|
Replies: 13
| visibility 1,686
|
CU Guru [1776]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 2564
Joined: 3/15/99
|
About the offsides on the onside kick, I've kinda
Dec 7, 2015, 8:43 AM
|
|
decided there must of been someone who broke the plane because I haven't seen ESPN use that technique where they rotate the field in the picture. If they haven't done that, it's probably because they want to keep the drama alive.
|
|
|
|
 |
CU Medallion [56756]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 39625
Joined: 11/12/04
|
#30, who recovered the ball, was leaning forward and broke
Dec 7, 2015, 8:46 AM
|
|
the plane. He realized he was too far out in front and was stutter-stepping to keep his feet behind the line, but it's not just where his feet are. His arm is out front too. The ref is in the correct position to make the call looking right down the line. The flag was thrown immediately, he didn't wait to see the outcome. For all he knew, Clemson would catch the ball and on the re-kick UNC might get it. If that happend, would eSECpn be saying how we were screwed then? hell no.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [16646]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 9354
Joined: 11/1/14
|
Re: #30, who recovered the ball, was leaning forward and broke
Dec 7, 2015, 9:22 AM
|
|
Football is called based on contact with the ground...not hanging over a line (soccer). There seems to be a question about the alignment, which would have been a similar penalty, but honestly, I don't know if that's the case. I didn't see offsides, though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [10343]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 12798
Joined: 11/22/03
|
Re: #30, who recovered the ball, was leaning forward and broke
Dec 7, 2015, 9:23 AM
|
|
You are wrong. If a players helmet is in the neutral zone he is considered offsides. Does not matter where his feet are.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [30766]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 34465
Joined: 6/22/03
|
Officiciating was horrible on both sides. Watson was a free target
Dec 7, 2015, 8:49 AM
|
|
While you couldn't put a finger on williams. I'd say if the officiating was better Clemson wins by even more.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [9023]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 7374
Joined: 4/9/11
|
Isn't the rule that there have to be 4 players on either
Dec 7, 2015, 8:53 AM
|
|
side of the kicker? If that's the case, then wasn't the first kickoff an illegal formation? Maybe it wasn't offsides, but a violation nonetheless?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2063]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 2094
Joined: 9/4/09
|
Re: About the offsides on the onside kick, I've kinda
Dec 7, 2015, 8:55 AM
|
|
They have no camera angle which can duplicate what the official looking down the line saw. When the game was over I walked around the upper deck concourse inside the staduim to get a better view of the trophy presentation and the camera covering the kick was positioned on the same concourse directly on the 50 yard line so the camera is at an angle looking back at the 35 yard line. The only camera that would have given the exact view of the plane would have been the overhead cable camera and only then if it were directly over the plane. We didnt win or lose the game on this one play so it is really irrelevant.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [9023]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 7374
Joined: 4/9/11
|
Eff UNC, it isn't like them and Dook have ALWAYS
Dec 7, 2015, 9:00 AM
|
|
gotten calls on Tobacco road in basketball. We've had multiple basketball games stolen because Smith, Williams and Shitshovski whine and complain and get every call, even the made up ones. We've had both of them on the ropes and had games taken away but terrible calls. Not that I'm bitter....
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5282]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 6926
Joined: 11/5/12
|
It's fine...I don't feel bad about it considering
Dec 7, 2015, 9:05 AM
|
|
UNC would have gotten away with a blatant targeting for the second time in the game (first being when Watson went down)...this time against the guy that was receiving the ball:
https://vine.co/v/i7bhFWAeUWY
Can you imagine the conspiracy that UNC gets the onsides by committing a targeting, and gets away with it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5282]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 6926
Joined: 11/5/12
|
Re: It's fine...I don't feel bad about it considering
Dec 7, 2015, 9:19 AM
|
|
other targeting miss:
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mascot [20]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 70
Joined: 6/1/01
|
Re: About the offsides on the onside kick, I've kinda
Dec 7, 2015, 9:09 AM
|
|
There was a UNC Player outside of the 9 Yard Markers,that was the offsides call.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [10354]
TigerPulse: 84%
Posts: 14025
Joined: 11/9/04
|
is that what the ref threw the flag on?...
Dec 7, 2015, 9:20 AM
|
|
did they say that?
I know they were outside that 9 yard mark, but with such an "unknown rule" i would have thought the refs would have AT LEAST explained the call to keep ESPN off our case.
so.....
did they call offsides b/c someone broke the plane
or
did they call offsides b/c of the 9 yard rule
OR
did they call offsides from breaking the plane and just MISSED the 9 yard penalty.........either way the penalty wouldve been the same, but it would've been nice if it could've been communicated to the fans/media/espn so everyone wouldn't be so "quick to judge" a "bad call"
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [24869]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 32250
Joined: 2/15/09
|
point is. The call was close and could have gone either way
Dec 7, 2015, 9:24 AM
|
|
It was just ridiculous how ESPN made it out like it was the most egregious call in history
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mascot [20]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 70
Joined: 6/1/01
|
Re: point is. The call was close and could have gone either way
Dec 7, 2015, 9:46 AM
|
|
Yea somebody needs to officially explain the call.I'm tired of all these looser cry babies.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 13
| visibility 1,686
|
|
|
50
