menu
Logo
Bobcat Attack Menu
Logo
Ohio Football Topic
Topic: OHIO gets break from missed fumble
Page: 2 of 2
John C. Wanamaker
General User
Member Since: 1/2/2005
Post Count: 1,103
mail
John C. Wanamaker
mail
Posted: 11/17/2010 9:33 AM
settings_applications edit_note
ohiosportsfan777 wrote:expand_more
I know where you're coming from Texas cat but the fact was there was not a good replay to show when 84 got the ball back even if he did, in all likelihood, recover his own fumble. But let's not forget that that was early in the game and if I remember correctly Ohio punted on that ensuing possession anyway. Also, if 84 does not fumble, then we, nor anyone else even mentions the play at all. You can't just toss up the football and expect good things to happen. So while I see your angle, let's not forget that not everything is black and white and mistakes will be made. How you deal with adversity is what makes you, others, or a team, truly successful. 


My problem with that play is not one official ever made a call, they had a conference then decided, they were all scratching their heads.

On the QB throw and the illegal touching that was an incorrect call, as the ball hit the player in the back of the shoulder, that is a turn your head the other way common sense no call as there was no intent of the touching, and the ball is live and free.
Ryan Carey
Site Programmer
Member Since: 11/11/2004
Post Count: 993
mail
Ryan Carey
mail
Posted: 11/17/2010 9:46 AM
settings_applications edit_note
I agree.  None of the officials had any idea what to call on the fumble and the Temple WR coming out with the ball confused them even more.  I've seen quite a few calls this season where the refs seem to be relying on the instant replay more and more.  It's like, "lets just make a call we think may be right, then see if there is anything on video."

I would have really liked to see some other angles on the illegal touching call.  ESPN only showed that one angle (probably because their other 6 cameras were locked in place and focused on Golden while the operators were off getting something to eat.)  I never saw the ball hit the ground from the angle we had.  Looked like the Temple lineman had it first, then it looked like Williamson had it as he went to the ground.  Would the illegal touching voided an interception/fumble recovery by Williamson?
John C. Wanamaker
General User
Member Since: 1/2/2005
Post Count: 1,103
mail
John C. Wanamaker
mail
Posted: 11/17/2010 9:49 AM
settings_applications edit_note
Funny thing is Replay can't really get involved in that play to begin with and Golden should have known that and saved his challenge.  That situation is the least overturned call in College Football.
John C. Wanamaker
General User
Member Since: 1/2/2005
Post Count: 1,103
mail
John C. Wanamaker
mail
Posted: 11/17/2010 9:50 AM
settings_applications edit_note
No, if there was a pick, the illegal touching could be declined like any other penalty.
Casper71
General User
C71
Member Since: 12/1/2006
Post Count: 3,237
person
mail
Casper71
mail
Posted: 11/17/2010 12:30 PM
settings_applications edit_note
Face it, this crew did not know who had possession on multiple occasions. 

And, they also didn't know how to spot the ball.  If you remember one huge help OUr team got was when the ball (after an apparent Temple first down) was placed back on the 44 (after replay) giving Temple a 3 and 1 instead of the first down.  They went for it all on 3rd and threw an incomplete pass then we stuffed them on 4 and 1.  Huge turning point, I thought! 

Why wouldn't you run twice for the yard to keep the drive alive...oh, I forgot that is predicable and dull and not a surprise.  Sometimes, you can be too cute!
OUVan
General User
Member Since: 12/20/2004
Location: Bethesda, MD
Post Count: 5,580
mail
OUVan
mail
Posted: 11/17/2010 2:14 PM
settings_applications edit_note
Casper71 wrote:expand_more
If you remember one huge help OUr team got was when the ball (after an apparent Temple first down) was placed back on the 44 (after replay) giving Temple a 3 and 1 instead of the first down.  They went for it all on 3rd and threw an incomplete pass then we stuffed them on 4 and 1.  Huge turning point, I thought! 

