Football question

[WichitaSooner]

the same auburn team that should have beat UGA ...

I’m never sure what that means, “should have beaten” so-and-so. The game is 60 minutes, they keep track of who scores more, and Georgia won by double digits. If you’re talking about the controversial call on the goal line, then I’d just note that the blown call in the OU game was far more egregious than that. The goal line call was a judgment call. Those get missed frequently. The call against us was a basic rule interpretation that they botched.

 

[BoulderSooner]

The call against us was a basic rule interpretation that they botched.

i don't think they got the call against OU wrong ..

 

[hoopsaustin]

i don't think they got the call against OU wrong ..

The pass interference i think is what hes talking about.

The substitution thing is BS bc we did absolutely nothing wrong

 

[SoonerBounce13]

I’m never sure what that means, “should have beaten” so-and-so. The game is 60 minutes, they keep track of who scores more, and Georgia won by double digits. If you’re talking about the controversial call on the goal line, then I’d just note that the blown call in the OU game was far more egregious than that. The goal line call was a judgment call. Those get missed frequently. The call against us was a basic rule interpretation that they botched.

The call against OU was not wrong.
I know you think this is a biased take but it isn't.

 

[Eielson]

Obviously, he did some good things since we went to three straight playoffs. He had five of the 32 starting QBs in the NFL at the start of the season. Not sure anyone else can make a claim like that in a given year. That said, the reason many people think that he won because of Bob's players was because each of his five OU teams got slightly worse. In all honesty, that's pretty hard to do...but he did it. His first team was the only one with a legit shot of winning the Natty. That fell by the wayside when he chose an OT field goal to tie instead of trusting a Heisman winning QB and three future 1000 yard NFL receivers to pick up ONE yard...and those defenses he put out...YIKES!

Yeah, it's pretty hard to defend a guy whose teams got worse every single year. Especially when they carry on tradition at their next job. Riley has all the same issues at USC, so it's hard to see why anybody is watching him going 8-5 and 7-6 in an inferior conference and wishing we still had that.

Nobody praises Larry Coker or Frank Solich, and Coker actually won a national championship.

As far as QBs and offense in general, Riley did a pretty good job. No complaints whatsoever about his time as an OC, though if BV wasn't the superior playcaller, we would have beaten Clemson. Before he ever stepped foot on campus, Bob had already landed Baker and Kyler, which is what led to his reputation as a QB whisperer. He could handpick his QB after that, though that's started to die down as evidenced by his portal rejections the last couple years.

That final year, it was clear we'd fallen off dramatically. We started the season with an NFL QB (Rattler), yet each of the following games came down to the final possession:

Tulane (2-10)
Nebraska (3-9)
WVU (6-7)

And then were getting destroyed by a 5-7 Texas team. Caleb stepped in and saved the day/season.

Mock the Auburn and SC wins all you want, but they would have easily beaten all four of those teams with losing records that Riley struggled with. You know it's bad when a top 5 QB isn't enough to easily beat teams that go 2-10 ans 3-9.

We are absolutely better now than when Riley took over, which is an extremely low bar.

 

[WichitaSooner]

i don't think they got the call against OU wrong ..

Literally every official and rules expert disagrees. I really don’t understand why it’s so hard to just admit we got a massive break. It happens. Sometimes it works against you, sometimes it works for you.

 

[SoonerBounce13]

Literally every official and rules expert disagrees. I really don’t understand why it’s so hard to just admit we got a massive break. It happens. Sometimes it works against you, sometimes it works for you.

They are wrong. Sorry

Half those that say the officials were wrong probably haven’t even watched the play in entirety.

 

[Eielson]

Literally every official and rules expert disagrees. I really don’t understand why it’s so hard to just admit we got a massive break. It happens. Sometimes it works against you, sometimes it works for you.

It's really weird you're still crying about a play that even Auburn isn't complaining about anymore. But I'm proud of you for having a complaint that wasn't plagiarized straight from Gabe.

 

[BoulderSooner]

Literally every official and rules expert disagrees. I really don’t understand why it’s so hard to just admit we got a massive break. It happens. Sometimes it works against you, sometimes it works for you.

except the 7 that were on the field that day and turns out those 7 are all that actually mattered ..

