Not gonna go into the overall performance of that crew yesterday. But I do have 2 questions:

1) the unsportsmanlike conduct hit on Roberts wasn't that far away from me. It was helmet-to-helmet on a defenseless player. In many respects it was very similar to the hit Powell made last week against the EMU player--big difference being Powell was ejected for targeting. So...why was our guy ejected for targeting & the BG player wasn't?

2) late in the game we punted and--I thought--successfully pinned BG on their 1 yard line. It was called a touchback. After review, the official said our player did toss the ball back into the field of play but didn't possess it until he was in the end one. Ummm, no. It was 2 different players. And the second guy clearly covered the ball in the field of play. Now, I will admit that on the replay it was difficult to tell if our first player was touching the ball to throw it back onto the field while part of his body was down in the end one, but wouldn't that have been a completely different explanation from the official?

(10-16-2016 09:44 AM)bcunn3128 Wrote:  Not gonna go into the overall performance of that crew yesterday. But I do have 2 questions:

1) the unsportsmanlike conduct hit on Roberts wasn't that far away from me. It was helmet-to-helmet on a defenseless player. In many respects it was very similar to the hit Powell made last week against the EMU player--big difference being Powell was ejected for targeting. So...why was our guy ejected for targeting & the BG player wasn't?

2) late in the game we punted and--I thought--successfully pinned BG on their 1 yard line. It was called a touchback. After review, the official said our player did toss the ball back into the field of play but didn't possess it until he was in the end one. Ummm, no. It was 2 different players. And the second guy clearly covered the ball in the field of play. Now, I will admit that on the replay it was difficult to tell if our first player was touching the ball to throw it back onto the field while part of his body was down in the end one, but wouldn't that have been a completely different explanation from the official?

His helmet broke the plane. If it was a split second earlier it would have
been down. Don't worry about that one. There were plenty of penalties that should have been called that weren't.

(10-16-2016 09:44 AM)bcunn3128 Wrote:  Not gonna go into the overall performance of that crew yesterday. But I do have 2 questions:

1) the unsportsmanlike conduct hit on Roberts wasn't that far away from me. It was helmet-to-helmet on a defenseless player. In many respects it was very similar to the hit Powell made last week against the EMU player--big difference being Powell was ejected for targeting. So...why was our guy ejected for targeting & the BG player wasn't?

2) late in the game we punted and--I thought--successfully pinned BG on their 1 yard line. It was called a touchback. After review, the official said our player did toss the ball back into the field of play but didn't possess it until he was in the end one. Ummm, no. It was 2 different players. And the second guy clearly covered the ball in the field of play. Now, I will admit that on the replay it was difficult to tell if our first player was touching the ball to throw it back onto the field while part of his body was down in the end one, but wouldn't that have been a completely different explanation from the official?

Due to illness, I watched on tv. Here's my opinion. The hit on Roberts was not like the hit Powell leveled last week. Powells hit IMO opinion was clean and during the course of play. The hit on Roberts was after the play was dead and the BG player took two or three steps. A dirty hit most likely born of frustration. On the punt our player was clearly touching the ball while in the end zone. The ball neve seemed to cross the plane. Not exactly sure what the ruling is in college vs NFL.

(10-16-2016 09:44 AM)bcunn3128 Wrote:  Not gonna go into the overall performance of that crew yesterday. But I do have 2 questions:

1) the unsportsmanlike conduct hit on Roberts wasn't that far away from me. It was helmet-to-helmet on a defenseless player. In many respects it was very similar to the hit Powell made last week against the EMU player--big difference being Powell was ejected for targeting. So...why was our guy ejected for targeting & the BG player wasn't?

2) late in the game we punted and--I thought--successfully pinned BG on their 1 yard line. It was called a touchback. After review, the official said our player did toss the ball back into the field of play but didn't possess it until he was in the end one. Ummm, no. It was 2 different players. And the second guy clearly covered the ball in the field of play. Now, I will admit that on the replay it was difficult to tell if our first player was touching the ball to throw it back onto the field while part of his body was down in the end one, but wouldn't that have been a completely different explanation from the official?

