TEN Minute Review Of Play In Ark - VT Game!

[ILLINOISLION]

And the Officials apparently still blew the call!

Arkansas' BB essentially refused to leave the field until they agreed with his interpretation of the play.....which the announcers are convinced was wrong.

 

[bjf1991]

And the Officials apparently still blew the call!

Arkansas' BB essentially refused to leave the field until they agreed with his interpretation of the play.....which the announcers are convinced was wrong.

Truly...... I don't know how many football games I've seen on my life.....but I know I have seen a slew of complete officiating FUBARs

But that was - without a doubt - the greatest display of officiating incompetence I have ever seen

Absolute, flat-out incompetence........5 times over.......on ONE play

After all that time.....they got EVERY aspect of the call wrong
And then they made up some new ones to F up

Unreal


Probably a glimpse of what football would be like if 21 Guns was an official.
(The Devil made me do it)

 

[Nittany.Lion]

Truly...... I don't know how many football games I've seen on my life.....but I know I have seen a slew of complete officiating FUBARs

But that was - without a doubt - the greatest display of officiating incompetence I have ever seen

Absolute, flat-out incompetence........5 times over.......on ONE play

After all that time.....they got EVERY aspect of the call wrong
And then they made up some new ones to F up

Unreal


Probably a glimpse of what football would be like if 21 Guns was an official.
(The Devil made me do it)

While they did a horrible job of explaining and handling the call, the end result was correct because there was a penalty that ARK accepted, the fumble and whistle are not really relevant.

 

[bjf1991]

While they did a horrible job of explaining and handling the call, the end result was correct because there was a penalty that ARK accepted, the fumble and whistle are not really relevant.

Nope

Wrong

You want me to explain it to you?
If so......you're gonna' want to grab a Snickers.....cause it would take a while



I'll just give you one of the FUBARs:

The penalty was a post-kick blocking foul (holding? IIRC) on the return
You CAN NOT, as the kicking team, "accept" that penalty, and gain a first down from the spot of the initial snap (i.e., where they snapped the ball on the punt)

I mean, how many (thousands of) times is a team penalized for a post-kick blocking foul on the return.
Have you EVER seen that penalty assessed from the point of the initial snap, and give the punting team a first down?

Seriously?


And that was just one of MANY errors by that crew........even after 10 minutes of Knesset meetings

 

[WDLion]

While they did a horrible job of explaining and handling the call, the end result was correct because there was a penalty that ARK accepted, the fumble and whistle are not really relevant.

Right. The play never happened.

 

[Nittany.Lion]

Nope

Wrong

You want me to explain it to you?
If so......you're gonna' want to grab a Snickers.....cause it would take a while

The refs got the fumble call all wrong, but even if they called it correctly AR still gets the ball. Apparently there was an early holding (i'm assuming the hold was at the LOS before the punt, the refs didn't clarify and there was no replay) call that AR accepted, therefore the ball goes back to AR. In that scenario the call ends up correct.

 

[BoulderFish]

While they did a horrible job of explaining and handling the call, the end result was correct because there was a penalty that ARK accepted, the fumble and whistle are not really relevant.

If the hold was PRIOR to the punt, that would be true. They didn't say that. Furthermore, they claimed the inadvertant whistle was a factor, but if the hold was before the punt, nothing after the hold mattered (because ark didn't recover).

 

[NittPicker]

If I was the VT coach I would have given the refs a five minute rant about how they screwed up. If they didn't want to listen I'd say, "What gives!! You talked to that fat f#@k on the other sideline for five minutes!! Why won't you listen to me??"

 

[bjf1991]

The refs got the fumble call all wrong, but even if they called it correctly AR still gets the ball. Apparently there was an early holding (i'm assuming the hold was at the LOS before the punt, the refs didn't clarify and there was no replay) call that AR accepted, therefore the ball goes back to AR. In that scenario the call ends up correct.

Nope

Your "facts" are fiction

 

[bjf1991]

Right. The play never happened.

LOL

Seriously?


Nope

 

[BoulderFish]

The refs got the fumble call all wrong, but even if they called it correctly AR still gets the ball. Apparently there was an early holding (i'm assuming the hold was at the LOS before the punt, the refs didn't clarify and there was no replay) call that AR accepted, therefore the ball goes back to AR. In that scenario the call ends up correct.

If the hold happened before the punt, there wouldn't have been any confusion.

 

[Grant Green]

How about the 2 broadcasters bickering over the earlier TD by Ark. The color guy was adamant (and wrong) that there wasn't enough evidence to say the ball crossed the line, when it clearly did.