Why wouldn't you run twice for the yard to keep the drive alive...oh, I forgot that is predicable and dull and not a surprise.  Sometimes, you can be too cute!


It wasn't exactly a "huge help" since that's where it should have been spotted.  As for Temple's play calling in that situation what part of the running attack made you think that they were going to make it particularly since they did try to run it on one of the two plays and the pass was much closer to being converted than the run.
Casper71
General User
C71
Member Since: 12/1/2006
Post Count: 3,237
person
mail
Casper71
mail
Posted: 11/17/2010 3:06 PM
settings_applications edit_note
First, I'm old school (for what it's worth).

Second, and most importantly, they rushed 23 times for 85 yards.  Duh, I think that is an average of 3.5 yards per rush.  So, getting 1 in two attempts seems pretty doable to me.

I understand there are choices to make.  Mine is simply smash mouth football in that siuation.  You're driving for a score.  Keep the chains moving.  Just a difference in philosophy...I would not be cute there.
OUVan
General User
Member Since: 12/20/2004
Location: Bethesda, MD
Post Count: 5,580
mail
OUVan
mail
Posted: 11/17/2010 4:11 PM
settings_applications edit_note
Casper71 wrote:expand_more
First, I'm old school (for what it's worth).

Second, and most importantly, they rushed 23 times for 85 yards.  Duh, I think that is an average of 3.5 yards per rush.  So, getting 1 in two attempts seems pretty doable to me.

I understand there are choices to make.  Mine is simply smash mouth football in that siuation.  You're driving for a score.  Keep the chains moving.  Just a difference in philosophy...I would not be cute there.


I agree for the most part but the numbers you post are misleading. Temple got credit for 16 yards rushing on Brown's forward fumble in the 4th. Take that away and they have 23 rushes for 66 yards or 2.86 ypc.  Our D-line was really getting a strong push and when we expected them to run we were stopping it.  Personally I had no problem with the 3rd down call and it should have worked.  I had a bigger problem with their 4th down call. I would have done a rollout run pass option.  At the very least I think they should have used a different back.  I haven't seen Temple enough to know what they have behind Brown but he was just getting stuffed every time he tried to go up the middle.
Oldcat
General User
Member Since: 7/18/2010
Post Count: 192
mail
Oldcat
mail
Posted: 11/17/2010 5:52 PM
settings_applications edit_note
[QUOTE/]This is America and I can voice my opinion on any blog I wish to visit. Tonight I was watching ESPN 2 and saw a play that I disagreed with so I voiced my opinion with the public that the result of the play favored. I stated that I have no bias in the matter of who wins. So it isn't okay to come here and post an educated opinion about something that affects your team negatively? How many NCAA officiating training classes have you been too? How many NCAA football games have you officiated? How many NCAA clinics have you been too? How many years have you been an NCAA official? I bet your answer will be "zero"?[/QUOTE]

OK, you are right! They blew it! Now go away!
Last Edited: 11/17/2010 5:53:31 PM by Oldcat
OrlandoCat
General User
OC
Member Since: 3/15/2005
Post Count: 355
person
mail
OrlandoCat
mail
Posted: 11/17/2010 9:59 PM
settings_applications edit_note
TexasOfficial wrote:expand_more
Really, the ones who are saying it happened when they were unpiling? You can clearly see #84 pull the ball in from #51's legs proving he never had possession just a second after he hits the ground. Secondly, #51, a giant LB let #84, skinny WR pull the ball out of his grip? Really? He never had a hand on it and that is why the Temple player recovered it. It was free and loose under #51 but not in his possession. That is the rule.


Key phrase is bolded...


From the 'ole rule book...

[A player is down] When any part of the ball carrier’s body, except his hand or foot, touches
the ground or when the ball carrier is tackled or otherwise falls and loses
possession of the ball as he contacts the ground with any part of his
body, except his hand or foot [Exception: The ball remains alive when
an offensive player has simulated a kick or is in position to kick the ball
held for a place kick by a teammate. The ball may be kicked, passed or
advanced by rule] (A.R. 4-1-3-I).


Rule 2 Section 2
ARTICLE 5. “In possession’’ is an abbreviation meaning the holding or
controlling of a live ball or a ball to be free-kicked.

a. A player “gains possession’’ when he is firmly holding or controlling the ball while contacting the ground inbounds.


In short, by allowing a scrum after a fumble, Officials are ignoring one of the most basic rules of NCAA football.  But I'm sure you knew this already
Football Jim
General User
FJ
Member Since: 1/16/2005
Post Count: 177
person
mail
Football Jim
mail
Posted: 11/18/2010 1:14 AM
settings_applications edit_note
Why come here to complain?

If it was a bad call (which it wasn't and I am backed up by the on field officials and the reply officials) why come to us? What is your game?

You must be a trouble maker with too much time on his hands, an idiot, or quite possibly both.

Maybe you should worry about Mac Brown's boys as it is closer to home for you.
79DAD
General User
DAD79
Member Since: 7/22/2010
Post Count: 45
person
mail
79DAD
mail
Posted: 11/18/2010 3:57 PM
settings_applications edit_note

I can not believe that this guy has the balls to come on this thread and tell everyone here that the Bobcats caught a break because of bad officiating.  Claiming to be some highly trained "official".  Given the fact that OHIO was on the other end of some fairly debatable penalties and ball spots.

What an idiot.  As if I didn't already hate officials enough....

LoganElm_grad09
General User
LE09
Member Since: 9/9/2010
Location: South Bloomingville, OH
Post Count: 934
person
mail
LoganElm_grad09
mail
Posted: 11/18/2010 5:05 PM
settings_applications edit_note
OUVan wrote:expand_more
First, I'm old school (for what it's worth).

Second, and most importantly, they rushed 23 times for 85 yards.  Duh, I think that is an average of 3.5 yards per rush.  So, getting 1 in two attempts seems pretty doable to me.

I understand there are choices to make.  Mine is simply smash mouth football in that siuation.  You're driving for a score.  Keep the chains moving.  Just a difference in philosophy...I would not be cute there.


I agree for the most part but the numbers you post are misleading. Temple got credit for 16 yards rushing on Brown's forward fumble in the 4th. Take that away and they have 23 rushes for 66 yards or 2.86 ypc.  Our D-line was really getting a strong push and when we expected them to run we were stopping it.  Personally I had no problem with the 3rd down call and it should have worked.  I had a bigger problem with their 4th down call. I would have done a rollout run pass option.  At the very least I think they should have used a different back.  I haven't seen Temple enough to know what they have behind Brown but he was just getting stuffed every time he tried to go up the middle.


This made me laugh; about a quarter of Temple's "mighty" rushing attack came on a fumble we should have recovered.
John C. Wanamaker
General User
Member Since: 1/2/2005
Post Count: 1,103
mail
John C. Wanamaker
mail
Posted: 11/18/2010 6:29 PM
settings_applications edit_note
Didn't hurt that their rushing attack bowed out of the game on the first play either.  But hey, I'll take it!
Cat4ever
General User
C4
Member Since: 12/29/2007
Location: Oakland, FL
Post Count: 447
person
mail
Cat4ever
mail
Posted: 11/18/2010 10:04 PM
settings_applications edit_note
This is a question for TexasOfficial: Are you implying, then, that an armless person good enough to play football (who never would get flagged for a holding penalty, by the way) couldn't cradle a ball in his crotch and be given credit for having possession?  That seems a tad discriminatory to me!

In a similar vein, it has occurred to me that the rules of the NFL make it impossible for an amazingly gifted one-legged wide receiver to ever make a legal catch on the sidelines!
Showing Messages: 26 - 40 of 40
reply
vertical_align_top
vertical_align_center
vertical_align_bottom
add_comment
chevron_backward
MAC News Links
chevron_left
Tuesday, May 12, 2026
chevron_right



extra small (< 576px)
small (>= 576px)
medium (>= 768px)
large (>= 992px)
x-large (>= 1200px)
xx-large (>= 1400px)