1) the hit on Roberts was close to targeting, and really according to the rules the officials are supposed to call it targeting even it they are not sure, and let the replay officials make the final judgment. The difference between this one and the Powell hit and the one against Woodside @ BYU was that in both of those other cases, the head of the contacted player violently snapped back, which is a clear indication that the contact was to the head. Roberts' head did not snap back, so one might conclude then that the contact was not to the head, and therefore no targeting.

2) The rule in college is different than in the pros. In college, the position of the ball is all that matters. Doesn't matter if the player head (or any other part) was in the end zone, just whether the ball crossed the plane. (in the NFL, the position of the player when he touches the ball also matters, and I believe, the ball has to touch the ground in the end zone).

In my opinion, looking at the replay, the ball did cross the plane. The argument by UT was that the player had control of the ball in the field of play and therefore was down in the field before he slid into the end zone. That also did not seem to be the case, as the ball did appear to be moving in his hands as he was sliding toward the goal line. Very close call. Probably could have been ruled either way.

(10-16-2016 10:17 AM)toledobigmike Wrote:  

(10-16-2016 09:44 AM)bcunn3128 Wrote:  Not gonna go into the overall performance of that crew yesterday. But I do have 2 questions:

1) the unsportsmanlike conduct hit on Roberts wasn't that far away from me. It was helmet-to-helmet on a defenseless player. In many respects it was very similar to the hit Powell made last week against the EMU player--big difference being Powell was ejected for targeting. So...why was our guy ejected for targeting & the BG player wasn't?

2) late in the game we punted and--I thought--successfully pinned BG on their 1 yard line. It was called a touchback. After review, the official said our player did toss the ball back into the field of play but didn't possess it until he was in the end one. Ummm, no. It was 2 different players. And the second guy clearly covered the ball in the field of play. Now, I will admit that on the replay it was difficult to tell if our first player was touching the ball to throw it back onto the field while part of his body was down in the end one, but wouldn't that have been a completely different explanation from the official?

Due to illness, I watched on tv. Here's my opinion. The hit on Roberts was not like the hit Powell leveled last week. Powells hit IMO opinion was clean and during the course of play. The hit on Roberts was after the play was dead and the BG player took two or three steps. A dirty hit most likely born of frustration. On the punt our player was clearly touching the ball while in the end zone. The ball neve seemed to cross the plane. Not exactly sure what the ruling is in college vs NFL.

In College according to the guys sitting next to me at the game the NCAA rule is he can touch the be in the end zone as long as the ball never gets there it is still considered down at the 1. Since the ball did not it should have been down at the 1. You are mentioning the NFL rule don't know they are right for a fact but I want to believe them LOL.

I HAVE NEVER SAW a crew do a more one-sided job of spotting the ball they screwed us everytime.

I concur with the crew. It was a concerted effort to make the game a game

The call that boggled me was not bringing out the chains on Toledo failed fourth and one. It was at least close enough to confirm. And for BG they did bring out chains

Touchback was a touchback. Replay clearly showed our guy laying on goal line and touching ball


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

There are ten separate rules re: that situation. I know because ten different guys around me all knew the rule and all were different. So many rules for the same scenario must be a nightmare for refs.

(10-16-2016 12:49 PM)H2Oville Rocket Wrote:  There are ten separate rules re: that situation. I know because ten different guys around me all knew the rule and all were different. So many rules for the same scenario must be a nightmare for refs.

No nightmare here---its actually ideal because more correct choices gives the refs a much better chance of making the proper call

My understanding of the rule is that it is the position of the ball, not the player downing it, that matters in NCAA. The referee confused the matter when he stated that the player crossed the goal line in his explanation of why the call stood. If the ball broke the plane of the goal line, then absolutely a touch back, which it sounds like those watching on television confirmed.

I'm curious about the roughing the passer call. It seemed like BG's QB was being hit as he threw the ball, but my eyes followed the pass so I missed the aftermath. I also thought the holding call on Storm was weak since the BG player went to the ground before Storm fell on him. Stepec had his uniform half torn off of him every play, but the refs stood there and watched it without calling holding.

