|
Replies: 22
| visibility 1
|
110%er [9064]
TigerPulse: 94%
Posts: 13819
Joined: 7/1/02
|
Onside Kick Offsides Call
Dec 7, 2015, 11:10 AM
|
|
Serious question -
Was UNC offsides or not? All the media keeps saying it was a terrible call and strongly insinuating that it was the only reason we were able to save a win. On the other hand, I've seen the description from the ACC office describing that it was a good call because offsides rules are different for onside kicks.
Which is right - was it a correct call or not?
|
|
|
|
 |
Orange Blooded [3528]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 2565
Joined: 10/19/15
|
Re: Onside Kick Offsides Call
Dec 7, 2015, 11:15 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Scout Team [171]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 85
Joined: 9/6/12
|
Re: Onside Kick Offsides Call
Dec 7, 2015, 11:15 AM
|
|
We won....
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [17294]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 14239
Joined: 12/14/98
|
Any questionable call against UNCheat, it's the RIGHT call!***
Dec 7, 2015, 11:18 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [64591]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 88998
Joined: 3/27/01
|
They're ignoroing the fact that....
Dec 7, 2015, 11:19 AM
|
|
Clemson pretty much kicked UNC's a$$ the other 59 minutes of the game.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [40936]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 42955
Joined: 11/30/98
|
No they were definitely not off sides, everybody knows
Dec 7, 2015, 11:19 AM
|
|
nobody cares
|
|
|
|
|
|
Varsity [240]
TigerPulse: 86%
Posts: 358
Joined: 4/1/09
|
Re: No they were definitely not off sides, everybody knows
Dec 7, 2015, 11:28 AM
|
|
They had 2 players outside the 9 yrd mark on the on-sides kick. I saw it on FB yesterday, researched it, and believe the call to be correct. I am not sure the verbiage for the penalty is "off-sides," but it was a penalty nevertheless. LOL - I had a chicken challenge me on this last evening, others agreed with my comment on his post and he deleted us all! Just my $.02!
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [61842]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 39643
Joined: 12/16/01
|
Game is over ... we won!
Dec 7, 2015, 11:19 AM
|
|
Who cares what the atrophic pundits say?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3881]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 7036
Joined: 9/1/09
|
the explanation I got was that it wasn't even "offsides"
Dec 7, 2015, 11:20 AM
|
|
more like illegal formation. The rules state that there must be at least four men on each side of the ball so they don't overload one side and there were only three on the other side of the ball.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [26968]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 44823
Joined: 7/6/10
|
I think if that were true, the ACC would have said it.
Dec 7, 2015, 11:21 AM
|
|
I mean, I'm sure you're right about the rule. But that's not what they called. The ACC response pretty much says it was a player breaking the plane of the 35-yard line.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [40936]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 42955
Joined: 11/30/98
|
|
|
|
|
|
Varsity [235]
TigerPulse: 84%
Posts: 569
Joined: 12/5/98
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [53]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Holy crap what a terrible website design!***
Dec 7, 2015, 11:44 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5287]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 6929
Joined: 11/5/12
|
Re: Onside Kick Offsides Call
Dec 7, 2015, 11:22 AM
|
|
When they start discussing the targeting that was missed on the same play that limited our receiver from covering the ball at all (and even is what shot it to the back of the pile), I'll care what they think.
https://vine.co/v/i7bhFWAeUWY
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [29036]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 36097
Joined: 8/28/00
|
Geez, that was illegal even before targetting was a rule
Dec 7, 2015, 11:59 AM
|
|
That is textbook spearing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [11934]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 16363
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Yes ... they WERE off-sides .. the call was CORRECT.
Dec 7, 2015, 11:42 AM
|
|
Absolutely no visual evidence to the contrary is available.
No one saying otherwise has seen a camera shot directly down the line from the officials vantage point.
The official threw the flag instantaneously because he was looking straight down the line and he saw the infraction.
It may have been a "slight" infraction, but at that critical point, it was the right call to make.
The official made the right call and all the fans and TV analysts who made their own decision based on a skewed visual angle taken high up in the TV booth are simply wrong.
If I were an opposing fan or a TV/media analyst with a need to create controversy, I'm sure I'd argue that the call was botched ... but you know what? I'd be WRONG!
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1813]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 2419
Joined: 9/24/07
|
Couldn't disagree more.
Dec 7, 2015, 11:52 AM
|
|
Why try to justify it? By every piece of visual evidence available it was obviously too close to call. Maybe the tip of his finger was across the line, MAYBE. Every singe unbiased, non-orange-glasses-wearing fan in America would agree that it's way too close to call in that situation or didn't appear to be offsides at all.
If you want to argue about this at all, the fact that they may have been in an (albeit obscure) illegal formation, or the fact that there was clearly a textbook definition of targeting on the play, are all much better arguments as to why the call didn't or shouldn't really affect the outcome of the game.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [29036]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 36097
Joined: 8/28/00
|
Nope
Dec 7, 2015, 11:58 AM
|
|
You don't have the angle. I don't have the angle. The pundits don't have the angle.
You know who did? The guy who called it.
There is zero evidence the call was wrong. Was it close, yeah, it sure looks like it was. But that call HAS to be made 100% of the time if the ref saw it. And he did.
No arguing otherwise is necessary because you'd be arguing from a point with a lack of evidence.
I find the idea that it was too close to call to be laughable. If he was offsides at all (and remember the 1 person in this world with the angle and ability to call it says he was) then it has to be called because it is a huge advantage for him to be offsides.
There is zero to apologize for, and yes there were other infractions on the play (and don't even for a second get me started on the fact that precisely zero offensive holding calls were made all day), but we don't have to go down that road. The call was made. No one is in possesion of any evidence the call was wrong. It simply doesn't exist (or if it does it hasn't been made public).
Until then, good call. They broke a rule and got caught.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2753]
TigerPulse: 91%
Posts: 5047
Joined: 10/18/06
|
You're missing the point
Dec 8, 2015, 2:11 AM
|
|
You are dogmatically insisting that it was the right call, but then admitting that no one has the requisite angle except the official on the line at the time. If that's the case (and it is), then the most you can argue for is deference to the official, which is VERY different from dogmatic certainty that it was the right call. The most you can argue is that no one can prove beyond all doubt that the call was wrong. That's true, but it's a different standard of proof. I happen to think it's possible that #30's hand was offsides. I'm not certain, but I believe that's a reasonable possibility.
But one thing is certain, according to the rule about being w/in the 9-yd markers, they were DEFINITELY in an illegal formation. That may be irrelevant in a technical sense to an off-sides call, but it would be a different violation that- since left un-called, can and does mean that no ultimate injustice was done, EVEN IF the off-sides call was wrong. Ergo, UNC didn't get cheated. But the reason they didn't get cheated can more certainly be placed on the illegal formation (and possibly targeting on brooks), than the offs-sides, which is no more provable by the advocates than the detractors.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [11934]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 16363
Joined: 11/30/98
|
It doesn't need justification ... it was the right call.
Dec 7, 2015, 5:49 PM
[ in reply to Couldn't disagree more. ] |
|
What would need justification would be overlooking the offsides that you saw because it was "too close" to call in that situation.
I don't care what "everybody in America" thinks they saw.
Nobody in America except the official staring right down the line at the play is in a position to make a judgement on that call.
He said he saw a UNC player offsides and since there is absolutely no valid visual evidence to the contrary we would have to make the assumption that he made the right call.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-American [585]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 911
Joined: 8/20/03
|
Re: And I disagree with you!
Dec 7, 2015, 6:44 PM
[ in reply to Couldn't disagree more. ] |
|
The above poster got it right. No visual vide nice from directly down the line except the official standing there looking. Something broke the plane and he threw the flag. All the crying otherwise is inaccurate. You show me visual evidence directly down the line and I'll change my opinion. In the meantime, he was Offsides!!!!!!!!!!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [22948]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 16898
Joined: 12/2/00
|
Who.Cares.
Dec 7, 2015, 11:59 AM
|
|
Just stop caring.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Team Captain [450]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 581
Joined: 1/25/12
|
Re: Who.Cares.
Dec 7, 2015, 12:03 PM
|
|
Just move on!! While we had a pizza party UNC had (and are still having) a whine and cheese party.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 22
| visibility 1
|
|
|
50
