Well this settles the targeting/not targeting argument

[Some Day...Is Coming!]

It's a sad day when the Big Ten conference can't even come out and admit they made a mistake on an egregious reversal of a call that involves player safety. It's called integrity, and it gets too the integrity of the game. At least let the fans know that you realize a mistake was made. If Lewis did the same thing next week and the player is concussed, or worse yet paralyzed, they could be looking at a $100 million lawsuit due to their obvious negligence in enforcing their own rules regarding the safety of their students.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Pompous Elitist]

All valid points and although it won't be done publicly I am sure the replay judge will have to explain his reasons for not ruling it as targeting, and will be handled accordingly. My issue isn't with people thinking it should have been called one way or another, my problem is with those that are acting like it is all part of some elaborate plot to fix games orchestrated by the Big Ten office and the officials. That was a big play in the game but it was also still fairly early in the game and there is no way to say that one play cost us the game because there is no telling how things would have played out. Heck Mitch could have thrown a pick 6 on the very next snap.

As sure as the sun rises in the east every bad call or no-call will be rationalized by MNCVGUY and/or a few others. Blind, deaf, and dumb? No, I think there is a vocal contingent of fans that think any complaining about officials is "whining" therefore as a matter of sporting principle all penalty calls or no calls are the correct call. I would also wager a significant number of these apologists are officials or former officials and tired of fans questioning their expertise, or get off on being contrarians.

 

[Pompous Elitist]

Was the camera angle from post #2 shown live on the broadcast, or was that something that came out later?

Lots of talk of the referees and the B1G Conference, but could ESPN also be influencing these types of calls based on which camera angles they decide to show from their control truck?

I think if there was a conspiracy to get behind, that would be more likely.

I am not sure how it works or if that idea is complete horse poo...

The replay video from the sideline, during the live feed was very clear. The latest video just clears it up for the last Sergeant Schultzes out there.

This is a fascinating debate in the sense that we have incontrovertible evidence of a penalty that ticks off every necessary element and we still have people publicly questioning it. It is a situation where one has to wonder what would qualify as targeting in their mind?

 

[Old Goph]

That was a big play in the game but it was also still fairly early in the game and there is no way to say that one play cost us the game because there is no telling how things would have played out. Heck Mitch could have thrown a pick 6 on the very next snap.

You're right, it was absolutely a big play. But Mitch could have done anything on the very next play. How is that relevant to the discussion? Big plays matter. No way of knowing whether it changes the outcome, but it changes the game.

 

[MNVCGUY]

As sure as the sun rises in the east every bad call or no-call will be rationalized by MNCVGUY and/or a few others. Blind, deaf, and dumb? No, I think there is a vocal contingent of fans that think any complaining about officials is "whining" therefore as a matter of sporting principle all penalty calls or no calls are the correct call. I would also wager a significant number of these apologists are officials or former officials and tired of fans questioning their expertise, or get off on being contrarians.

Not a ref (unless you count being a coach/ref for my kids youth sports) but I did get to know a few very well and we had a lot of discussions about officiating and what not.

Refs make mistakes, I have no issue with people questioning calls. My problem is with the people that try to assign intent to the mistakes and turn them into cheating.

 

[cncmin]

Not a ref (unless you count being a coach/ref for my kids youth sports) but I did get to know a few very well and we had a lot of discussions about officiating and what not.

Refs make mistakes, I have no issue with people questioning calls. My problem is with the people that try to assign intent to the mistakes and turn them into cheating.

This isn't about a guy "making a mistake". It's almost impossible to categorize that gross error as a "mistake". This is about the replay official, likely, cheating; because there really is no other credible explanation for the reversal, given that the replay evidence also firmly backed up the flag that was thrown. The intent of his cheating is the only thing up for question at this point.

 

[mplsbadger]

This isn't about a guy "making a mistake". It's almost impossible to categorize that gross error as a "mistake". This is about the replay official, likely, cheating; because there really is no other credible explanation for the reversal, given that the replay evidence also firmly backed up the flag that was thrown. The intent of his cheating is the only thing up for question at this point.

I disagree. These still shots are not what they saw. If it looked to them like the guy didn't launch himself, was trying to wrap up, might have hit chest first and slid up, etc. That might have swayed them. There's no way to know what was in their head.

 

[Pompous Elitist]

This could be a similar phenomenon to traumatic bonding, where the abused identify with and even defend the abuser. Has been seen in spousal abuse, hostage situations, cult membership, concentration camps.

 

[bleedsmaroonandgold]

Not a ref (unless you count being a coach/ref for my kids youth sports) but I did get to know a few very well and we had a lot of discussions about officiating and what not.

Refs make mistakes, I have no issue with people questioning calls. My problem is with the people that try to assign intent to the mistakes and turn them into cheating.

My problem is not that I ref mad a bad call live in a high speed game. My problem is that a professionally trained ref watched a replay with as many chances to watch it as he wanted, that video clearly shows a shot to the head of a defenseless player (agree that the automatic ejection sucks but it is the rule), and despite seeing that video said that the video showed CONCLUSIVELY that the shot was not to the neck or head. How any person can watch that video and say that it conclusively shows not shot to the head or neck is beyond me.

 

[GophersInIowa]

I disagree. These still shots are not what they saw. If it looked to them like the guy didn't launch himself, was trying to wrap up, might have hit chest first and slid up, etc. That might have swayed them. There's no way to know what was in their head.

The key word is might. To overturn a call you need to have indisputable evidence. There is nothing they saw that showed at 100% certainty that he hit his chest first. That what frustrates me the most.

 

[Some Day...Is Coming!]

The key word is might. To overturn a call you need to have indisputable evidence. There is nothing they saw that showed at 100% certainty that he hit his chest first. That what frustrates me the most.

Exactly! Even if they didn't see that particular video, there was in no way 'conclusive' evidence (as the rule book in this situation states) to overturn the call of the official 10 ft from the play. The rule book also states in this case that if there is ANY question they should error on the side of player safety. And they aren't even man enough to come out and acknowledge the mistake. Plus, the review was unusually quick. These are all facts. Pull up the NCAA rule book.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk