Furthermore, what was with the ESPN network drooling all over Akron? They lost their leading rusher in the second week of the season against BG. Something wrong with comment since BG was the fifth game on their schedule this year and the 1st MAC game. Then they list all the "missing pieces" from injuries. absolutely no comments I heard about Toledo losing the leading receiver in the MAC last year in the 4th game of our season. Made a passing comment about losing three starters off the O-line. The entire lead up to the game was all about Akron and the starting QB.

I have to assume it was to make early excuses about why this was going to be blow out before it actually happened. Was it to create a huge story if Akron won - so they could talk about this "Cinderella" story. Didn't delve into why Woodson was suspended for what 2-3 games? That is not a light penalty. Have no idea what he did. ESPN sure as hell wasn't going to tell us.

After the lead got to 38 points, all we heard was what was going on in other games, who would be in the final 4 playoffs, how fast the Akron wide receiver was, having Bowden's daughter talk about "it takes a village" to raise him. Just complete nonsense. My two worst topics failed to ruin my Saturday - ESPN and MAC officials. We still won easily.

Apparently the Pontiac Silverdome implosion was a fail A friend of mine was there and recorded this. That building is tougher than the Lions ever were when they played there...

https://www.facebook.com/pete.brykailo/v...165926347/

(12-03-2017 09:01 AM)MotoRocket Wrote:  ok - back to my rant on officiating. Should have written these down.

- First interception of Woodside. Ulysses Gilbert clearly held our receiver (McKinley-Lewis) and used the hold to propel himself into the passing lane. Didn't see it happen live, but Woodside never makes that kind of mistake. Saw it on the replay at Ford Field. Replaying it confirmed it. Even the announcers caught that on the replay.

- Holding call on Jeppeson in Q1. Completely bogus. The Akron rusher fell on his azz and Jeppeson got called for a hold. Negated on the next play when Woodside hit Johnson for Toledo's first TD on 1st and 20. Then no late hit in the end zone after the catch was made. Could have been called, but wasn't. That was not a big deal. The hold on the prior play was. We overcame it, but that does not always happen.

- Somewhere in the 1st or early 2nd quarter - Akron player #40 clearly hits Fisher in the face (protected by face mask) with a punch/stiff arm after being blocked by Fisher. Fisher turned around looking for a flag. Nothing.
- The punt by Akron ruled at the 3 yard line. The ball has to cross the end line even if the player is in the end zone. Fine. But the fact remains that while the Akron players foot was on the end line, the ball was trapped between his hand and his hip while he was trying to bat it back in. They had no shot from the end zone line - but it looked clear to me his body was upright and not in full stride. His hip was aligned with his knee and foot at the time. Therefore the ball had to be across the line. Not reversed on replay. Nothing was reversed in our favor the entire game.

- targeting on Adenyi (sp?) I think BVD nailed this one. They reason for the ruling was that he used the crown of the helmut for the tackle. Given the fact you have maybe 1/10th of a second to adjust the hit as the runner turns toward you while be slowed up by another defender, the fact it was a runner, the fact there was no hit to the head or neck, that call only gets made if the refs want to impact the game. Thankfully, we were up by about 31 at the time and I have to believe that was a factor in deciding to make that call. No injury on the play. I do agree that the tackler puts himself in an exposed role for a serious injury on that play. The comment was that "he lowered his head". Well, when your hips, chest, shoulders and legs are lowered to make the tackle, the head comes with those body parts.

- on that same play, we get called for a personal foul on #42. It happened right in front of another official - AND AFTER the Akron player clearly grabbed his facemask and tried to pull him to the ground. The retaliation was to push him. I'm tired of hearing that it's always the second guy that gets caught. It's because the officials somehow think that the first play was ok - and they saw it - but for somebody to retaliate is more egregious and should be called. We end up with 30 yards on penalties and lose our top defensive player for the rest of the game and the first half of our bowl game - and I'm trying to figure out how the hell that happens given what actually happened on that play - which was a tackle for a loss.

