Wisconsin has a 13th Man!!

Donate To GopherHole
Big Play

Big Play

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
1,097
Reaction score
31
Points
48
The refs!! Absolute joke that field goal was good!
 

Can't they and shouldn't they have looked at that on replay?
 

Not reviewable according to ESPN announcer. But he also said this was our first 4-0 start since 1988 so I don't trust him.
 


That kick wasn't good guys. Blame goes to our offense for the penalty that killed the drive.
 


I wasn't sure how it is ruled but they said the ball has to be completely inside the goal post and not just over it.
 

All I am going to say is that FG's SHOULD be reviewed on every FG. That is ridiculous. The rest of the game is on us.
 

Doesn't matter if you don't have a good camera angle. There was no angle that could overturn that call and I really think after looking at it multiple times it was no good anyway. The ref is looking straight up, 99 out of 100 times he's gonna make the right call.
 

At first glance I actually thought it was good but after replay I didn't even think it was close ... No way it was completely inside the upright.
 



Is it just me, or is it illegal to hurdle the center on FG/XP attempts?
 







Texas A&M sues you if you try to use "12th man." You should know this.
 



The ball was hooking towards the middle so it was probably inside the uprights when it hit the net but not when it passed the goal post. And I don't want to hear any BS about the refs costing us that game. We have enough excuses being thrown around with age and injuries, no need to involve the refs as well.
 

I was just mad that he missed it because I had 3 for halftime in the numbers pool.

I find it nuts that field goals aren't reviewable.
 

GopherRock said:
I was just mad that he missed it because I had 3 for halftime in the numbers pool.

I find it nuts that field goals aren't reviewable.
Click to expand...

The only way you could review it would be to have cameras attached to the uprights shooting straight up the line of the goal post. No other angle would work and even that might be dicey do to other factors. I am sure it is probably something that has been discussed at one point or another but not adopted because of the difficulty involved in doing it right.
 

You'd think they'd be able to use Hawk-Eye technology like they use on the show courts at the major tennis tournaments: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawk-Eye

And no, I don't want this to turn into an Iowa discussion. :p

I'm just not sure it's a big enough problem to be worth the trouble and cost of adding new technology.
 

NateDawgUM said:
You'd think they'd be able to use Hawk-Eye technology like they use on the show courts at the major tennis tournaments: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawk-Eye

And no, I don't want this to turn into an Iowa discussion. :p

I'm just not sure it's a big enough problem to be worth the trouble and cost of adding new technology.
Click to expand...

I would bet that is the core issue. 99.9% of the time there is no question if it was good or not. On the kick like the one we had I am willing to trust the judgement of the guy standing right below the upright looking straight up over a a coach that is nearly 40 yards away and off to the side or a tv shot that doesn't really give you an accurate depth perspective on where the ball was when it was even with the upright.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom