The unofficial online home for fans of the Old Dominion University Monarchs. Part of Collegiate Sports Nation (CSN).

(10-01-2018 05:52 PM)Gilesfan Wrote:  

(10-01-2018 05:37 PM)Grommet Wrote:  

(10-01-2018 03:01 PM)Gilesfan Wrote:  ECU is a solid team this year. I felt we should have won, but they are a solid team. Much improved from last year.

Solid is a bit of a stretch, as is horrible.

They have dominated every team in terms of yards; including USF and UNC.

And, like another team I can think of, still found ways to lose.

(10-01-2018 05:44 PM)odu09 Wrote:  

(10-01-2018 02:44 PM)pcm0103 Wrote:  

(10-01-2018 01:10 PM)757ODU Wrote:  1. It was clearly an interception.
2. We are 1-4 and your record shows who you really are.
3. We beat VT, which is the best win I will ever see from this program in my lifetime.

It seems we are definitely improving, although I believe ECU is a horrible football team. We will know what we are and what we have after this coming weekend.

Horrible? Bit if a stretch isn't. You guys played a great game. Your receivers are legit NFL talent. That was an interception. I'll agree to that. But horrible? That horrible team sacked your QB 8 times, held you to 21 yards rushing, 250 passing. We put 313 passing, and 179 rushing on your team. If that is horrible I would hate to see what your definition of a good team is.

Looking forward to the game next year. This will turn out to be a great rivalry if both schools continue the series.

Horrible is a stretch. But it was interesting your coach decided to play a QB who can't throw and let us back into the game.

I certainly hope a rivalry can form, you guys will always be the closest FBS team to us.

There's actually a reason for that madness. Holton was brought in because we have certain run packages that is designed just for him. He is a threat when he runs, that 50 yard touchdown run shows that. He has played in 3 games so far and has scored a rushing touchdown in each game. Believe it or not he broke a lot of passing records in high school. But he is a true freshman and he has not adjusted yet to the speed of college football. His pass in that game was his first pass of the year. Thats why he is our 3rd string QB. So playing him was scripted but he wasn't the reason why you got back in the game.

(10-01-2018 10:11 AM)cmett003 Wrote:  

(10-01-2018 09:59 AM)Monarch1987 Wrote:  From their Jumbo Tron the interception looked legit. Even the ECU fans thought it was, and a few were leaving. I noticed the official at the end of the field for that play waved his hands over his head ready to mark the ball for ODU at the 11. Another official game running in before the first Official could call the spot and give the Monarchs a first and took the ball back to the line of scrimmage and called it incomplete. What did the replay show you at home, and what were the game announcers saying? I had the feeling all along they were not going to reverse the call and give the ball to ODU.

There was no way the ref could have seen any bobble in live game speed. Especially the one that was not closest to the play. It should have been ruled an interception on the field and if it went to replay then there was not much to overturn the call.

We got screwed.

No doubt about it. I’ve worn out that replay watching it. He caught that ball - no second bobble.

(10-01-2018 11:42 AM)Grommet Wrote:  

I would have preferred to not have read this. We need to play better to not have it come down to one play - but this is infuriating. Season changing call.

(10-01-2018 11:42 AM)Grommet Wrote:  

Here's Harry's column about it.

Here's where it gets confusing:

Quote:“I have confirmed that even though the official may have gotten the call correct, he was too technical in his decision to rule incomplete on that interception,” said Gerald Austin, a stand-up guy who had a long career as a referee, including several appearances in the Super Bowl.

“He should have called it a catch and let play replay decide. We cannot take a play away from a player that we cannot back up as officials.”

In essence he's saying that the call might have actually been right, but the way it was ruled was wrong. Now I get referees allowing a play to reach its natural conclusion and then letting replay sort it out (if Player A returns a fumble for a touchdown, you can reverse that if it's wrong, but if you initially rule it an incomplete pass and blow the play dead as he's making the return, you can't give him back his score even if you correct the call). But that's not what this was: The play ends when Davila goes out of bounds, whether you call it an interception or an incomplete pass.

In essence, and maybe I'm reading too much into it, it's almost as though the CUSA director of officials (and Harry) are advocating for referees on the field to effectively kick the can on borderline calls to the replay booth, when that's not really their function — they're supposed to review plays and overturn obviously wrong calls, not be the swing vote.

It's one thing to say "it was an interception and the ref should have called it." It's quite another thing to say "it might have been an incompletion but it should have been called an interception so that replay can make that decision, or let it stand if they can't." That may be correct by the letter of the law but seems at least like a misdemeanor to the spirit of the law.

(10-01-2018 12:54 PM)cmett003 Wrote:  

(10-01-2018 12:46 PM)757ODU Wrote:  

(09-29-2018 06:19 PM)ODUDJ96 Wrote:  

(09-29-2018 06:13 PM)DowdyPirate2 Wrote:  

(09-29-2018 06:11 PM)ODUDJ96 Wrote:  This was a home job. AAC refs get the W for this game. Bad call to reverse a TD, no interference call, and not giving us the INT. Absolutely horrible officiating. Reminds me of the WKY game.

No interference is the only one you could make a case for. There was clearly an illegal cut block on the run and it directly led to the touchdown. And there’s no way you can legitimately claim the interception was at the very least clear enough to overturn.

One call does not a game make.

One call is all it takes to turn a game - much less three. Good thing you had AAC refs protecting the p6 brand.

They were CUSA refs.

Judy MacLeod probably loves it when C-USA refs steal games from C-USA teams.

I shouldn’t have been so presumptuous after the wku game last year. Just couldn’t believe our own are so inept.

(10-01-2018 08:53 PM)Cyniclone Wrote:  

(10-01-2018 11:42 AM)Grommet Wrote:  

Here's Harry's column about it.

Here's where it gets confusing:

Quote:“I have confirmed that even though the official may have gotten the call correct, he was too technical in his decision to rule incomplete on that interception,” said Gerald Austin, a stand-up guy who had a long career as a referee, including several appearances in the Super Bowl.

“He should have called it a catch and let play replay decide. We cannot take a play away from a player that we cannot back up as officials.”

In essence he's saying that the call might have actually been right, but the way it was ruled was wrong. Now I get referees allowing a play to reach its natural conclusion and then letting replay sort it out (if Player A returns a fumble for a touchdown, you can reverse that if it's wrong, but if you initially rule it an incomplete pass and blow the play dead as he's making the return, you can't give him back his score even if you correct the call). But that's not what this was: The play ends when Davila goes out of bounds, whether you call it an interception or an incomplete pass.

In essence, and maybe I'm reading too much into it, it's almost as though the CUSA director of officials (and Harry) are advocating for referees on the field to effectively kick the can on borderline calls to the replay booth, when that's not really their function — they're supposed to review plays and overturn obviously wrong calls, not be the swing vote.

It's one thing to say "it was an interception and the ref should have called it." It's quite another thing to say "it might have been an incompletion but it should have been called an interception so that replay can make that decision, or let it stand if they can't." That may be correct by the letter of the law but seems at least like a misdemeanor to the spirit of the law.

It seems he's saying either way (whether correct or not), the correct technique was not followed. They seems to be advised to rule on the side of catch when its questionable.

(10-01-2018 09:44 PM)Gilesfan Wrote:  

(10-01-2018 08:53 PM)Cyniclone Wrote:  

(10-01-2018 11:42 AM)Grommet Wrote:  

Here's Harry's column about it.

Here's where it gets confusing:

Quote:“I have confirmed that even though the official may have gotten the call correct, he was too technical in his decision to rule incomplete on that interception,” said Gerald Austin, a stand-up guy who had a long career as a referee, including several appearances in the Super Bowl.

“He should have called it a catch and let play replay decide. We cannot take a play away from a player that we cannot back up as officials.”

In essence he's saying that the call might have actually been right, but the way it was ruled was wrong. Now I get referees allowing a play to reach its natural conclusion and then letting replay sort it out (if Player A returns a fumble for a touchdown, you can reverse that if it's wrong, but if you initially rule it an incomplete pass and blow the play dead as he's making the return, you can't give him back his score even if you correct the call). But that's not what this was: The play ends when Davila goes out of bounds, whether you call it an interception or an incomplete pass.

In essence, and maybe I'm reading too much into it, it's almost as though the CUSA director of officials (and Harry) are advocating for referees on the field to effectively kick the can on borderline calls to the replay booth, when that's not really their function — they're supposed to review plays and overturn obviously wrong calls, not be the swing vote.

It's one thing to say "it was an interception and the ref should have called it." It's quite another thing to say "it might have been an incompletion but it should have been called an interception so that replay can make that decision, or let it stand if they can't." That may be correct by the letter of the law but seems at least like a misdemeanor to the spirit of the law.

It seems he's saying either way (whether correct or not), the correct technique was not followed. They seems to be advised to rule on the side of catch when its questionable.

That's where I'm getting hung up. Refs make 50/50 calls for incompletions against touchdowns/catches/interceptions all the time. This makes it sound as though refs shouldn't make those calls anymore, leaving it to the replay booth to sort out, which to me is troubling enough.

But even if the rule is to err on the side of the ball possessor, it doesn't eliminate the borderline call, it just moves the border. Now instead of deciding whether to call that 50/50 play a td/catch/interception, they're deciding if that 35/65 call is decisive enough to rule it an incompletion or if it's close enough to give it to the possessor and push it upstairs for the word of God.

And since the replay booth defaults to the call on the field when it can't make the call, it means all those 50/50 calls are weighted a lot more to the possessor since they can only be overruled with incontrovertible evidence.

I also think Harry's taking it a bridge too far by presuming that the interception would have stood. It's entirely possible that replay would have found the thread to justify an overturning. They're still human beings up there, and God knows they've made worse calls in a good-faith effort to rule correctly.

In that vein, I think it's also a cop out to go all-in on the "refs screw over the Monarchs" narrative. Unless you can prove that there was a concerted effort to call the game for East Carolina (and why would CUSA refs want to benefit them? free barbecue?) then once you get past the emotion of the moment, you realize that bad calls are part and parcel of fallible people doing a job that requires infallibility, and understanding that sometimes things don't break your way. There were enough human errors, especially in the endgame, that it's not just the refs' performance that separates 2-3 and a winning streak from 1-4 and a bowl bid threatening to sail off the horizon before Halloween.

(10-01-2018 07:19 PM)pcm0103 Wrote:  

(10-01-2018 05:44 PM)odu09 Wrote:  Horrible is a stretch. But it was interesting your coach decided to play a QB who can't throw and let us back into the game.

I certainly hope a rivalry can form, you guys will always be the closest FBS team to us.

There's actually a reason for that madness. Holton was brought in because we have certain run packages that is designed just for him. He is a threat when he runs, that 50 yard touchdown run shows that. He has played in 3 games so far and has scored a rushing touchdown in each game. Believe it or not he broke a lot of passing records in high school. But he is a true freshman and he has not adjusted yet to the speed of college football. His pass in that game was his first pass of the year. Thats why he is our 3rd string QB. So playing him was scripted but he wasn't the reason why you got back in the game.

I'm sorry but I really can't buy that your coach made some kind of chess moves with the QBs. Yes, your running QB broke one open for 50(?) yard touchdown. Another big play given up by our defense. But after that he had what, 15 yards for the rest of the game? It seemed like we couldn't stop the other guy, Herring. One interception was bad luck off the WR, another an overthrown ball, and then the official unofficial pick when he was trying to throw it away at the end of the game.

And dude, anyone playing in D1 college football SHOULD be breaking records at their high school. That doesn't mean jack when it comes time to move up, as you can see.

Oh well, like I said before it was a fun game and looking forward to the next one!

(10-02-2018 06:34 AM)odu09 Wrote:  

(10-01-2018 07:19 PM)pcm0103 Wrote:  

(10-01-2018 05:44 PM)odu09 Wrote:  Horrible is a stretch. But it was interesting your coach decided to play a QB who can't throw and let us back into the game.

I certainly hope a rivalry can form, you guys will always be the closest FBS team to us.

There's actually a reason for that madness. Holton was brought in because we have certain run packages that is designed just for him. He is a threat when he runs, that 50 yard touchdown run shows that. He has played in 3 games so far and has scored a rushing touchdown in each game. Believe it or not he broke a lot of passing records in high school. But he is a true freshman and he has not adjusted yet to the speed of college football. His pass in that game was his first pass of the year. Thats why he is our 3rd string QB. So playing him was scripted but he wasn't the reason why you got back in the game.

I'm sorry but I really can't buy that your coach made some kind of chess moves with the QBs. Yes, your running QB broke one open for 50(?) yard touchdown. Another big play given up by our defense. But after that he had what, 15 yards for the rest of the game? It seemed like we couldn't stop the other guy, Herring. One interception was bad luck off the WR, another an overthrown ball, and then the official unofficial pick when he was trying to throw it away at the end of the game.

