»
Topic: Not sour grapes officials
Replies: 9   Last Post: Nov 1, 2020, 12:38 PM by: IrmoSleeperAgent
This topic has been archived - replies are not allowed.


[ Archives - Tiger Boards Archive ]
Start New Topic
Replies: 9  

Not sour grapes officials

emoji_events [12]
Posted: Nov 1, 2020, 11:11 AM
 

As a former High School Official, I never like to hear people put blame or make excuses for a loss on the Officials. Now I am not saying anything about the way CU vs BC was called yesterday. I simply think that Clemson has a very special player in #11 Brian Bresee. Now that being said, I watched the replay last night and did some slo-mo and stop action and it was AMAZING how many times #11 was held by the BC offensive linemen. I seriously think that the game film should be reviewed by the head of ACC Officials and then speak with all the officials and simply say, "it may seem like Clemson's #11 is being held on the majority of plays, and it's hard as an official to keep calling "HOLDING" against the same player every play, then the bottom line is, "YOU HAVE TO CALL IT ON EVERY PLAY"! As I said earlier, I don't like to use officials as an excuse, BUT, just because a player is that good, that he has to be held on almost every play, he deserves to get that call. JMO

nullmilitary_donation.jpg

Re: Not sour grapes officials


Posted: Nov 1, 2020, 11:26 AM
 

Referees do not have the benefit of slo-mo, and stop action during a game. They also aren't playing defense, and giving up big chunks of yards like our defense did against both Syracuse and Boston College.
P.S. OH and you are saying something about the way the game was called yesterday if you watched and used some slo-mo,and stop action and then suggesting that the game film should be reviewed by the Head Official of the ACC.


I've never seen such an abuse of logic! I get why the


Posted: Nov 1, 2020, 11:52 AM
 

world is so screwed up when I see how people like you think.

What in he11 does the CU defense have to do with calling holding on the BC offense? Wow!

2021 white level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg


Sounds like if it is working it’s ok but we have seen


Posted: Nov 1, 2020, 12:03 PM
 

Many of our dudes in headlocks after already beating their man. I agree with you. we aren’t talking “the normal holding” that goes on every play. More like the how do you not call that kind of stuff that has gone on all year throughout each game.


Re: Not sour grapes officials


Posted: Nov 1, 2020, 11:30 AM
 

The fall back position now is to hold, interfere, etc, when you can't do the job legally. The penalties now are a lot less severe than in the past, IMO, so they think, "why not hold, or interfere rather than give up a bigger play resulting in a score or penalty from the spot of the foul. Seems there is less incentive to play clean now days, and the penalties are less harsh.

2021 orange level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpg

Re: Not sour grapes officials- As I have posted before


Posted: Nov 1, 2020, 11:46 AM
 

based on what I see called and not called I have no idea what a hold is anymore. I know the ref doesnt want to cause an outcome but arent you doing that by turning a blind eye to it play after play. And I'm talking the obvious mugging right in front of you that you are looking at.

nullbadge-donor-05yr.jpgringofhonor-74tiger.jpg

Re: Not sour grapes officials

[2]
Posted: Nov 1, 2020, 11:47 AM
 

Holding is entirely subjective. It practically takes place on every play by rule, however if the offensive player has inside position with his hand-placement it is either tolerated or goes unnoticed. Unless you want to outlaw the use of hands and flipper-block like 12 and under in the 1960’s, you’re not gonna get half the holding calls you see. The same holds true for Clemson OL, too.

The two calls that got in my crawl was rewarding BC a 1st down when they drew Clemson offsides by committing illegal motion. The holder and snapper were not set for 1 second after they shifted before the back at the wing went tin motion. Also, the roughing the passer call on 7 that took away an int. Both calls were completely botched calls in game-changing situations.

I also have mixed feelings about the targeting ejection... but that’s a whole can of worms. That erased another pick... probably a game-ending int.


Re: Not sour grapes officials


Posted: Nov 1, 2020, 11:47 AM
 

Holding is entirely subjective. It practically takes place on every play by rule, however if the offensive player has inside position with his hand-placement it is either tolerated or goes unnoticed. Unless you want to outlaw the use of hands and flipper-block like 12 and under in the 1960’s, you’re not gonna get half the holding calls you see. The same holds true for Clemson OL, too.

The two calls that got in my crawl was rewarding BC a 1st down when they drew Clemson offsides by committing illegal motion. The holder and snapper were not set for 1 second after they shifted before the back at the wing went tin motion. Also, the roughing the passer call on 7 that took away an int. Both calls were completely botched calls in game-changing situations.

I also have mixed feelings about the targeting ejection... but that’s a whole can of worms. That erased another pick... probably a game-ending int.


I thought it was officiated poorly for both sides


Posted: Nov 1, 2020, 12:20 PM
 

Not just our guys. I couldn’t figure out if it was makeup calls for poor calls before.

Way too many penalties. They played too big a part of the game IMO

2021 white level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg

Re: Not sour grapes officials


Posted: Nov 1, 2020, 12:38 PM
 

From my thorough study of HBO's Hard Knocks, the way they train the NFL OL guys is that you can hold as much as you want between the numbers on the front of the jersey and pads. That will never get the call. You just can't reach around and grab the shoulder/arms or back.


Replies: 9  

TIGER TICKETS

FB GAME: Season Tickets
FOR SALE: (4) Section J row S...$3600. Email if interested. Go Tigers!!

Buy or Sell CU Tickets and More in Tiger Tickets!

[ Archives - Tiger Boards Archive ]
Start New Topic
1308 people have read this post