Football question

[WichitaSooner]

Ignoring that “holding” is somewhat subjective, I’ll have to disagree it’s a 1:1 comparison. If a ref pre-cleared a borderline blocking technique, it’s not a missed call. Feel like consistent enforcement within a game is all one can ask for, something that sadly rarely happens.

Others have pointed out that determining Santenga’s intent is impossible. TBC I think it was incorrectly officiated but can understand other’s argument, it’s a vague rule.

Also not sure if you’re trying to make this argument, but I find it impossible to believe the call was why OU won the game.

It definitely is a missed call whether they cleared it or not. I gave the example of the MU/KU game -- it is the same thing. MU coaches asked the refs if they could punt a kickoff. The refs wrongly said they could, so Mizzou went ahead and did it (even though, in that case, they knew the refs were wrong.) Result: that crew got suspended for a game because they got the rule wrong. The fact they cleared it in advance didn't make them any less wrong.

And it's not impossible to determine intent. Officials in all sports have to do that frequently. Intentional fouls. Intentional grounding. Throwing a pitcher out of a game for throwing at a batter. Hockey players getting penalties for diving (embellishment).

And I agree, it's impossible to say that is why we won -- which was my point in saying it is silly to say that Auburn "should" have beaten UGA without the controversial fumble call. What is certain is that we were in 2nd and 22 when that happened. Even great offenses are unlikely to end up scoring a TD on that drive. Statistically, the far more likely outcome of that drive is a FG, so we gained four points in a very close game.

 

[SoonerDutch]

It definitely is a missed call whether they cleared it or not. I gave the example of the MU/KU game -- it is the same thing. MU coaches asked the refs if they could punt a kickoff. The refs wrongly said they could, so Mizzou went ahead and did it (even though, in that case, they knew the refs were wrong.) Result: that crew got suspended for a game because they got the rule wrong. The fact they cleared it in advance didn't make them any less wrong.

And it's not impossible to determine intent. Officials in all sports have to do that frequently. Intentional fouls. Intentional grounding. Throwing a pitcher out of a game for throwing at a batter. Hockey players getting penalties for diving (embellishment).

And I agree, it's impossible to say that is why we won -- which was my point in saying it is silly to say that Auburn "should" have beaten UGA without the controversial fumble call. What is certain is that we were in 2nd and 22 when that happened. Even great offenses are unlikely to end up scoring a TD on that drive. Statistically, the far more likely outcome of that drive is a FG, so we gained four points in a very close game.

Again, we’ll have to agree to disagree that it’s not the same thing.

The Missouri example is pretty objective to me - the rule is explicit that one cannot punt a kickoff. The holding example is closer but again I struggle to see exact similarity given the preclearance.

As others have pointed out, there is some subjectivity in determining intent on substituting. So for sure officials are occasionally charged with determining intent, and they determined that Santenga did not intend to substitute.

You & I may think they made the wrong call but it’s subjective at the end of the day.

 

[WichitaSooner]

Again, we’ll have to agree to disagree that it’s not the same thing.

The Missouri example is pretty objective to me - the rule is explicit that one cannot punt a kickoff. The holding example is closer but again I struggle to see exact similarity given the preclearance.

As others have pointed out, there is some subjectivity in determining intent on substituting. So for sure officials are occasionally charged with determining intent, and they determined that Santenga did not intend to substitute.

You & I may think they made the wrong call but it’s subjective at the end of the day.

My opinion doesn’t matter at all. I’m going off of 100 percent of rules analysts and former officials asked about it, and the conference itself.

 

[SoonerDutch]

My opinion doesn’t matter at all. I’m going off of 100 percent of rules analysts and former officials asked about it, and the conference itself.

Lol, then why are you bringing up comparisons to holding penalties or the Kansas/Missouri game to try & prove your point?

Yes, I agree with you that the ABC rules god think the officials missed a call…I’ve watched replays too…

 

[WichitaSooner]

Lol, then why are you bringing up comparisons to holding penalties or the Kansas/Missouri game to try & prove your point?

Yes, I agree with you that the ABC rules god think the officials missed a call…I’ve watched replays too…

I was directly responding to your argument that “if the refs cleared it in advance it wasn’t a missed call.”

And if you think the ABC guy is the only one, you’re living under a rock. There have been dozens of articles written about it talking to different officials. The league came out and publicly swallowed their pride and admitted it was blown.

 

[Eielson]

I gave the example of the MU/KU game -- it is the same thing. MU coaches asked the refs if they could punt a kickoff. The refs wrongly said they could, so Mizzou went ahead and did it

This is another great example of how it's not a penalty if you ask the refs permission and they clear it.