 

[SoonerDutch]

Literally every official and rules expert disagrees. I really don’t understand why it’s so hard to just admit we got a massive break. It happens. Sometimes it works against you, sometimes it works for you.

IMO the play was incorrectly officiated although the wording is vague given the specifics of what Santenga did. It was an overall AWFUL day all around for refs but especially against Auburn. The Gentry PI (which was negated on the fourth down makeup call) is another example.

More importantly it’s a bit of a stretch to assume OU would have run the play if they had been told it would have been flagged based on them checking in with the refs earlier in pre-game.

 

[Eielson]

More importantly it’s a bit of a stretch to assume OU would have run the play if they had been told it would have been flagged based on them checking in with the refs earlier in pre-game.

There literally is no way for us to have been flagged. We cleared the play with the refs and Sategna pointed to the ref before and got approval.

I don't love that type of play, but Arbuckle and the team executed it to perfection.

 

[SoonerDutch]

There literally is no way for us to have been flagged. We cleared the play with the refs and Sategna pointed to the ref before and got approval.

I don't love that type of play, but Arbuckle and the team executed it to perfection.

IMO, I think it’s pretty clear they were trying to use substitution as a trick but again I think the rule is vague.

 

[BoulderSooner]

IMO, I think it’s pretty clear they were trying to use substitution as a trick but again I think the rule is vague.

i don't think so .. there was never anything close to a substitution ..

 

[Eielson]

IMO, I think it’s pretty clear they were trying to use substitution as a trick but again I think the rule is vague.

Hard to prove intent. But worst case scenario they just tell us no. We wouldn't have run it without their approval, thus wouldn't have been flagged and still had a decent chance to score.

 

[SoonerDutch]

Hard to prove intent. But worst case scenario they just tell us no. We wouldn't have run it without their approval, thus wouldn't have been flagged and still had a decent chance to score.

I agree, but again I think it’s clear what they were trying to do (use the appearance of a substitution pattern deceptively). Just my opinion.

But 100%, if the refs pre cleared? No way to blame OU or say we got a break.

 

[WichitaSooner]

I agree, but again I think it’s clear what they were trying to do (use the appearance of a substitution pattern deceptively). Just my opinion.

But 100%, if the refs pre cleared? No way to blame OU or say we got a break.

I have said about 50 times OU isn't to "blame." It's no different than if you win a game because they miss a holding call -- the team/player isn't to blame, the rets are. No one is making a moral judgment against OU.

 

[SoonerBounce13]

I agree, but again I think it’s clear what they were trying to do (use the appearance of a substitution pattern deceptively). Just my opinion.

How so? Just by a receiving staying in the field of play and lining up? There is nothign in that action that indicates a substitution. Are players not allowed to use the whole field? If not, then they need to shrink the field size or make that a rule.

You can't penalize a team for lining up legally in the field of play.

Were they being deceptive? Of course. But not by pretending to substitute. Just by lining up hoping he wouldn't be noticed

 

[SoonerDutch]

I have said about 50 times OU isn't to "blame." It's no different than if you win a game because they miss a holding call -- the team/player isn't to blame, the rets are. No one is making a moral judgment against OU.

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.

 

[SoonerDutch]

How so? Just by a receiving staying in the field of play and lining up? There is nothign in that action that indicates a substitution. Are players not allowed to use the whole field? If not, then they need to shrink the field size or make that a rule.

You can't penalize a team for lining up legally in the field of play.

Were they being deceptive? Of course. But not by pretending to substitute. Just by lining up hoping he wouldn't be noticed

TBC I think the rule is vague & should be better thought out (or stricken, defenses can count) but Santenga appeared to be substituting IMO.

Walking casually towards the sideline is what teams typically do when subbing (not always of course), but ultimately a subjective call.

 

[scrybe]

I have said about 50 times OU isn't to "blame." It's no different than if you win a game because they miss a holding call -- the team/player isn't to blame, the rets are. No one is making a moral judgment against OU.

How can anyone say that a team won a game because an official missed a call that you, or I, or any other random fan thinks he should have made? Wonder how many times one of these so-called missed calls fails to get called in the average game.