I thought it was funny to hear the two arguing so much. I heard it yesterday between McElroy and the play by play guy too. Almost got contentious.

Btw, I'm sooo shocked that Bilemma is on the rules committee (not)

 

[bjf1991]

How about the 2 broadcasters bickering over the earlier TD by Ark. The color guy was adamant (and wrong) that there wasn't enough evidence to say the ball crossed the line, when it clearly did.

I thought it was funny to hear the two arguing so much. I heard it yesterday between McElroy and the play by play guy too. Almost got contentious.

Btw, I'm sooo shocked that Bilemma is on the rules committee (not)

I think the color guy is Cunningham

He is very familiar with being wrong

 

[Nittany.Lion]

Nope

Your "facts" are fiction

Nope you're wrong, the announcers just clarified it.... there was a hold at the LOS prior to the punt.

 

[bjf1991]

Nope you're wrong, the announcers just clarified it.... there was a hold at the LOS prior to the punt.

LMAO

Seriously?

Congratulations

You can now be as wrong as Ed Cunningham

(At least Cunningham has the excuse of being fed BS from the guys in the booth )

 

[Nittany.Lion]

LMAO

Seriously?

Congratulations

You can now be as wrong as Ed Cunningham

(At least Cunningham has the excuse of being fed BS from the guys in the booth )

What facts do you have? Did you see the hold? No smiley face will prevent me from thinking you're an ass.

 

[bjf1991]

What facts do you have? Did you see the hold? No smiley face will prevent me from thinking you're an ass.

Good grief


You are welcome to be as obstinately and idiotically wrong as you want to be

This is America for crying out loud

(NOT a smiley face )

 

[WDLion]

Nope you're wrong, the announcers just clarified it.... there was a hold at the LOS prior to the punt.

Fact! Period. But don't argue with Guns Sr.

 

[Nittany.Lion]

Good grief


You are welcome to be as obstinately and idiotically wrong as you want to be

This is America for crying out loud

(NOT a smiley face )

So you've got nothing then?? Otherwise go ahead and explain your position, I'll wait

 

[bjf1991]

So you've got nothing then?? Otherwise go ahead and explain you position, I'll wait

Again?

I'm done being an "idiot whisperer"

Ciao.....time to get back to using that "ignore" button

Enjoy being a F-bag

"Gotta' link?"

LMAO

 

[Nittany.Lion]

Fact! Period. But don't argue with Guns Sr.

That's a good name for him!!

 

[Nittany.Lion]

Again?

I'm done being an "idiot whisperer"

Ciao

Enjoy being a F-bag

"Gotta' link?"

LMAO

Pussy!! you claimed it was a post kick penalty, it wasn't, deal with it.

 

[Erial_Lion]

The hold was after the kick

 

[WDLion]

That's a good name for him!!

Yep. Two guys with all the facts and are never wrong

 

[Nittany.Lion]

The hold was after the kick

How do you know that? There was a clarification from the officials that it was at the LOS prior to the punt, other than that clarification there is NO other evidence.

 

[JR4PSU]

Nope

Wrong

You want me to explain it to you?
If so......you're gonna' want to grab a Snickers.....cause it would take a while



I'll just give you one of the FUBARs:

The penalty was a post-kick blocking foul (holding? IIRC) on the return
You CAN NOT, as the kicking team, "accept" that penalty, and gain a first down from the spot of the initial snap (i.e., where they snapped the ball on the punt)

I mean, how many (thousands of) times is a team penalized for a post-kick blocking foul on the return.
Have you EVER seen that penalty assessed from the point of the initial snap, and give the punting team a first down?

Seriously?


And that was just one of MANY errors by that crew........even after 10 minutes of Knesset meetings

Ok, so here is the rule governing this situation.

The rules in affect are 2(b)(3) and 2(c).

Remember there was an inadvertent whistle before either team had gained possession after the kick. That is where 2(b)(3) comes in. So the ball goes back to the original line of scrimmage and the down played over.

Also, there was a holding penalty on the play. That is where 2(c) comes in. First down Arkansas.

Hope this helps clear everything up.

 

[Erial_Lion]

How do you know that? There was a clarification from the officials that it was at the LOS prior to the punt, other than that clarification there is NO other evidence.

Because they were giving VT the ball at the spot of the inadvertent whistle before they got clarification on when the whistle occurred. And then, after the review, they mentioned the whistle as the reason it would be enforced from the prior spot. None of that matters if the hold was before the kick. It was very clearly after the kick. If they said it was before the punt, they misspoke, but I never heard them say that.

