Went back & watched game closer: we had some tough calls against us

[CalPolyTechnique]

1) Scandrick did not go hands to the face. This robbed us of a huge turnover, a GREAT interception by Hitchens, who had by far his best game of the year with one interception and another near interception and near fumble recovery. Scandrick was engaging the guy at the shoulders, the guy rips Scandrick's arm up and it brushed across his helmet. Terrible call.

2) I know it's popular right now to hate on Escobar, but he absolutely did not clip that guy. By the way the guy fell, it looked like he was clipped, and he put on an act and got the call. But Escobar actually never even touched him below the waist. Horrible call. We were really starting to run the ball in the fourth quarter and that destroyed that drive.

3) Free MAYBE held on Zeke's 43 yard run, but that was a very ticky-tacky call.

4) The only clear violation was Zeke's hold. That was clearly a hold. All the other calls involving contact with other players were either flat out wrong or highly debatable. Maybe the NFL did want us to lose before the Giants' game??? (actually I don't really believe those conspiracy theories, but dang those bad calls really hurt).

1) Scandrick is the toughest call out of the four you listed. Clearly we all saw his arm got pushed up into the defender's face, BUT we can't assume there's a ref dedicated to just watching him. It's very possible the ref just saw the aftermath and threw the flag.

2) Escobar continued the block as the guy turned his back from him. I don't know if their feet got tangled or what, but from what I remember, I thought Escobar fell with him to the ground with him.

3) Free absolutely held on that play. His left arm was across the defender's chest and was preventing him from filling the lane Zeke ran through.

4) Zeke held.

 

[JDSmith]

1) Scandrick is the toughest call out of the four you listed. Clearly we all saw his arm got pushed up into the defender's face, BUT we can't assume there's a ref dedicated to just watching him. It's very possible the ref just saw the aftermath and threw the flag.

That was a potential game changer, we got an interception on the play. If the ref didn't see it clearly he had no business throwing a flag.

 

[Yakuza Rich]

It was a clear hold and an unnecessary one. You can see it on the angle from the endzone.

No, you can't see it.

You see Kendrick flailing his right arm up in the air. Defenders do that all of the time to try and draw a hold.

Like I said, he may have held him...but he may not have held him. You can't see it from the angles we were given.




YR

 

[CalPolyTechnique]

That was a potential game changer, we got an interception on the play. If the ref didn't see it clearly he had no business throwing a flag.

If he sees the play at the moment Scandy's hands are in the opponent's facemask and lifting up his head (and bending his neck), he's going to make that call.

And officials don't make calls based on whether the play it would potentially nullify is a "game-changer" or not. That's just fans looking back on the play an assigning significance to it. Beyond that, most of these calls are made prior to the final outcome of the play (e.g. an interception).

 

[CalPolyTechnique]

No, you can't see it.

You see Kendrick flailing his right arm up in the air. Defenders do that all of the time to try and draw a hold.

Like I said, he may have held him...but he may not have held him. You can't see it from the angles we were given.




YR

And you assume for some strange reason the refs share the same perspective on the field as what you're seeing on a TV screen?

 

[Fritsch_the_cat]

Maybe I'm the only one but I thought Dak got screwed on his slide where they spotted the ball. It looked to me like the spot should at least have been much closer to the first down line, like inches, if not actually a first.

 

[Yakuza Rich]

And you assume for some strange reason the refs have the same perspective on the field as what we're seeing on a TV screen?

Nope, never said that.

Never implied that either.

You're just concocting strawman arguments.

I'm questioning whether it was a hold or not. Could be. But, it may not have been either. For anybody to say that it is CLEAR, one way or the other, from those video screens is being hyperbolic.




YR

 

[JDSmith]

If he sees the play at the moment Scandy's hands are in the opponent's facemask and lifting up his head (and bending his neck), he's going to make that call.

And officials don't make calls based on whether the play it would potentially nullify is a "game-changer" or not. That's just fans looking back on the play an assigning significance to it. Beyond that, most of these calls are made prior to the final outcome of the play (e.g. an interception).

Interception or not, if he didn't see it clearly he shouldn't throw the flag. The flags are too numerous, it's a huge part of what makes the game drag so much now. No matter how you justify it, that call was laughably bad. Clearly the ref didn't see the play well enough to know or he would have kept the flag in his pocket.

 

[Yakuza Rich]

And officials don't make calls based on whether the play it would potentially nullify is a "game-changer" or not. That's just fans looking back on the play an assigning significance to it. Beyond that, most of these calls are made prior to the final outcome of the play (e.g. an interception).

Not exactly true either.