 

[WaymanFan]

This is another great example of how it's not a penalty if you ask the refs permission and they clear it.

I can't believe there is still discussion on this. If the officials told them it would be a penalty, OU obviously would not have run the play. So why is this still a hot topic? Not exactly "OU-Oregon in 2006" material.

 

[NickZepp]

I wasn't expecting this years team to be near as good as it has been this year overall. 7 wins was top of my expectations with the mishaps at WR and OL and to some extent RB. This has to be one of the better seasons the last decade or so.

 

[SoonerBounce13]

I wasn't expecting this years team to be near as good as it has been this year overall. 7 wins was top of my expectations with the mishaps at WR and OL and to some extent RB. This has to be one of the better seasons the last decade or so.

It could fall apart very quickly though

 

[SoonerDutch]

There have been dozens of articles written about it talking to different officials.

 

[WTSooner]

If OU and texas both finish 9-3, they will be and should be ahead of us. I don’t think that’s likely tho. 10-2 and we are a lock. I also thought 9-3 would get us in before the season but now it’s looking unlikely. It depends on what happens with Vandy, texas, and how many SEC teams get in.

It really depends on the Big 12 and ND.

Currently:
SEC - 4
Big 10 - 3
ACC - 1
Big 12 - 2
G5 - 1
ND

That is the 12.

The Big 10 likely isn't getting less than 3.
The ACC and Big 12 are getting at least 1 each.
G5 is getting their one.

That means for the SEC to grab another team, we need the Big 12 to only have one or ND to lose another game. OU fans should be cheering for BYU to beat TT. And Navy or Pitt to beat ND.

Of course, the easiest way in is just to win out.

 

[NickZepp]

It could fall apart very quickly though

Even if it does with the schedule coming in 8-4 or 7-5 is solid. They need to get better WRs, Develop the young OL. Get some TEs and find safeties that can cover a bit better.

 

[Eielson]

@WichitaSooner

Fit check: USC jersey-swap fake illegal, B1G says

The Big Ten says USC should have been assessed a 15-yard unsportsmanlike conduct penalty stemming from the Trojans' fake punt in which a backup quarterback wearing the same number as the punter threw for a first down.

www.espn.com

Here's something new to cry about. I hope you complain about this one all year as well.

 

[WichitaSooner]

@WichitaSooner

Fit check: USC jersey-swap fake illegal, B1G says

The Big Ten says USC should have been assessed a 15-yard unsportsmanlike conduct penalty stemming from the Trojans' fake punt in which a backup quarterback wearing the same number as the punter threw for a first down.

www.espn.com

Here's something new to cry about. I hope you complain about this one all year as well.

No I think we are supposed to pretend that it’s not a big deal and was a smart play by USC and besides, we can’t say for sure it affected the outcome.

 

[BoulderSooner]

No I think we are supposed to pretend that it’s not a big deal and was a smart play by USC and besides, we can’t say for sure it affected the outcome.

this was 100% illegal and missed .. and if they had done what most coaches do and told the refs pregame they would have been told not to do it

 

[Sooner04]

My father-in-law was an official in the DFW area for 5A football. Got another buddy who officiates 5A-6A football here in Oklahoma. Both of them said we were fortunate not to be penalized. Even if we did check with the crew before the game, those convos are long forgotten in the fog of the battle. Reminds me of the Lions/Cowboys game late in the year a couple of seasons ago. Detroit informed the crew of their intentions on a "tackle eligible" play in pre-game that they decided to use during the game on a two-point try. There was a miscommunication somewhere and, despite revealing their intentions prior to the game, the flag was thrown.

Both sides can be right here. There's no need to beat the matter to death. Auburn has much bigger problems on their hands. I'm sure glad Arnold missed the guys he had running open. There were a bunch of them! Maybe #8 is looking to transfer.....

 

[WichitaSooner]

this was 100% illegal and missed .. and if they had done what most coaches do and told the refs pregame they would have been told not to do it

Ours was 100 percent illegal and missed, too.

 

[BoulderSooner]

Ours was 100 percent illegal and missed, too.

the 7 refs on the field didn't agree ...

 

[WTSooner]

Ours was 100 percent illegal and missed, too.

Our receiver ran out wide, never left the field, lined up, checked with the ref, and we ran a play.

Never substituted. Nobody ever left the field of play. It's no different than any other team that has WIDE splits for their receivers. It worked out nicely because on the play before, the receiver ended that play already way out wide (ie, he didn't have to spring or sneak out there).

There is nothing in that fact pattern that makes it illegal. If THAT is faking a substitution, a LOT of plays would be considered faking a substitution.

 

[CoachTalk]

Ours was 100 percent illegal and missed, too.

No chance. No rule was broken