 

[Nittany.Lion]

Because they were giving VT the ball at the spot of the inadvertent whistle before they got clarification on when the whistle occurred. And then, after the review, they mentioned the whistle as the reason it would be enforced from the prior spot. None of that matters if the hold was before the kick. It was very clearly after the kick. If they said it was before the punt, they misspoke, but I never heard them say that.

That's not right, the initial "call" was AR ball and even after deliberation they never gave the ball to VT. How was the penalty "clearly after the kick," they never showed a replay of the penalty? We only have the official clarification provided 15-20 minutes later.

 

[bjf1991]

Because they were giving VT the ball at the spot of the inadvertent whistle before they got clarification on when the whistle occurred. And then, after the review, they mentioned the whistle as the reason it would be enforced from the prior spot. None of that matters if the hold was before the kick. It was very clearly after the kick. If they said it was before the punt, they misspoke, but I never heard them say that.

Obviously not a pre-kick penalty......that's just laughable.

If it was, the entire thing is a no-brainer, and you don't have a Knesset meeting over it - - - of that we're the case, Arkansas maintains possession after the penalty (like the "roughing the center" situations we saw called against teams playing Michigan )

But, of course, it wasn't.

Not what occurred.....not what was called.....not what was discussed

 

[Erial_Lion]

That's not right, the initial "call" was AR ball and even after deliberation they never gave the ball to VT. How was the penalty "clearly after the kick," they never showed a replay of the penalty? We only have the official clarification provided 15-20 minutes later.

The initial call was VT ball. They were giving it to them at the 26 (36 where it was recovered, minus the 10 yard penalty). Then, after Bielema gave it to the refs for 5 minutes, they huddled and changed the call. Then, after that, they reviewed it and decided to go back to the prior spot due to the inadvertent whistle.

 

[BoulderFish]

That's not right, the initial "call" was AR ball and even after deliberation they never gave the ball to VT. How was the penalty "clearly after the kick," they never showed a replay of the penalty? We only have the official clarification provided 15-20 minutes later.

Not true. VT was hudling up calling a play while fat-ass Beliema was over there whining and crying, and eventually got the refs to reconsider.

 

[Peetz Pool Boy]

Not true. VT was hudling up calling a play while fat-ass Beliema was over there whining and crying, and eventually got the refs to reconsider.

At least you finally found the correct board on which to share your "wisdom"

 

[ILLINOISLION]

Well BB has to now easily own the record for the most time a CFB coach has spent on a field's playing surface during a game.

 

[bjf1991]

Well BB has to now easily own the record for the most time a CFB coach has spent on a field's playing surface during a game.

Never a bad thing to see Bulimia leaving the field with another "L" tagged to his ass.......
Especially after blowing a 24-0 lead


The guy is just a 2-legged pig (it was poetic justice when he took the job with the Razorbacks)

 

[BoulderFish]

Ok, so here is the rule governing this situation.

The rules in affect are 2(b)(3) and 2(c).

Remember there was an inadvertent whistle before either team had gained possession after the kick. That is where 2(b)(3) comes in. So the ball goes back to the original line of scrimmage and the down played over.

Also, there was a holding penalty on the play. That is where 2(c) comes in. First down Arkansas.

Hope this helps clear everything up.

What are the Exceptions referenced in b.2 and b.3?

It's just strange to me that the rules would be written this way - an inadvertent whistle results in the ball going to the other team.

 

[bjf1991]

What are the Exceptions referenced in b.2 and b.3?

It's just strange to me that the rules would be written this way - an inadvertent whistle results in the ball going to the other team.

None of that "stuff" cited in the prior post applies to the play on question during the VT/Arkansas game

 

[JR4PSU]

What are the Exceptions referenced in b.2 and b.3?

It's just strange to me that the rules would be written this way - an inadvertent whistle results in the ball going to the other team.

The whistle was blown prior to VT having possession. So it wasn't awarded to "the other team". It was a muffed punt receipt by VT, so was a free ball. Then an Ark player "appeared" to have taken possession and the inadvertent whistle was blown. It is a dead ball at that point with no one having gained possession after the muffed punt. What happened after the whistle was blown is irrelevant. So it goes back to the original LOS to be played over. No awarding it to anyone. It is simply played over. Had there been no penalty in addition, then the punt would simply have been played over and I'm sure no one here would have any argument over the call. But since there was a penalty, according to 2(c), the penalty gets assessed resulting in a first down for Arkansas.