There's probably more, but I didn't write them down. I just went back primarily to see if what I thought I saw at the game was right or not. Pretty much what I expected to see. MAC officials suck

At the stadium on the video boards I thought several times there was or wasn't enough evidence to overturn or change the call. Especially on Seymour's fumble. I thought it had to be conclusive. I hope there is an appeals process for Adenyeni (sp?) Hated to see Swanson loose that fumble on the extra effort.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

(12-03-2017 09:41 AM)emanoh Wrote:  At the stadium on the video boards I thought several times there was or wasn't enough evidence to overturn or change the call. Especially on Seymour's fumble. I thought it had to be conclusive. I hope there is an appeals process for Adenyeni (sp?) Hated to see Swanson loose that fumble on the extra effort.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

I could clearly see the ball coming loose on both Terry and Shakif's fumbles. It sucks, but they were the correct calls.

I really didn't have a problem with any of the calls. Both fumbles were fumbles. Unless you yous saw an angle I didn't, there was no clear angle to overturn that punt. Sure, it looked like it was probably in the end zone but we don't know for sure. By til, that was targeting. So I like it agree with the ejection? No. But the rule is the rule and that is targeting. Led with the crown and launched. Doesn't help that it was on the quarterback. As far as everything else, I did not find myself groaning at calls much at all during the game.

(12-03-2017 09:07 AM)bcunn3128 Wrote:  

(12-03-2017 12:51 AM)ChicagoRocket Wrote:  

(12-03-2017 12:11 AM)BDV27 Wrote:  

(12-02-2017 10:34 PM)inductchuck16 Wrote:  Definitely didn't agree with the targeting call but then again I'm not all that certain what targeting really is nowadays. Just sucks Ola has to miss the first half of the bowl game, hopefully he was able to return to the field once the game ended to celebrate with his team.

I didn't know you could call targeting when you hit a guy square in the chest on a running play. That pretty much happens every play some where on the feild. Secondly, I didn't realize you can calll targeting when there was no flag called for it on teh feild. I was at the game, and the refs decided to review for targeting once they saw the video reply on the big screen and heard the "oohs and aahs" from the crowd. A complete emabrrassmnet by the MAC to allow that to happen to Toledo's best Defensive player, knowing he will now miss the first half of the bowl game. Game was long over when this play happened. Real smart MAC crew.

The refs on the field cannot call for a targeting review, but the replay officials can even if no flag is thrown. That is the NCAAs attempt to make the game safer.

I’m not sure you can make football “safer”. It is a violent contact sport, with people hitting & being hit every play. The big difference between now and 20 years ago is players are bigger, faster & stronger which means people are going to get hurt.

Disappointed that Ola will miss the 1st half of the bowl game given that targeting call. Won’t debate here whether or not I agreed with the call, but I do think the NCAA needs to do away with that rule, or modify it based on the experiences thus far. The letter of the rule—why Ola was tossed—is supposed to take judgement out of the process, but the unintended consequence is that often the defender is at a disadvantage...they must slow up & maybe miss the tackle altogether, or they must alter their head position, putting them at risk rather than the ball carrier. In this case, Ola had no chance to do anything, really, as the Akron QB spun into HIM.

I agree with doing away with the call. Rename it unnessary roughness, make it 15 yds and toss them out for the remainder of the game, but not this next game BS. Its changing games and affecting what is essentially a 365 year job by these kids to prepare.

My bigger issue is that the onus is 100% on the defense, there is no reciprocity for the offense. On offense you essentially hand the ball off to a kid and tell them to be a human battering ram. Lowering their head to blast through for extra yards or what happens in most cases, the player drops their head, preparing for impact and the defense is the side that pays.

Just because a pass play is over 10 yds, doesnt mean there is always pass interference. I hate scanning the field after every pass, looking for a yellow hanky. Same way every big hit isn't targeting. Its a contact sport. There is a difference between a bang, bang play and a defenseless player getting blindsided and speared with the crown of a helmet. There has to be a common sense clause in the review of these penalties.

