|
Replies: 14
| visibility 1,775
|
110%er [6281]
TigerPulse: 95%
Posts: 12983
Joined: 4/21/15
|
Targeting call reversed on VT
Dec 30, 2016, 10:41 AM
|
|
Can anybody explain to me why they did not call it targeting?? It looked way worse than a lot of the ones I have seen. Also any word on the muffed punt that VT recovered but they gave the ball to ARkansas. I just do not understand.
|
|
|
|
 |
CU Medallion [52894]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 8754
Joined: 12/26/15
|
Re: Targeting call reversed on VT
Dec 30, 2016, 10:52 AM
|
|
A inadvertent whistle when no team has possession goes back to the previous play.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [57145]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 39693
Joined: 11/12/04
|
so they should have re-punted?
Dec 30, 2016, 10:54 AM
|
|
Certainly shouldn't have gotten the ball and 1st down. When ACC refs hear of this they will "Inadvertently" whistle to screw us repeatedly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [38514]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 47162
Joined: 10/28/02
|
Penalty gave them a first down.***
Dec 30, 2016, 11:09 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Trainer [30]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 51
Joined: 8/1/05
|
Re: Penalty gave them a first down.***
Dec 30, 2016, 11:39 AM
|
|
That's correct, the whole fumble situation didn't matter because there was a holding penalty before all that happened. Had the VT player caught it cleanly and then returned it for a touchdown it would have been called back because of the holding and the penalty would give AR the first down.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [6281]
TigerPulse: 95%
Posts: 12983
Joined: 4/21/15
|
Re: Penalty gave them a first down.***
Dec 30, 2016, 1:46 PM
|
|
I thought holding on a return just makes the return team go back 10 yards. Is that only if it is after the catch and during the return.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [12876]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 8195
Joined: 3/30/16
|
Re: Targeting call reversed on VT
Dec 30, 2016, 10:57 AM
[ in reply to Re: Targeting call reversed on VT ] |
|
And then the penalty call allowed them to mantain posession rather then having to punt again?
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [6281]
TigerPulse: 95%
Posts: 12983
Joined: 4/21/15
|
Re: Targeting call reversed on VT
Dec 30, 2016, 1:44 PM
[ in reply to Re: Targeting call reversed on VT ] |
|
They blew the whistle because they thought the Arkansas guy was down but he never had possession and obviously the VT player recovered. I have seen them give the ball to the team who recovered after the whistle plenty of times.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [64590]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 88995
Joined: 3/27/01
|
It's amazing....
Dec 30, 2016, 11:06 AM
|
|
even with the benefit of replay, they still manage to botch the calls.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [7494]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 15418
Joined: 2/2/01
|
the defender didn't launch
Dec 30, 2016, 11:07 AM
|
|
The defender had his head to the side, the defender had both arms out in tackle position-(the dumb #### announcers first tried to claim incorrectly he was going for a forearm to the head). They were correct in reversing. The punt issue is a broken rule that needs to be fixed asap. I don't think the holding occcured before the kick but if so, wouldn't it have been a first down Arky even if the punt had been fielded cleanly without the whistle?
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [8095]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 10945
Joined: 2/10/11
|
I agreed with reversing the targetting call. The other is
Dec 30, 2016, 1:49 PM
|
|
a mystery to me. I simply don't know the rule, and the announcers didn't either and could not explain it --- even after they spent the entire halftime talking to officials.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [38514]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 47162
Joined: 10/28/02
|
On the targeting the defender had his eyes up and arms out
Dec 30, 2016, 11:18 AM
|
|
to wrap up. The contact to the head was because the receiver lowered his head. Was absolutely the correct call.
The confusion on the punt appeared to be the announcers being idiots (Patrick and Cunningham) and confusion by the refs. Not sure that the whistle mattered as I believe the defensive hold happened at the line of scrimmage and not downfield. So Arkansas only needed to accept the penalty to replay the down and get a 1st down on the penalty yards. The confusion was in communication and who had possession after the fumble and when the penalty occurred. Maybe the whistle required them to replay the down, but clearly the penalty was called before the punt.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4299]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 2985
Joined: 10/17/02
|
I missed this play. Can someone recap the situation for me?***
Dec 30, 2016, 11:23 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2065]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 2095
Joined: 9/4/09
|
Re: I missed this play. Can someone recap the situation for me?***
Dec 30, 2016, 11:47 AM
|
|
Recap of play: AR punts the ball to VT and the VT player muffs the punt and it was initially recovered by an AR player who then fumbles the ball and is then recovered back by VT. However; just prior to VT player recovering the ball there was inadvertent whistle so basically the play was whistled dead while need team had possession of the ball. To make matters more confusing, there was a holding penalty called on VT during the play. It was extremely confusing because the Refs initially got the call wrong, AR coach calls timeout and protested for five minutes so the Refs amend the call but still got it wrong. Finally the play was reviewed and the end result was the ball was taken back to the original line of scrimmage and the penalty yardage was marked off, which gave AR a first down. To make matters worse the announcers were talking out of their arses just adding to the confusion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5249]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 7625
Joined: 3/5/12
|
For Targeting, the defender had a good form tackle, but I
Dec 30, 2016, 11:42 AM
|
|
actually thought the receiver wasn't defenseless anyway. He caught the ball, turned up field, and even tried to put his arm out to either stabilize himself or block the incoming tackler.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 14
| visibility 1,775
|
|
|
50
