|
Replies: 13
| visibility 1,920
|
CU Medallion [67807]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 115451
Joined: 11/30/98
|
So on the punt muff
Nov 12, 2018, 12:27 PM
|
|
they overlook the fair catch hit and the fact he's hit before he has an opportunity to catch it. Both are against the rules neither gets called and neither gets reviewed. Nice job refs. You are bozos
|
|
|
|
 |
110%er [5072]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 5618
Joined: 8/17/03
|
Re: So on the punt muff
Nov 12, 2018, 12:29 PM
|
|
It was a terrible missed call, but it wasn't something they are allowed to review on replay. It's the same as reviewing for pass interference basically.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [67807]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 115451
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Re: So on the punt muff
Nov 12, 2018, 12:31 PM
|
|
point is they missed 2 violations. Totally Incompetent
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5072]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 5618
Joined: 8/17/03
|
Re: So on the punt muff
Nov 12, 2018, 12:34 PM
|
|
I don't disagree with you there at all. It was one of the most obvious missed calls I've seen in awhile considering how obvious of a thing it is to watch in that situation. I'm just explaining that they didn't review it because they weren't allowed to do so.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [67807]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 115451
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Re: So on the punt muff
Nov 12, 2018, 12:36 PM
|
|
Yeah the review part I knew but that is another flaw with it. Of course if you can review everything bozos like this miss you'll be there all night
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5072]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 5618
Joined: 8/17/03
|
Re: So on the punt muff
Nov 12, 2018, 12:39 PM
|
|
To me this is something that should be allowed to get reviewed. I compared it to not reviewing pass interference because per the rules that's a good comparison. However, pass interference often is a judgement call. In this case, it isn't really a judgement call to review that the defender ran into him right as the ball was falling into his hands.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5623]
TigerPulse: 98%
Posts: 3321
Joined: 9/12/16
|
Re: So on the punt muff
Nov 12, 2018, 12:37 PM
[ in reply to Re: So on the punt muff ] |
|
Read Rule 6 and you will really see how bad they missed the call, especially when a zebra was less than 10 yards away!
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [64573]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 88987
Joined: 3/27/01
|
Typical ACC officiating...
Nov 12, 2018, 12:35 PM
|
|
Incompetent buffoons !!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [67807]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 115451
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Re: Typical ACC officiating...
Nov 12, 2018, 12:36 PM
|
|
Trained by Ron Cherry BTW
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1369]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 1257
Joined: 9/7/03
|
I just like hearing people saying muff punt********
Nov 12, 2018, 12:37 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [29036]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 36097
Joined: 8/28/00
|
It's even worse than that
Nov 12, 2018, 1:10 PM
|
|
1) Kick catch interference with contact
Punt fielder was absolutely contacted by a member of the kicking team. Clear and obvious 15 yard penalty (whether had had called for a fair catch or not). The only exception to this (and the following) rule is if the kicking team player had been blocked into the punt fielder. This should be announced as the reason the penalty was NOT called. And in practice I've never seen a case this obvious not had at least one flag thrown (and then if the player was blocked into the returner picked up and announced)
2) Kick catch interference without contact
Even if they missed the contact (or somehow thought there was none) clearly and 100% his opportunity (whether he had called fair catch or not) to field the punt was hindered. Clear and easy 5 yard penalty.
3) I'm not convinced it hit the punt returner first, but it seems pretty clear to me it did hit both. Either case would've been cause for illegal touching and it should've been Clemson ball at that point. If the kicking team player touched the ball first, then the ruling is obvious. And even if Amari had touched it a split second before, it is STILL illegal touching because he had called fair catch, and until that ball hits the ground it is illegal for it to be touched (even after it is muffed) by the kicking team.
At the end of the day I understand why #'s 1 and 2 can't be reviewed. Though I would add that there are already penalties which have elements that can be reviewed (too many men on the field, whether a QB passes the line of scrimmage, whether a passed is tipped for PI, etc). They are all issues with no judgment to them, ie points of fact that can be determined without interpretation. I'd argue that contact to the returner by the kickign team is a point-of-fact that should be reviewable.
However, even granting that #'s 1 & 2 aren't reviewable, #3 should be as the rules are written. If the ball touches the kicking team player prior to hitting the ground then the penalty should be enforceable.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3051]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 4266
Joined: 8/17/99
|
Re: It's even worse than that
Nov 12, 2018, 2:07 PM
|
|
It didn't look like targeting to me... that's all refs flag anymore
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2319]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 2181
Joined: 10/10/18
|
Re: It's even worse than that
Nov 12, 2018, 2:13 PM
|
|
But what is truly interesting is that the ball hit the defensive player first. That should have been reviewed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3051]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 4266
Joined: 8/17/99
|
Re: It's even worse than that
Nov 12, 2018, 2:22 PM
|
|
I thought that it may have too. I'm not sure if it was conclusive enough though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 13
| visibility 1,920
|
|
|
50