Earlier this season a player from O$U got tossed for what was essently a feather tap on the facemask of the opposing QB. The player had tossed the ball, the buckeye jumped and incidentally nudged the OB, he's gone. The Bucks had another call in their first game where a player made a textbook tackle, total shoulder pad, zero contact with either helmet and he gets tossed. You watch the replay and just like our guy, you scratch your head and wonder what they are looking at? How do you get it wrong with a dozen slow mo angles?

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

1. Im still drunk
2. If targeting LITERALLY MEANS leading with the helmet? Then 90 percent of tackles, even the ones where helmet hits air and shoulder makes first contact, are targeting.
That shouldnt be in the rule as evidence of targeting because leading and contact must be differentiated. IF the main goal of the rule is player safety? Then why dont RBs and LBs get benefits of the rule for runners? Those guys crack each other and every RB puts his head down??

Helmet to chest may be dangerous? But thats a crap rule when officials pick and choose which ones they want to call.

(12-03-2017 10:07 AM)UofToledoFans Wrote:  1. Im still drunk
2. If targeting LITERALLY MEANS leading with the helmet? Then 90 percent of tackles, even the ones where helmet hits air and shoulder makes first contact, are targeting.
That shouldnt be in the rule as evidence of targeting because leading and contact must be differentiated. IF the main goal of the rule is player safety? Then why dont RBs and LBs get benefits of the rule for runners? Those guys crack each other and every RB puts his head down??

Helmet to chest may be dangerous? But thats a crap rule when officials pick and choose which ones they want to call.

100% agree, see post above. I did finally sober up an hour ago.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

Again, my point on the fumble calls is that the officials on the replay used the fact that they ball came out on the play and worked backward to conclude when it came out despite not having any evidence at the time the knee hit the ground that it was out. This pertains to the Seymour fumble vs. the Swanson fumble. If you cannot conclude the ball was out at the time the knee hit the ground, you cannot move forward and say it came out - so we will conclude it must have been out at some prior point even though we can't determine it from the video evidence. Of course there were fumbles on both plays - no one questions that. What is in question is what exactly did they see to determine the ball was out when the knee hit the ground. I can agree with it on the Swanson fumble - no way on the Seymour fumble. Once the knee hits the ground and you cannot see the ball loose, you can't project forward to say it came out and therefore we are going to conclude it was out even though we cannot see it was out of his hands when the knee hit. To me, that is plain and simple and the correct interpretation of the rule for replays. Conclusive evidence to overturn. It wasn't there.

My other favorite calls by the officials. Remember the punt return by McKinley-Lewis where he took it to the left side - then was hit out of bounds. Two penalties called on the play. Both announced as being against the kicking team. One for holding, the other for unsportsmanlike on the hit out of bounds. The announcers deemed it a "not Top 10 moment" when the official was so confused, he called holding on the kicking team, then unsportsmanlike on the receiving team, then said "... excuse me, on the ....Akron". They called holding on #21, which would be Blue (or Seymour). Neither were on the receiving team. It was actually called ( I assume) on #24 (Clark). Except the side judge and back judge - both of whom were within 7 yards of the play did not throw the flag. The Akron player simply overran the play. There was no flag within 20 yards of where the holding supposedly happened. I watched this replay about 10 times and concluded the line judge threw the flag since he came to the umpire and I could read his lips saying "holding". He came up to the umpire from behind - or the direction from where the line of scrimmage was. Guessing, but he had to be at least 30 yards away and was running down the field toward the play. That explains why I could not see a flag - at the game or on the replay. It was out of the vision of where I was sitting and the camera coverage on TV. He was he so far away that he couldn't even throw it within 20 yards of the supposed holding? He was obviously so far away he couldn't even get the right jersey number.

Later on, they called an offsides on our defense. #7. We have nobody on the team that plays defense and wears #7. Unless of course it was freshman Obi Anunike - who was not dressed and was on the sidelines - or we put Jon'vea Johnson in to play as a defensive lineman. It was #97. And he was offsides, so while I can't complain about the call, it is indicative of how they can't even get easy things right. But they did see 2 Akron players on a kickoff return team that were both wearing #52. Big deal, it was declined because the kick went into the endzone.


And hopefully my last rant because I need to let this go. Anyone else think Terry Bowden is a total azzhole for kicking an onside kick with 20 seconds left and behind by 17 points? Apparently didn't care if any players get hurt on a stupid play like that were it is fairly common for an injury to occur.

(12-03-2017 10:54 AM)MotoRocket Wrote:  Again, my point on the fumble calls is that the officials on the replay used the fact that they ball came out on the play and worked backward to conclude when it came out despite not having any evidence at the time the knee hit the ground that it was out. This pertains to the Seymour fumble vs. the Swanson fumble. If you cannot conclude the ball was out at the time the knee hit the ground, you cannot move forward and say it came out - so we will conclude it must have been out at some prior point even though we can't determine it from the video evidence. Of course there were fumbles on both plays - no one questions that. What is in question is what exactly did they see to determine the ball was out when the knee hit the ground. I can agree with it on the Swanson fumble - no way on the Seymour fumble. Once the knee hits the ground and you cannot see the ball loose, you can't project forward to say it came out and therefore we are going to conclude it was out even though we cannot see it was out of his hands when the knee hit. To me, that is plain and simple and the correct interpretation of the rule for replays. Conclusive evidence to overturn. It wasn't there.

My other favorite calls by the officials. Remember the punt return by McKinley-Lewis where he took it to the left side - then was hit out of bounds. Two penalties called on the play. Both announced as being against the kicking team. One for holding, the other for unsportsmanlike on the hit out of bounds. The announcers deemed it a "not Top 10 moment" when the official was so confused, he called holding on the kicking team, then unsportsmanlike on the receiving team, then said "... excuse me, on the ....Akron". They called holding on #21, which would be Blue (or Seymour). Neither were on the receiving team. It was actually called ( I assume) on #24 (Clark). Except the side judge and back judge - both of whom were within 7 yards of the play did not throw the flag. The Akron player simply overran the play. There was no flag within 20 yards of where the holding supposedly happened. I watched this replay about 10 times and concluded the line judge threw the flag since he came to the umpire and I could read his lips saying "holding". He came up to the umpire from behind - or the direction from where the line of scrimmage was. Guessing, but he had to be at least 30 yards away and was running down the field toward the play. That explains why I could not see a flag - at the game or on the replay. It was out of the vision of where I was sitting and the camera coverage on TV. He was he so far away that he couldn't even throw it within 20 yards of the supposed holding? He was obviously so far away he couldn't even get the right jersey number.

Later on, they called an offsides on our defense. #7. We have nobody on the team that plays defense and wears #7. Unless of course it was freshman Obi Anunike - who was not dressed and was on the sidelines - or we put Jon'vea Johnson in to play as a defensive lineman. It was #97. And he was offsides, so while I can't complain about the call, it is indicative of how they can't even get easy things right. But they did see 2 Akron players on a kickoff return team that were both wearing #52. Big deal, it was declined because the kick went into the endzone.


And hopefully my last rant because I need to let this go. Anyone else think Terry Bowden is a total azzhole for kicking an onside kick with 20 seconds left and behind by 17 points? Apparently didn't care if any players get hurt on a stupid play like that were it is fairly common for an injury to occur.

I thought the onside kick with 20 seconds left was bull****. Nothing good comes from that. Just lucky there were no injuries.

(12-03-2017 10:07 AM)UofToledoFans Wrote:  1. Im still drunk
2. If targeting LITERALLY MEANS leading with the helmet? Then 90 percent of tackles, even the ones where helmet hits air and shoulder makes first contact, are targeting.
That shouldnt be in the rule as evidence of targeting because leading and contact must be differentiated. IF the main goal of the rule is player safety? Then why dont RBs and LBs get benefits of the rule for runners? Those guys crack each other and every RB puts his head down??

Helmet to chest may be dangerous? But thats a crap rule when officials pick and choose which ones they want to call.

Most can agree football is s physical sport. Its no longer the days when the biggest guy on the field is a 5'11" 185 lb, two way lineman. We recruit these 6'5" kids, lock them in the weight room, pack 40 lbs of muscle on them and then expect them to play two hand touch. If the Defense has to learn how to tackle properly, what about the Offense learning how to take a hit. Offensive players are being allowed to run around with reckless abandon and whining any time they are touched, vs having their head on a swivel.

If the ncaa is about teaching sportsmanship, leadership, scholarship. What kind of message are they sending when they kick out a leader on a team for what amounts to a ticky, tack, football play where nobody was injured and it didnt affect the game. Its a bad rule, plain and simple.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

(12-03-2017 10:54 AM)MotoRocket Wrote:  Again, my point on the fumble calls is that the officials on the replay used the fact that they ball came out on the play and worked backward to conclude when it came out despite not having any evidence at the time the knee hit the ground that it was out. This pertains to the Seymour fumble vs. the Swanson fumble. If you cannot conclude the ball was out at the time the knee hit the ground, you cannot move forward and say it came out - so we will conclude it must have been out at some prior point even though we can't determine it from the video evidence. Of course there were fumbles on both plays - no one questions that. What is in question is what exactly did they see to determine the ball was out when the knee hit the ground. I can agree with it on the Swanson fumble - no way on the Seymour fumble. Once the knee hits the ground and you cannot see the ball loose, you can't project forward to say it came out and therefore we are going to conclude it was out even though we cannot see it was out of his hands when the knee hit. To me, that is plain and simple and the correct interpretation of the rule for replays. Conclusive evidence to overturn. It wasn't there.

The ball might not have been OUT before his knee was down, but it was starting to come out. Therefore, he did not have possession and it was a fumble. It was a good call and there was conclusive evidence that it was coming loose.

(12-03-2017 02:08 PM)MidnightBlueGold Wrote:  

(12-03-2017 10:54 AM)MotoRocket Wrote:  Again, my point on the fumble calls is that the officials on the replay used the fact that they ball came out on the play and worked backward to conclude when it came out despite not having any evidence at the time the knee hit the ground that it was out. This pertains to the Seymour fumble vs. the Swanson fumble. If you cannot conclude the ball was out at the time the knee hit the ground, you cannot move forward and say it came out - so we will conclude it must have been out at some prior point even though we can't determine it from the video evidence. Of course there were fumbles on both plays - no one questions that. What is in question is what exactly did they see to determine the ball was out when the knee hit the ground. I can agree with it on the Swanson fumble - no way on the Seymour fumble. Once the knee hits the ground and you cannot see the ball loose, you can't project forward to say it came out and therefore we are going to conclude it was out even though we cannot see it was out of his hands when the knee hit. To me, that is plain and simple and the correct interpretation of the rule for replays. Conclusive evidence to overturn. It wasn't there.

The ball might not have been OUT before his knee was down, but it was starting to come out. Therefore, he did not have possession and it was a fumble. It was a good call and there was conclusive evidence that it was coming loose.

Starting to come out? That means it was not out and therefore the ball is dead once the knee hits. Even your own comment proves my point. The conclusive evidence was not there and continuing to say it was a fumble is pointless if it was not out when the knee touched. This is like arguing with the guy that kept saying TY Hilton could advance the ball while it was out of bounds because his foot was not on the ground out of bounds - and therefore it was correct to give him the first down. There are rules that exist - they need to be adhered to and not opinions given about the ball "coming out" Either it was out of his possession or it wasn't. If you have to replay it for 3 freaking minutes, it seems pretty obvious there is no conclusive evidence to over turn the call on the field.

You have your view of it and I have mine. You are not changing my opinion and the facts that exist - and I know I am not changing your opinion. So it is what it is.

(12-03-2017 07:53 PM)MotoRocket Wrote:  

(12-03-2017 02:08 PM)MidnightBlueGold Wrote:  

(12-03-2017 10:54 AM)MotoRocket Wrote:  Again, my point on the fumble calls is that the officials on the replay used the fact that they ball came out on the play and worked backward to conclude when it came out despite not having any evidence at the time the knee hit the ground that it was out. This pertains to the Seymour fumble vs. the Swanson fumble. If you cannot conclude the ball was out at the time the knee hit the ground, you cannot move forward and say it came out - so we will conclude it must have been out at some prior point even though we can't determine it from the video evidence. Of course there were fumbles on both plays - no one questions that. What is in question is what exactly did they see to determine the ball was out when the knee hit the ground. I can agree with it on the Swanson fumble - no way on the Seymour fumble. Once the knee hits the ground and you cannot see the ball loose, you can't project forward to say it came out and therefore we are going to conclude it was out even though we cannot see it was out of his hands when the knee hit. To me, that is plain and simple and the correct interpretation of the rule for replays. Conclusive evidence to overturn. It wasn't there.

The ball might not have been OUT before his knee was down, but it was starting to come out. Therefore, he did not have possession and it was a fumble. It was a good call and there was conclusive evidence that it was coming loose.

Starting to come out? That means it was not out and therefore the ball is dead once the knee hits. Even your own comment proves my point. The conclusive evidence was not there and continuing to say it was a fumble is pointless if it was not out when the knee touched. This is like arguing with the guy that kept saying TY Hilton could advance the ball while it was out of bounds because his foot was not on the ground out of bounds - and therefore it was correct to give him the first down. There are rules that exist - they need to be adhered to and not opinions given about the ball "coming out" Either it was out of his possession or it wasn't. If you have to replay it for 3 freaking minutes, it seems pretty obvious there is no conclusive evidence to over turn the call on the field.

You have your view of it and I have mine. You are not changing my opinion and the facts that exist - and I know I am not changing your opinion. So it is what it is.

This is incorrect. You need to have full control of the ball for you to be down. He did not have that. You can have your opinion, but your opinion is 100% incorrect.

(12-03-2017 09:43 AM)MidnightBlueGold Wrote:  

(12-03-2017 09:41 AM)emanoh Wrote:  At the stadium on the video boards I thought several times there was or wasn't enough evidence to overturn or change the call. Especially on Seymour's fumble. I thought it had to be conclusive. I hope there is an appeals process for Adenyeni (sp?) Hated to see Swanson loose that fumble on the extra effort.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

I could clearly see the ball coming loose on both Terry and Shakif's fumbles. It sucks, but they were the correct calls.

The fumbles were fumbles.
The targeting and even the best personal foul on the same play as targeting was crap.

(12-03-2017 07:53 PM)MotoRocket Wrote:  

(12-03-2017 02:08 PM)MidnightBlueGold Wrote:  

(12-03-2017 10:54 AM)MotoRocket Wrote:  Again, my point on the fumble calls is that the officials on the replay used the fact that they ball came out on the play and worked backward to conclude when it came out despite not having any evidence at the time the knee hit the ground that it was out. This pertains to the Seymour fumble vs. the Swanson fumble. If you cannot conclude the ball was out at the time the knee hit the ground, you cannot move forward and say it came out - so we will conclude it must have been out at some prior point even though we can't determine it from the video evidence. Of course there were fumbles on both plays - no one questions that. What is in question is what exactly did they see to determine the ball was out when the knee hit the ground. I can agree with it on the Swanson fumble - no way on the Seymour fumble. Once the knee hits the ground and you cannot see the ball loose, you can't project forward to say it came out and therefore we are going to conclude it was out even though we cannot see it was out of his hands when the knee hit. To me, that is plain and simple and the correct interpretation of the rule for replays. Conclusive evidence to overturn. It wasn't there.

The ball might not have been OUT before his knee was down, but it was starting to come out. Therefore, he did not have possession and it was a fumble. It was a good call and there was conclusive evidence that it was coming loose.