(10-16-2016 03:59 PM)PurpleRocket Wrote:  My understanding of the rule is that it is the position of the ball, not the player downing it, that matters in NCAA. The referee confused the matter when he stated that the player crossed the goal line in his explanation of why the call stood. If the ball broke the plane of the goal line, then absolutely a touch back, which it sounds like those watching on television confirmed.

I'm curious about the roughing the passer call. It seemed like BG's QB was being hit as he threw the ball, but my eyes followed the pass so I missed the aftermath. I also thought the holding call on Storm was weak since the BG player went to the ground before Storm fell on him. Stepec had his uniform half torn off of him every play, but the refs stood there and watched it without calling holding.

The ball never went across the end line. I believe they called it a touchback because the Rocket player had part of his body touching the ground while he was in the end zone and knocked the ball backward. The second player downed the ball in the field of play. The announcer (Michael Young - former NFL linebacker) stated that since he was touching the end zone, it was a touchback, but he seemed to be explaining the NFL rule. I don't know that rule for college, but I always thought you could not be in the end zone and touch the ball without it being a touchback.

And I think when explaining the ruling on the touchback, Young said the guy covering the punt was running downhill...

as for the officiating in the game - I'm glad Toledo won or it would sound like sour grapes. Those guys were horrible. Like the fumble by the BG player that they ruled was caused by the ground. Then they went to the replay and it was obvious the ball came out before he went to the ground - so they then shifted the call to say his forward motion had been stopped before the fumble. They just didn't want the ball to go to Toledo after they blew the call.

Now that is how it was explained by the announcers at the game. I think the refs just said the call stands - which makes no sense. The whistle blew after he hit the ground because they did not see the fumble. Then when they say the ball came out, they covered it by saying the whistle blew and play stopped - therefore no fumble. I thought there was another way of handling that type of situation if the ball was covered immediately by either team.

In any event, the calls were pretty one-sided even though I was surprised they called the facemask penalty on the BG DB near the end of the game. It was an obvious call, but surprised they saw it and then that the called it.

(10-16-2016 05:07 PM)MotoRocket Wrote:  

(10-16-2016 03:59 PM)PurpleRocket Wrote:  My understanding of the rule is that it is the position of the ball, not the player downing it, that matters in NCAA. The referee confused the matter when he stated that the player crossed the goal line in his explanation of why the call stood. If the ball broke the plane of the goal line, then absolutely a touch back, which it sounds like those watching on television confirmed.

I'm curious about the roughing the passer call. It seemed like BG's QB was being hit as he threw the ball, but my eyes followed the pass so I missed the aftermath. I also thought the holding call on Storm was weak since the BG player went to the ground before Storm fell on him. Stepec had his uniform half torn off of him every play, but the refs stood there and watched it without calling holding.

The ball never went across the end line. I believe they called it a touchback because the Rocket player had part of his body touching the ground while he was in the end zone and knocked the ball backward. The second player downed the ball in the field of play. The announcer (Michael Young - former NFL linebacker) stated that since he was touching the end zone, it was a touchback, but he seemed to be explaining the NFL rule. I don't know that rule for college, but I always thought you could not be in the end zone and touch the ball without it being a touchback.

And I think when explaining the ruling on the touchback, Young said the guy covering the punt was running downhill...

The ball doesn't have to go across the end line, just touch it ... or even break the plane of any part of the line. The ball did do that.

The announcers were clueless the whole game, regardless where they may have played. As several folks have mentioned in this thread, the NFL and college rules are different. In college it's just where the ball is, not the player.

The exception to that last bit is if the player had gained possession inside the field of play and then slid into the end zone. If that was the case, the play would have been over as soon as he was down in the field of play, and so sliding into the end zone would not have mattered. That's what the ref was explaining, that he never had possession before sliding into the end zone, where the ball crossed the plane.