 

[BoulderFish]

The whistle was blown prior to VT having possession. So it wasn't awarded to "the other team". It was a muffed punt receipt by VT, so was a free ball. Then an Ark player "appeared" to have taken possession and the inadvertent whistle was blown. It is a dead ball at that point with no one having gained possession after the muffed punt. What happened after tge whistle was blown is irrelevant. So it goes back to the original LOS to be played over. No awarding it to anyone. It is simply played over. Had there been no penalty in addition, then the punt would simply have been played over and I'm sure no one here would have any argument over the call. But since there was a penalty, according to 2(c), the penalty gets assessed resulting in a first down for Arkansas.

It was a change-of-possession play (punting away to VT), in which VT ultimately would have had the ball -- Even with the penalty against VT.

But simply because of the inadvertent/accidental whistle, the team that was punting it away got to keep the ball (and get a fresh set of downs to boot).

When they wrote the rules, I have to believe that the intention wouldn't be to have what happened last night, happen.

 

[bjf1991]

The whistle was blown prior to VT having possession. So it wasn't awarded to "the other team". It was a muffed punt receipt by VT, so was a free ball. Then an Ark player "appeared" to have taken possession and the inadvertent whistle was blown. It is a dead ball at that point with no one having gained possession after the muffed punt. What happened after the whistle was blown is irrelevant. So it goes back to the original LOS to be played over. No awarding it to anyone. It is simply played over. Had there been no penalty in addition, then the punt would simply have been played over and I'm sure no one here would have any argument over the call. But since there was a penalty, according to 2(c), the penalty gets assessed resulting in a first down for Arkansas.

Wrong........several times over LOL

And the section of the rule book cited doesn't even cover the situation that occurred

It wasn't even an "inadvertent whistle"......the dingbat ref blew the whistle thinking Arkansas had covered the ball on the muffed punt
In actuality, of course, they had not - - - they had NEVER gained possession of the ball, and - in fact - it was A VT player holding and controlling the ball as the whistle was blowing (which can be clearly seen/heard on the replay)
Even if the VT player had not gained possession until the immediate aftermath of the whistle, but as part of continuous play, it is an easy call - - - particularly since Arkansas NEVER had possession


This wasn't even a difficult decision/situation
Not at all

And, when the refs went to the replay, and it was clear what had happened - - - they got this very simple situation straightened out (truth be told, they knew the deal before going to the replay, as they all saw that the guy who originally blew the whistle was obviously in error - - as it was a VT player standing there with the ball)

After getting it right after the review........it wasn't until the fat pig Bulimia went on a 5 minute idiot spiel that the officials completely lost their ever-loving minds - - - - and screwed up every aspect of the play, and created a couple of completely original new levels of screw ups to boot



Jeebzus.......how gullible are folks?

 

[BoulderFish]

Ok, so here is the rule governing this situation.

The rules in affect are 2(b)(3) and 2(c).

Remember there was an inadvertent whistle before either team had gained possession after the kick. That is where 2(b)(3) comes in. So the ball goes back to the original line of scrimmage and the down played over.

Also, there was a holding penalty on the play. That is where 2(c) comes in. First down Arkansas.

Hope this helps clear everything up.

There is also this in the rule book:
Postscrimmage Kick Enforcement
ARTICLE 3.a Under postscrimmage kick enforcement rules, fouls by Team B
that satisfy the conditions in paragraph b (below) are treated as if Team B had
been in possession at the time the foul was committed, even though by Rule
2-4-1-b-3 team possession had not changed.
b.Postscrimmage kick enforcement applies only to fouls by Team B during a scrimmage kick and only under the following conditions:
1.The kick is not during a try, a successful field goal, or in an extra period.
(A.R. 10-2-3-IV)
2.The ball crosses the neutral zone.
3.The foul occurs before the end of the kick (A.R. 10-2-3-I, II, and V).
4.Team B will next put the ball in play

If these conditions are all met, the penalty is enforced according to the
Three-And-One Principle. Team B is taken as the team in possession with the
postscrimmage kick spot as the basic spot (Rule 10-2-2-c). (A.R. 10-2-3-I-VII)

Because the penalty fell under "postscrimmage kick enforcement," as evidenced by the fact that the officials had originally given the ball to VT (with the penalty enforced), this would cause a conflict with your article 2.c. The officials incorrectly enforced the postscrimmage penalty.

After digesting all of this, it appears to me that the most correct action would have been to simply replay the down from the same spot -- no penalty enforced, since the penalty for the foul they're trying to enforce assumes that "Team B (VT) will next put the ball in play" (which clearly isn't the case here).

They enforced a postscrimmage kick foul as a non-postscrimmage kick foul, and obviously that is incorrect.