And dude, anyone playing in D1 college football SHOULD be breaking records at their high school. That doesn't mean jack when it comes time to move up, as you can see.

Oh well, like I said before it was a fun game and looking forward to the next one!

You don't have to buy it. Just go look at our game against UNC and USF and you will see what i'm talking about. And if that isn't enough for you go back and listen to his past press conference's or go read our 247sportts.com board and read for yourself. Holton only comes in on plays designed for him. He wasn't taken out because of the interceptions. Coach Mo is going to burn his redshirt third year because of this.


Also i'm pretty sure your DC saw game film on him and should have been prepared for it. Everytime he has played it has always been a running play.


Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

(10-01-2018 10:50 PM)Cyniclone Wrote:  

(10-01-2018 09:44 PM)Gilesfan Wrote:  

(10-01-2018 08:53 PM)Cyniclone Wrote:  

(10-01-2018 11:42 AM)Grommet Wrote:  

Here's Harry's column about it.

Here's where it gets confusing:

Quote:“I have confirmed that even though the official may have gotten the call correct, he was too technical in his decision to rule incomplete on that interception,” said Gerald Austin, a stand-up guy who had a long career as a referee, including several appearances in the Super Bowl.

“He should have called it a catch and let play replay decide. We cannot take a play away from a player that we cannot back up as officials.”

In essence he's saying that the call might have actually been right, but the way it was ruled was wrong. Now I get referees allowing a play to reach its natural conclusion and then letting replay sort it out (if Player A returns a fumble for a touchdown, you can reverse that if it's wrong, but if you initially rule it an incomplete pass and blow the play dead as he's making the return, you can't give him back his score even if you correct the call). But that's not what this was: The play ends when Davila goes out of bounds, whether you call it an interception or an incomplete pass.

In essence, and maybe I'm reading too much into it, it's almost as though the CUSA director of officials (and Harry) are advocating for referees on the field to effectively kick the can on borderline calls to the replay booth, when that's not really their function — they're supposed to review plays and overturn obviously wrong calls, not be the swing vote.

It's one thing to say "it was an interception and the ref should have called it." It's quite another thing to say "it might have been an incompletion but it should have been called an interception so that replay can make that decision, or let it stand if they can't." That may be correct by the letter of the law but seems at least like a misdemeanor to the spirit of the law.

It seems he's saying either way (whether correct or not), the correct technique was not followed. They seems to be advised to rule on the side of catch when its questionable.

That's where I'm getting hung up. Refs make 50/50 calls for incompletions against touchdowns/catches/interceptions all the time. This makes it sound as though refs shouldn't make those calls anymore, leaving it to the replay booth to sort out, which to me is troubling enough.

But even if the rule is to err on the side of the ball possessor, it doesn't eliminate the borderline call, it just moves the border. Now instead of deciding whether to call that 50/50 play a td/catch/interception, they're deciding if that 35/65 call is decisive enough to rule it an incompletion or if it's close enough to give it to the possessor and push it upstairs for the word of God.

And since the replay booth defaults to the call on the field when it can't make the call, it means all those 50/50 calls are weighted a lot more to the possessor since they can only be overruled with incontrovertible evidence.

I also think Harry's taking it a bridge too far by presuming that the interception would have stood. It's entirely possible that replay would have found the thread to justify an overturning. They're still human beings up there, and God knows they've made worse calls in a good-faith effort to rule correctly.

In that vein, I think it's also a cop out to go all-in on the "refs screw over the Monarchs" narrative. Unless you can prove that there was a concerted effort to call the game for East Carolina (and why would CUSA refs want to benefit them? free barbecue?) then once you get past the emotion of the moment, you realize that bad calls are part and parcel of fallible people doing a job that requires infallibility, and understanding that sometimes things don't break your way. There were enough human errors, especially in the endgame, that it's not just the refs' performance that separates 2-3 and a winning streak from 1-4 and a bowl bid threatening to sail off the horizon before Halloween.

I think the refs did screw ODU, but not intentionally. It's absurd to think refs have a rooting interest in the game.

I think they want the possessor to be given the benefit of the doubt if it's questionable. When he says the ref was too technical, it's because you could "argue" a bobble on a lot of catches...."was that a bobble or was the possessor bringing the ball into the body." "when you tuck it away, you could argue the ball moved."