For instance, one of the things that they have mentioned time and time again is that the refs will not call defensive PI on a hail mary unless it's absolutely necessary.
Why?

Because the half or the game cannot end on a defensive penalty. There's a good likelihood that some defensive PI will happen on a hail mary play and it's not 'right' to put the ball at the 1 yard line and allow an offensive to cheaply score points.

It's certainly a potentially game changing play involved and the refs alter their calls based on the situation.

I have no problem with that either.



YR

 

[CWR]

Watch out there are some on here that happily hike up thier skirts and accept it as part of the game, because somehow it balances out down the line. Yet mysteriously weve been getting blatantly screwed the past two games. I guess the no call on Bradford is supposed to make up for the 3 or 4 atrocious calls against us, we will ignore the Bradford play shouldve been ruled dead when the obvious false start occurred to.

On the positive side Ive got about a life time of make up calls coming.

 

[CalPolyTechnique]

Nope, never said that.

Never implied that either.

You're just concocting strawman arguments.

I'm questioning whether it was a hold or not. Could be. But, it may not have been either. For anybody to say that it is CLEAR, one way or the other, from those video screens is being hyperbolic.




YR

And yet, strangely enough, it doesn't seem to stop anyone from saying it was bad call does it?

 

[CalPolyTechnique]

Not exactly true either.

For instance, one of the things that they have mentioned time and time again is that the refs will not call defensive PI on a hail mary unless it's absolutely necessary.
Why?

Because the half or the game cannot end on a defensive penalty. There's a good likelihood that some defensive PI will happen on a hail mary play and it's not 'right' to put the ball at the 1 yard line and allow an offensive to cheaply score points.

It's certainly a potentially game changing play involved and the refs alter their calls based on the situation.

I have no problem with that either.



YR

Who's "they" and what transcript are you referencing in which such things were discussed?

 

[Yakuza Rich]

And yet, strangely enough, it doesn't seem to stop anyone from saying it was bad call does it?

And it doesn't stop you and others from saying it was 'clear.'





YR

 

[CalPolyTechnique]

Interception or not, if he didn't see it clearly he shouldn't throw the flag. The flags are too numerous, it's a huge part of what makes the game drag so much now. No matter how you justify it, that call was laughably bad. Clearly the ref didn't see the play well enough to know or he would have kept the flag in his pocket.

This isn't a case of a ref coming up on a play, seeing a defensive player on the ground, throws a flag because he surmised the OT standing nearby must have held him.

We're talking about a play in which it's very possible the ref (who threw the flag) may have just caught the play at the point Scandrick had his hands in the opponent's face as it was happening. There's no detective work necessary.

What you're effectively arguing is the ref should say "well, I see Player X with his hands illegally on the Player Y's face/head causing his head to jerk up.....but I didn't see the play from the very beginning, so I won't throw the flag."

 

[Yakuza Rich]

Who's "they" and what transcript are you referencing in which such things were discussed?

You hear it all of the time from announcers and on ESPN.

Everybody knows it and you're just being obtuse about it.





YR

 

[CalPolyTechnique]

You hear it all of the time from announcers and on ESPN.

Everybody knows it and you're just being obtuse about it.





YR

Argumentum ad populum.

A lot of people believe X.
Therefore, X must be true.

 

[Reverend Conehead]

The truth is that Minnesota's defense did not exactly stop us. We stopped ourselves. Unless you give the defense credit for stopping 1st and 25s or 2nd and 18s.

Without penalties and fumbles, I didn't see Minny do much.

They stopped a lot of our runs for short gains and they got pressure on our quarterback. Minny and Baltimore have been the best defenses we've faced this year.

 

[Elusive6thRing]

The conspiracy theory that makes me think is the one about covering the spread. We were -2.5 and we win by 2, things that make you go hrmm.

 

[CalPolyTechnique]

The conspiracy theory that makes me think is the one about covering the spread. We were -2.5 and we win by 2, things that make you go hrmm.

The Cowboys are 9-2-1 against the spread this year.

 

[JDSmith]

The conspiracy theory that makes me think is the one about covering the spread. We were -2.5 and we win by 2, things that make you go hrmm.

Honestly that doesn't make me go hmmm at all. Think how unlikely it was that the game would be in a position where it came down to a 2 pt conversion for a tie. To think they swayed things to make us win by only 2 points requires believing that they orchestrated the entire game, or they had a contingency in place just in case there was a 1 in a million and it came down to a 2 point conversion - oh, and the Vikings could still have actually completed the pass, it's not as if the penalty negated a successful conversion.

Sorry, the spread was nothing more than coincidence IMO.