(10-16-2016 05:12 PM)MotoRocket Wrote:  as for the officiating in the game - I'm glad Toledo won or it would sound like sour grapes. Those guys were horrible. Like the fumble by the BG player that they ruled was caused by the ground. Then they went to the replay and it was obvious the ball came out before he went to the ground - so they then shifted the call to say his forward motion had been stopped before the fumble. They just didn't want the ball to go to Toledo after they blew the call.

Now that is how it was explained by the announcers at the game. I think the refs just said the call stands - which makes no sense. The whistle blew after he hit the ground because they did not see the fumble. Then when they say the ball came out, they covered it by saying the whistle blew and play stopped - therefore no fumble. I thought there was another way of handling that type of situation if the ball was covered immediately by either team.

In any event, the calls were pretty one-sided even though I was surprised they called the facemask penalty on the BG DB near the end of the game. It was an obvious call, but surprised they saw it and then that the called it.

On the BG fumble, the refs ruled that the player's forward progress had been stopped before he fumbled, not that he was down before he fumbled. If the ref rules forward progress is stopped the play is over, and anything that happens after that is not reviewable. Folks may disagree whether the progress was stopped or not, but they did follow the rules correctly once that call was made.

I'm satisfied with the explanation on the touchback--thank you to all who weighed in. Now...about the hit on Roberts that wasn't called targeting, that's one I still don't get.

(10-16-2016 05:59 PM)northcoastRocket Wrote:  

(10-16-2016 05:12 PM)MotoRocket Wrote:  as for the officiating in the game - I'm glad Toledo won or it would sound like sour grapes. Those guys were horrible. Like the fumble by the BG player that they ruled was caused by the ground. Then they went to the replay and it was obvious the ball came out before he went to the ground - so they then shifted the call to say his forward motion had been stopped before the fumble. They just didn't want the ball to go to Toledo after they blew the call.

Now that is how it was explained by the announcers at the game. I think the refs just said the call stands - which makes no sense. The whistle blew after he hit the ground because they did not see the fumble. Then when they say the ball came out, they covered it by saying the whistle blew and play stopped - therefore no fumble. I thought there was another way of handling that type of situation if the ball was covered immediately by either team.

In any event, the calls were pretty one-sided even though I was surprised they called the facemask penalty on the BG DB near the end of the game. It was an obvious call, but surprised they saw it and then that the called it.

On the BG fumble, the refs ruled that the player's forward progress had been stopped before he fumbled, not that he was down before he fumbled. If the ref rules forward progress is stopped the play is over, and anything that happens after that is not reviewable. Folks may disagree whether the progress was stopped or not, but they did follow the rules correctly once that call was made.

That's not what I was saying - or at least not what I tried to say.

They did not blow the whistle before the fumble occurred - so if they are trying to say his forward progress had been stopped, there was no reason to go to the replay. But they did. What I tried to say is that when they did go to the replay, they saw the ball had come out before he hit the ground - and since they blew the whistle to stop play before the fumble was recovered, they shifted it to say his forward progress was stopped. At what point did they deem that to be the case - after looking at the replay? Seriously? I watched the replay 3 times and never would have even considered forward progress had stopped. They only blew the whistle because he hit the ground - but had lost the ball prior to that.

Can't say when the whistle blew, but I don't believe they ever went to the replay booth. Replay official can't call of overturn forward progress in any case. And the on-field official can't see the replay either. If you look at the replay, the official who was right there and not more than 5 yards from the play immediately marked the ball, not where he fumbled, not where it was recovered, but there the UT players started to push the BG RB backwards.

(10-17-2016 06:45 PM)northcoastRocket Wrote:  Can't say when the whistle blew, but I don't believe they ever went to the replay booth. Replay official can't call of overturn forward progress in any case. And the on-field official can't see the replay either. If you look at the replay, the official who was right there and not more than 5 yards from the play immediately marked the ball, not where he fumbled, not where it was recovered, but there the UT players started to push the BG RB backwards.

ok - sounds reasonable. I stand corrected. Probably influenced by the non-call down at BG in 2009 with Eric Page on same type of call.

the officiating was awful

really really awful

worst i've seen in a Toledo game this season so far