Austin is saying the refs screwed in how they made the ruling.

I think the theory is that it's easier to go from catch to non catch than it is non catch to catch. Like they called the ECU WR caught the ball on the sideline (which was a legit call).

My interpretation of the ref/replay situation: The call of INT made by the official closest to the play should have been the official call that was reviewed, not INC by the guy 15 yards away. At that point, replay has to show enough evidence to overturn the INT call, which there would not have been. The INT stands, the game is over, and the refs handled it appropriately. So, yes, it's perfectly acceptable to say the refs screwed up, even though BW can't because he's likely to see this crew again. And, to me, this one play DID decide the game

And although I don't think we're well-coached, I also get the feeling this is "one of those years." 90-minute weather delay at LU, bus to Charlotte on Wednesday for a game we find out will be played Thursday, now this debacle. Bad karma.

(10-02-2018 06:34 AM)odu09 Wrote:  

(10-01-2018 07:19 PM)pcm0103 Wrote:  

(10-01-2018 05:44 PM)odu09 Wrote:  Horrible is a stretch. But it was interesting your coach decided to play a QB who can't throw and let us back into the game.

I certainly hope a rivalry can form, you guys will always be the closest FBS team to us.

There's actually a reason for that madness. Holton was brought in because we have certain run packages that is designed just for him. He is a threat when he runs, that 50 yard touchdown run shows that. He has played in 3 games so far and has scored a rushing touchdown in each game. Believe it or not he broke a lot of passing records in high school. But he is a true freshman and he has not adjusted yet to the speed of college football. His pass in that game was his first pass of the year. Thats why he is our 3rd string QB. So playing him was scripted but he wasn't the reason why you got back in the game.

I'm sorry but I really can't buy that your coach made some kind of chess moves with the QBs. Yes, your running QB broke one open for 50(?) yard touchdown. Another big play given up by our defense. But after that he had what, 15 yards for the rest of the game? It seemed like we couldn't stop the other guy, Herring. One interception was bad luck off the WR, another an overthrown ball, and then the official unofficial pick when he was trying to throw it away at the end of the game.

And dude, anyone playing in D1 college football SHOULD be breaking records at their high school. That doesn't mean jack when it comes time to move up, as you can see.

Oh well, like I said before it was a fun game and looking forward to the next one!

I don't think either interception was bad luck. The first one was a guy that was covered like a blanket, the WR probably couldn't even see the ball. The 2nd one was awful. There were another questionable throws as well.

The drives before they changed QBs:

INT
TD
3 and out
3 and out
INT

Then they bring the other QB in and he scores a long touchdown.

Of course, it was probably the wrong call, but it was a logical move. Herring was all over the place and keeping us in the game with turnovers.

(10-02-2018 08:00 AM)jumpshooter Wrote:  My interpretation of the ref/replay situation: The call of INT made by the official closest to the play should have been the official call that was reviewed, not INC by the guy 15 yards away. At that point, replay has to show enough evidence to overturn the INT call, which there would not have been. The INT stands, the game is over, and the refs handled it appropriately. So, yes, it's perfectly acceptable to say the refs screwed up, even though BW can't because he's likely to see this crew again. And, to me, this one play DID decide the game

And although I don't think we're well-coached, I also get the feeling this is "one of those years." 90-minute weather delay at LU, bus to Charlotte on Wednesday for a game we find out will be played Thursday, now this debacle. Bad karma.

If you are a ref overturning another call, you should be 100% on that call. It doesn't make sense to overturn another call unless you know you are right.

I agree. You can be 100% certain you saw something -- and still be wrong

(10-01-2018 02:44 PM)pcm0103 Wrote:  

(10-01-2018 01:10 PM)757ODU Wrote:  1. It was clearly an interception.
2. We are 1-4 and your record shows who you really are.
3. We beat VT, which is the best win I will ever see from this program in my lifetime.

It seems we are definitely improving, although I believe ECU is a horrible football team. We will know what we are and what we have after this coming weekend.

Horrible? Bit if a stretch isn't. You guys played a great game. Your receivers are legit NFL talent. That was an interception. I'll agree to that. But horrible? That horrible team sacked your QB 8 times, held you to 21 yards rushing, 250 passing. We put 313 passing, and 179 rushing on your team. If that is horrible I would hate to see what your definition of a good team is.

Looking forward to the game next year. This will turn out to be a great rivalry if both schools continue the series.