Starting to come out? That means it was not out and therefore the ball is dead once the knee hits. Even your own comment proves my point. The conclusive evidence was not there and continuing to say it was a fumble is pointless if it was not out when the knee touched. This is like arguing with the guy that kept saying TY Hilton could advance the ball while it was out of bounds because his foot was not on the ground out of bounds - and therefore it was correct to give him the first down. There are rules that exist - they need to be adhered to and not opinions given about the ball "coming out" Either it was out of his possession or it wasn't. If you have to replay it for 3 freaking minutes, it seems pretty obvious there is no conclusive evidence to over turn the call on the field.

You have your view of it and I have mine. You are not changing my opinion and the facts that exist - and I know I am not changing your opinion. So it is what it is.

Good argument. I fall on the side of if takes that long, something is amiss and its not conclusive.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

(12-03-2017 08:21 PM)emanoh Wrote:  

(12-03-2017 07:53 PM)MotoRocket Wrote:  

(12-03-2017 02:08 PM)MidnightBlueGold Wrote:  

(12-03-2017 10:54 AM)MotoRocket Wrote:  Again, my point on the fumble calls is that the officials on the replay used the fact that they ball came out on the play and worked backward to conclude when it came out despite not having any evidence at the time the knee hit the ground that it was out. This pertains to the Seymour fumble vs. the Swanson fumble. If you cannot conclude the ball was out at the time the knee hit the ground, you cannot move forward and say it came out - so we will conclude it must have been out at some prior point even though we can't determine it from the video evidence. Of course there were fumbles on both plays - no one questions that. What is in question is what exactly did they see to determine the ball was out when the knee hit the ground. I can agree with it on the Swanson fumble - no way on the Seymour fumble. Once the knee hits the ground and you cannot see the ball loose, you can't project forward to say it came out and therefore we are going to conclude it was out even though we cannot see it was out of his hands when the knee hit. To me, that is plain and simple and the correct interpretation of the rule for replays. Conclusive evidence to overturn. It wasn't there.

The ball might not have been OUT before his knee was down, but it was starting to come out. Therefore, he did not have possession and it was a fumble. It was a good call and there was conclusive evidence that it was coming loose.

Starting to come out? That means it was not out and therefore the ball is dead once the knee hits. Even your own comment proves my point. The conclusive evidence was not there and continuing to say it was a fumble is pointless if it was not out when the knee touched. This is like arguing with the guy that kept saying TY Hilton could advance the ball while it was out of bounds because his foot was not on the ground out of bounds - and therefore it was correct to give him the first down. There are rules that exist - they need to be adhered to and not opinions given about the ball "coming out" Either it was out of his possession or it wasn't. If you have to replay it for 3 freaking minutes, it seems pretty obvious there is no conclusive evidence to over turn the call on the field.

You have your view of it and I have mine. You are not changing my opinion and the facts that exist - and I know I am not changing your opinion. So it is what it is.

Good argument. I fall on the side of if takes that long, something is amiss and its not conclusive.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

Length of review can be deceptive. They may have determined it was a fumble immediately (I did) but had difficulty determining the spot, gameclock, etc.

I follow football, but basketball a lot closer. Attended the women's game against Maine. The officials were confused at times about each others calls. In fact one of the make up calls was so obvious that some fans laughed. I watched the replay and saw many bad calls or lack of calls that are not made in high school games in our area. I know two men, who were in charge of MAC official for basketball men's and women's. Both said they had no power to get rid of poor officials. I know some good high school officials who went to the MAC officials camp, got glowing reviews, but did not get hired. As it is with some many things in life it is more about who you know than how good you are. Listening to all of you, it must be in every sport. I do have to say there are some very good men and women officiating who deserve our respect. A tough job. Locally they can't get enough officials in all sport.

And I know we go through this annually but don’t the Big Ten and MAC share a referee pool?

(12-04-2017 08:39 AM)H2Oville Rocket Wrote:  And I know we go through this annually but don’t the Big Ten and MAC share a referee pool?

They did when John Payak was in charge of basketball officials for both conferences. But I do not think they do now, because I know the MAC has it's own try out camp. A few may still work both leagues but not many.