Replies: 11
| visibility 2,361
|
CU Medallion [64589]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 88994
Joined: 3/27/01
|
Watched the replay of the OOB call last night
Jan 29, 2020, 10:14 AM
|
|
The officials basically make the collective decision to call something that absolutely could not be determined from the replay.
If you can't definitively and conclusively determine that the ball was on the line, then the clock doesn't stop until the ball hits OOB.
The clock should have been set at .4
Unfrigginbelievable !!!!
|
|
|
|
Heisman Winner [105574]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 44178
Joined: 12/22/08
|
My problem is, if the clock wasn't set to 0.4
Jan 29, 2020, 10:37 AM
|
|
then it should have been set to 1.4 seconds. The 0.9 is just the dumbest thing I have ever seen.
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [64589]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 88994
Joined: 3/27/01
|
The literally added the two together and took the average.
Jan 29, 2020, 10:57 AM
|
|
I've never seen anything like it ever before.
Apparently the officials, at least the officials in the ACC, have the flexibility to just make-up $#!7 at their discretion as they go along.
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [57077]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 39680
Joined: 11/12/04
|
Re: The literally added the two together and took the average.
Jan 29, 2020, 11:30 AM
|
|
If it can hurt Clemson, yes.
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [11478]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 9412
Joined: 10/3/12
|
Re: Watched the replay of the OOB call last night
Jan 29, 2020, 10:52 AM
|
|
I think my wife perfectly captured the error in the whole process when she asked me, "why are the two guys who spent all that time watching replays going over to ask questions to the guy who hasn't seen anything".
Over-officiating at its best last night.
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [27366]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 26233
Joined: 9/19/11
|
Yep.
Jan 29, 2020, 10:59 AM
|
|
But when did ACC refs ever make the right call?
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [7159]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 10136
Joined: 6/27/07
|
or 1.4. Those were the only options. they basically were
Jan 29, 2020, 11:07 AM
|
|
trying to give cuse time to get a shot off. So why not just give them the 1.4? That way you still come off making a definitive sound decision and not an arbitrary compromise. AS a Clemson fan obviously i would rather it have been .4 but i could see it being called at 1.4 because it was so close. But .9 makes me wonder what we're doing here.
And makes me question if things like "make up calls" or "home field advantage" calls are a real things in these guys minds. Like do they actually think that way to make it even and it not just being a subconscious thing to make a questionable call and then be on a mission to find something the other team does to make it even.
The phantom foul against MAck could've been a make up call for a prior called foul b/c their guys were fouling out. Thats pretty ridiculous if thats really how these guys are thinking. Just call the game guys. If it ain't there then don't blow the whistle.
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [11478]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 9412
Joined: 10/3/12
|
Re: or 1.4. Those were the only options. they basically were
Jan 29, 2020, 11:10 AM
|
|
I told my brother that I thought they put the .9 on the clock because I believe .8 is the minimum for a team to be able to catch and shoot the ball instead of just having to tip it in off of a lob or something.
I think the officials knew there wasn't enough evidence to change it to 1.4 so they made up an "arbitrary" number like .9 so they didn't effectively end the game with their call.
|
|
|
|
|
Heisman Winner [105574]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 44178
Joined: 12/22/08
|
0.4 is the absolute minimum to catch and shoot***
Jan 29, 2020, 11:16 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [29036]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 36097
Joined: 8/28/00
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [29036]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 36097
Joined: 8/28/00
|
Question about phantom foul
Jan 29, 2020, 11:16 AM
[ in reply to or 1.4. Those were the only options. they basically were ] |
|
SO I wasn't able to watch the whole game (just caught the final minutes), can anyone point me to the approximate time/situation for the phantom foul folks are referencing?
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [29036]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 36097
Joined: 8/28/00
|
Indeed
Jan 29, 2020, 11:10 AM
|
|
1.4 seconds or .4 seconds. Those were the options.
I could understand the 1.4 second ruling as the ref on the court could have ruled that he saw the ball hit the line and thus they needed to adjust the clock to that moment, even without concrete video evidence of it hitting the line.
I could understand the .4 second ruling as that is when the ball made the definitive bounce out of bounds.
However, I've tried to find reasoning for .9 and I can't see any supported by the video. I, at first, assumed one of two things happened:
1) Our player must've touched out of bounds and in reaching for the ball touched it around .9 seconds.
or
2) The ball must've hit some object OOB before hitting the ground (a coach, the sideline signage etc),
But clearly neither happened and instead the ACC refs made up an on-the-spot split the difference rule change.
|
|
|
|
Replies: 11
| visibility 2,361
|
|
|