By horrible I mean, you lost to NC A&T. The next four will determine if horrible was the right word. I believe ECU will make a return to it's glory days, but this year, y'all are not very good.

(10-02-2018 08:34 AM)757ODU Wrote:  

(10-01-2018 02:44 PM)pcm0103 Wrote:  

(10-01-2018 01:10 PM)757ODU Wrote:  1. It was clearly an interception.
2. We are 1-4 and your record shows who you really are.
3. We beat VT, which is the best win I will ever see from this program in my lifetime.

It seems we are definitely improving, although I believe ECU is a horrible football team. We will know what we are and what we have after this coming weekend.

Horrible? Bit if a stretch isn't. You guys played a great game. Your receivers are legit NFL talent. That was an interception. I'll agree to that. But horrible? That horrible team sacked your QB 8 times, held you to 21 yards rushing, 250 passing. We put 313 passing, and 179 rushing on your team. If that is horrible I would hate to see what your definition of a good team is.

Looking forward to the game next year. This will turn out to be a great rivalry if both schools continue the series.

By horrible I mean, you lost to NC A&T. The next four will determine if horrible was the right word. I believe ECU will make a return to it's glory days, but this year, y'all are not very good.

A&T has won a couple FBS games, I believe. They are a pretty strong FCS school. Either way, ECU came back and beat UNC the following week.

They have outgained opponents by 113, 115, 116, and 221 yards each week. One of those is at South Florida, which is a really good team. Their offense is not great by any means, but they do a good job possessing the ball and gettin first down. The defense is pretty tough and their DEs are extremely good.

Really cant judge them by 1 game in which they should have won if it wasn't for 3 turnovers. They could fall apart from here, but I think they will be a solid squad this year.

(10-02-2018 08:34 AM)757ODU Wrote:  

(10-01-2018 02:44 PM)pcm0103 Wrote:  

(10-01-2018 01:10 PM)757ODU Wrote:  1. It was clearly an interception.
2. We are 1-4 and your record shows who you really are.
3. We beat VT, which is the best win I will ever see from this program in my lifetime.

It seems we are definitely improving, although I believe ECU is a horrible football team. We will know what we are and what we have after this coming weekend.

Horrible? Bit if a stretch isn't. You guys played a great game. Your receivers are legit NFL talent. That was an interception. I'll agree to that. But horrible? That horrible team sacked your QB 8 times, held you to 21 yards rushing, 250 passing. We put 313 passing, and 179 rushing on your team. If that is horrible I would hate to see what your definition of a good team is.

Looking forward to the game next year. This will turn out to be a great rivalry if both schools continue the series.

By horrible I mean, you lost to NC A&T. The next four will determine if horrible was the right word. I believe ECU will make a return to it's glory days, but this year, y'all are not very good.

So one loss to a division II school makes us horrible? If the next four determines that we are, what did the last three determine? Using your same logic on your school, does losing to Liberty make you horrible? What does the win against VaTech make you? Lucky? What will the next four games make you? I'll admit we aren't great but we are defintely better than horrible even with the A&T loss. I don't think you guys are horrible. I think your coach just played the wrong QB at the beginning of the season. If it wasn't for the 3 turnovers against A&T we would be 3-1.

(10-02-2018 08:50 AM)pcm0103 Wrote:  

(10-02-2018 08:34 AM)757ODU Wrote:  

(10-01-2018 02:44 PM)pcm0103 Wrote:  

(10-01-2018 01:10 PM)757ODU Wrote:  1. It was clearly an interception.
2. We are 1-4 and your record shows who you really are.
3. We beat VT, which is the best win I will ever see from this program in my lifetime.

It seems we are definitely improving, although I believe ECU is a horrible football team. We will know what we are and what we have after this coming weekend.

Horrible? Bit if a stretch isn't. You guys played a great game. Your receivers are legit NFL talent. That was an interception. I'll agree to that. But horrible? That horrible team sacked your QB 8 times, held you to 21 yards rushing, 250 passing. We put 313 passing, and 179 rushing on your team. If that is horrible I would hate to see what your definition of a good team is.

Looking forward to the game next year. This will turn out to be a great rivalry if both schools continue the series.

By horrible I mean, you lost to NC A&T. The next four will determine if horrible was the right word. I believe ECU will make a return to it's glory days, but this year, y'all are not very good.

So one loss to a division II school makes us horrible? If the next four determines that we are, what did the last three determine? Using your same logic on your school, does losing to Liberty make you horrible? What does the win against VaTech make you? Lucky? What will the next four games make you? I'll admit we aren't great but we are defintely better than horrible even with the A&T loss. I don't think you guys are horrible. I think your coach just played the wrong QB at the beginning of the season. If it wasn't for the 3 turnovers against A&T we would be 3-1.

Do you think I am high on our football team? I am not. Always hoped to be proven wrong, but I don't think we are very good. Love our receivers, our d-line, and our young corners, but the rest of the team is not very good IMO.

(10-01-2018 10:50 PM)Cyniclone Wrote:  

(10-01-2018 09:44 PM)Gilesfan Wrote:  

(10-01-2018 08:53 PM)Cyniclone Wrote:  

(10-01-2018 11:42 AM)Grommet Wrote:  

Here's Harry's column about it.

Here's where it gets confusing:

Quote:“I have confirmed that even though the official may have gotten the call correct, he was too technical in his decision to rule incomplete on that interception,” said Gerald Austin, a stand-up guy who had a long career as a referee, including several appearances in the Super Bowl.

“He should have called it a catch and let play replay decide. We cannot take a play away from a player that we cannot back up as officials.”

In essence he's saying that the call might have actually been right, but the way it was ruled was wrong. Now I get referees allowing a play to reach its natural conclusion and then letting replay sort it out (if Player A returns a fumble for a touchdown, you can reverse that if it's wrong, but if you initially rule it an incomplete pass and blow the play dead as he's making the return, you can't give him back his score even if you correct the call). But that's not what this was: The play ends when Davila goes out of bounds, whether you call it an interception or an incomplete pass.

In essence, and maybe I'm reading too much into it, it's almost as though the CUSA director of officials (and Harry) are advocating for referees on the field to effectively kick the can on borderline calls to the replay booth, when that's not really their function — they're supposed to review plays and overturn obviously wrong calls, not be the swing vote.

It's one thing to say "it was an interception and the ref should have called it." It's quite another thing to say "it might have been an incompletion but it should have been called an interception so that replay can make that decision, or let it stand if they can't." That may be correct by the letter of the law but seems at least like a misdemeanor to the spirit of the law.

It seems he's saying either way (whether correct or not), the correct technique was not followed. They seems to be advised to rule on the side of catch when its questionable.

That's where I'm getting hung up. Refs make 50/50 calls for incompletions against touchdowns/catches/interceptions all the time. This makes it sound as though refs shouldn't make those calls anymore, leaving it to the replay booth to sort out, which to me is troubling enough.

But even if the rule is to err on the side of the ball possessor, it doesn't eliminate the borderline call, it just moves the border. Now instead of deciding whether to call that 50/50 play a td/catch/interception, they're deciding if that 35/65 call is decisive enough to rule it an incompletion or if it's close enough to give it to the possessor and push it upstairs for the word of God.

And since the replay booth defaults to the call on the field when it can't make the call, it means all those 50/50 calls are weighted a lot more to the possessor since they can only be overruled with incontrovertible evidence.

I also think Harry's taking it a bridge too far by presuming that the interception would have stood. It's entirely possible that replay would have found the thread to justify an overturning. They're still human beings up there, and God knows they've made worse calls in a good-faith effort to rule correctly.

In that vein, I think it's also a cop out to go all-in on the "refs screw over the Monarchs" narrative. Unless you can prove that there was a concerted effort to call the game for East Carolina (and why would CUSA refs want to benefit them? free barbecue?) then once you get past the emotion of the moment, you realize that bad calls are part and parcel of fallible people doing a job that requires infallibility, and understanding that sometimes things don't break your way. There were enough human errors, especially in the endgame, that it's not just the refs' performance that separates 2-3 and a winning streak from 1-4 and a bowl bid threatening to sail off the horizon before Halloween.

I think you are over analyzing the semantics here. The replay truly was inconclusive by the irrefutable evidence standard, so he could not accurately say they got the call wrong, but he, like anyone else who watched it without a pro ECU bias, knew the call was wrong. In order to accurately state why the call was wrong, he had to go to a technicality, because that was the only way to make the case without there being any wiggle room. The fact is, the call was wrong enough for the head of officials to make a statement, so he must have thought the call was wrong in more than just execution, otherwise, why make a statement at all.