official threw the flag, but it really wasn't even close to being illegal.   Your assessment of it is spot on.  He went in motion to the slot and stopped.  He wasn't set for a second, but he didn't have to be because it was a motion and not a shift.   The illegal motion simply wasn't there.   IMO, though, it does matter because it shouldn't have been thrown and a penalty like that can cost us a touchdown.

And cost Sean his 4th TD pass which likely made the non-White fans on the board happy.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, AUDevil said:

The officials have taken away 2 Kerryon touchdowns so far this year on bogus calls.

1. The ball moved slightly while going though the ground last week. That can be easily seen as a temporary loss of control.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, ellitor said:

1. The ball moved slightly while going though the ground last week. That can be easily seen as a temporary loss of control.

True, and that would have been fine, had they been trying to confirm a call of "incomplete pass", but since they needed indisputable evidence to overturn a call of "complete pass", a slight move of the ball is pretty sketchy.  As we all are painfully aware, refs make mistakes and even though the boys in the booth shouldn't, since they have video and time, they tend to make as many as most.  After all, the booth confirmed the debacle that was the Oklahoma State game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, lionheartkc said:

True, and that would have been fine, had they been trying to confirm a call of "incomplete pass", but since they needed indisputable evidence to overturn a call of "complete pass", a slight move of the ball is pretty sketchy.  As we all are painfully aware, refs make mistakes and even though the boys in the booth shouldn't, since they have video and time, they tend to make as many as most.  After all, the booth confirmed the debacle that was the Oklahoma State game.

Not to me. I see any wiggle from a ball as it's going through the ground as loss of control no matter how slight & an incomplete pass.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, ellitor said:

Not to me. I see any wiggle from a ball as it's going through the ground as loss of control no matter how slight & an incomplete pass.

Wow... you're a tough ref.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, ellitor said:

Not to me. I see any wiggle from a ball as it's going through the ground as loss of control no matter how slight & an incomplete pass.

 

2 minutes ago, lionheartkc said:

Wow... you're a tough ref.  

Not that it matters what I think but I have to side with ellitor on this.  

I haven't seen the replay since the game, but I believe that the replay shows that not only did the ball "wiggle" but it actually "twisted" as it sorta rolled on the ground a bit while he slid forward and then he picked it back up.  I think that was the damaging evidence and it was the correct call.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, AUsince72 said:

 

Not that it matters what I think but I have to side with ellitor on this.  

I haven't seen the replay since the game, but I believe that the replay shows that not only did the ball "wiggle" but it actually "twisted" as it sorta rolled on the ground a bit while he slid forward and then he picked it back up.  I think that was the damaging evidence and it was the correct call.

I'm going to disagree with you completely on that one.  The replay showed that it never left his arm.  They only argument would be whether he actually had control before he landed, as it appears he was gripping the ball more with his forearm than his hand at one point.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, lionheartkc said:

I'm going to disagree with you completely on that one.  The replay showed that it never left his arm.  They only argument would be whether he actually had control before he landed, as it appears he was gripping the ball more with his forearm than his hand at one point.

 

 

I agree that it never left his arm but the key to the call is the last thing you mentioned.  The last angle, from behind the goalpost, shows that his hand was not gripping the ball.  I think that had his hand been gripping the ball, even as the ball moved, they would not have overturned it.  However, when the ball shifts and you're only "holding" it with your forearm, it's reasonable to call that the ground assisting the catch.  It's ticky-tack to be sure, and I don't claim to be 100% correct...it's just my belief based on what my eyes see.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, lionheartkc said:

I'm going to disagree with you completely on that one.  The replay showed that it never left his arm.  They only argument would be whether he actually had control before he landed, as it appears he was gripping the ball more with his forearm than his hand at one point.

 

 

 

The angle where Musburger said uh oh is what I was talking about. I slow mo-ed it on my DVR and that's where it was clear to me there was enough movement in the ball to show a temporary loss of control. Also remember Lion he has to maintain complete control through landing & sliding on the grounb too.

Edited by ellitor
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, AUsince72 said:

I agree that it never left his arm but the key to the call is the last thing you mentioned.  The last angle, from behind the goalpost, shows that his hand was not gripping the ball.  I think that had his hand been gripping the ball, even as the ball moved, they would not have overturned it.  However, when the ball shifts and you're only "holding" it with your forearm, it's reasonable to call that the ground assisting the catch.  It's ticky-tack to be sure, and I don't claim to be 100% correct...it's just my belief based on what my eyes see.

While I get the "this is probably what they are hanging the decision on", I'm going to continue to side with Lashlee on this one... I guess I don't know what a catch is anymore........

If that is "indisputable evidence" than we might as well call every pass that touches the ground an incompletion, because I bet every single one of them shifts a little, too.  And the split second he had is pinned between his forearm and bicep sure doesn't seem like enough loss of control for an overturn... maybe a "stands" if the call had been incomplete, but not an overturn.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, lionheartkc said:

While I get the "this is probably what they are hanging the decision on", I'm going to continue to side with Lashlee on this one... I guess I don't know what a catch is anymore........

If that is "indisputable evidence" than we might as well call every pass that touches the ground an incompletion, because I bet every single one of them shifts a little, too.  And the split second he had is pinned between his forearm and bicep sure doesn't seem like enough loss of control for an overturn... maybe a "stands" if the call had been incomplete, but not an overturn.

It truly is funny how people can see the same things so differently.

Like I said, I don't claim to be absolutely right....but by "letter of the law" I feel they made the right call.  Otherwise, why have replay?

...and honestly, you ain't wrong about the "every pass that touches the ground" part... many of them COULD be called incomplete.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, lionheartkc said:

If that is "indisputable evidence" than we might as well call every pass that touches the ground an incompletion, because I bet every single one of them shifts a little, too.  And the split second he had is pinned between his forearm and bicep sure doesn't seem like enough loss of control for an overturn... maybe a "stands" if the call had been incomplete, but not an overturn.

There have been a number of catches where the ball hit the ground but did not move while in possession. The rule used to be it was incomplete if it hit the ground at all. Now it can hit the ground as long as 100% control of the possession is established before & maintained while hitting the ground. And since they felt there was enough evidence to overturn the catch, if it had been ruled incomplete they would have said  "confirmed" incomplete.

Edited by ellitor
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm loving these threads and excellent point on the lack of pass rush with the four DL's. I've been wondering about that. Yes, that's being overly critical so I'm not complaining, just an observation. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good insight regarding the OL. Definitely going to need those guys to ramp up the improvement trend on the eve of SEC play. The aTm DL surely will be a test. Key to the game is establishing the run early and staying ahead of the chains so we can dictate when we want to pass. Hopefully, the secondary really brings their lunch pails and hard hats with a tad more motivation this week in support of Dinson. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think we should have much fewer cameras and minimum camera angles available to the referees for ALL our home re-plays (UNLESS the call could go in our favor of course...)

So we need to have some kind of Jordan Hare electronic blocking / EMP scrambler device thingy and get some of our brilliant student engineers working on making that happen... it would be activated automatically when it looks like a call may go against us.  

We shall call it the Automatic Indisputablity Device....   or A.I.D. for short, and it will be in the north end zone opposite the Aubietron.

Bwaaa haaa haaaa haaaa....   (insert evil laugh)

and sorry I know this was a serious thread, and I enjoyed it immensely... please continue.

Edited by JGLEATON
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...