BF Blowup, Whistles, Refs on field

U

uihawk82

Well-Known Member
I am not excusing BF's blowup but had a whistle blown on the field, did a ref call that forward motion or whatever it is called now had occurred? Is this what BF was calling bull****? There are always some strange review overturns of calls. But Butler and other runners are many times wrapped up by several tacklers and going nowhere before a ball is ripped out. It seems that this type of play and any review should be more in the hands of any ref on the field who may have blown a whistle.

Does anyone ever remember hearing a whistle on this play or many other plays similar plays to it.
 
Right call on the Butler fumble, but the two holding penalties were terrible calls. Not sure what to think about Hockenson's penalty...probably a good call on that, but it's rarely called since the guy he threw down wasn't guarding him anyway and it was in the box. With the way defenders get away with it...I think officials tend to give the offensive guy releasing at the line of scrimmage some leeway.
 
Glass1/2fullguy said:
I rewatched this play several times and I only heard the whistle after butler lost control of the ball. Right call imo.
Click to expand...

Thanks. I dont care if this kind of play is called for or against the hawks but the refs need to be consistent. And can a review ref say forward progress was stopped and play over?
 
It sucked, but I have no issue with the fumble call reversal.

Butler ran hard, second and third effort.

The 2 holding calls prior...junk.

Between those, the drops, and the bad punt giving minny a 40 yard field... difference in a big win and a close one.
 
hawkeyebob62 said:
Not to mention the Minny INT on the Smith-Marsette "drop". It was CLEARLY a case of the ball hitting the ground and/or using the ground to secure the ball. How THAT didn't get overturned is puzzling.

That's why I think Brian's blow-up wasn't about one single call...
Click to expand...

Yes tip of the ball on the ground in college is an incompletion.
 
Thing I don't understand is the supposed emphasis on player safety why does it seem like whistles are taking longer to be blown? Especially a situation like that where you have numerous guys piling on. It isn't just that play but I see it in the NFL and throughout college. I think the call was correct but in my opinion it should have been called dead before that.
 
Both the interception and the pass before the goofer touchdown touched the ground and neither should have been complete. Also on the fumble play his momentum was clearly stopped and the play was dead. In the 2014 game vs the bad-gers Iowa forced and recovered a fumble much earlier in the process than this, but they did not give Iowa the ball. If Iowa didn’t get the ball in 2014 there is no way that the goofers should have gotten the ball this time.
 
hawkeyebob62 said:
Not to mention the Minny INT on the Smith-Marsette "drop". It was CLEARLY a case of the ball hitting the ground and/or using the ground to secure the ball. How THAT didn't get overturned is puzzling.

That's why I think Brian's blow-up wasn't about one single call...
Click to expand...
OMG. The ball never touched the ground.
 
Is this an ISU forum or an Iowa forum? Cuz the only place you'll find so much whining about officiating is on an ISU forum. Damn.
 
tksirius said:
Is this an ISU forum or an Iowa forum? Cuz the only place you'll find so much whining about officiating is on an ISU forum. Damn.
Click to expand...
The ball definitely hit the ground. As Quinn said, "You can't use the ground to secure possession, which he clearly did"
 
kameltoez102 said:
Thing I don't understand is the supposed emphasis on player safety why does it seem like whistles are taking longer to be blown? Especially a situation like that where you have numerous guys piling on. It isn't just that play but I see it in the NFL and throughout college. I think the call was correct but in my opinion it should have been called dead before that.
Click to expand...

I think it boils down to the effect of replay. Officials know in a close and questionable case like that they can count on the replay booth to review. IMO good example of where technology sometimes takes the place of common sense. We have that going on in my job where they have decided to put everything into technology advances which will screw up the entire process of what I do and disrupt the entire system. Technology doesn't seem the answer to everything just like I think that the reliance on replay has disrupted the flow of football games.
 
Exactly kameltoez102, the "slow whistle" so that plays can be reviewed is totally inconsistent with player safety. If the ball is not ruled a fumble when it is lost after making contact with the ground, it would seem appropriate to rule the same way when players are intentionally trying to rip the ball away from the ball carrier when he has effectively been stopped by the opposing team.

I can agree that the ball being knocked out of the ball carrier's grasp (by contact) should be a fumble, but the INTENTIONAL ripping it from his arms after he is in the grasp of the opposing team should not be ruled a fumble. In my view, such a play is not an example of good sportsmanship, it is no better than playground behavior and should not be condoned.

The referees have to maintain control of the game, but with the chronically slow whistles, they are just encouraging a free for all game atmosphere, which more than likely will increase the likelihood of injury.
 
DJI9424 said:
I can agree that the ball being knocked out of the ball carrier's grasp (by contact) should be a fumble, but the INTENTIONAL ripping it from his arms after he is in the grasp of the opposing team should not be ruled a fumble. In my view, such a play is not an example of good sportsmanship, it is no better than playground behavior and should not be condoned.
Click to expand...
tenor.gif
 
The ball did touch the ground, but it's a judgement call as to whether the ground "assisted" in the catch. I think it was one of those calls that would have stood either way on review since it was very close. I don't really have a problem with the outcome on that one.

The holding calls however...
 
#1DieHardHawk said:
The ball did touch the ground, but it's a judgement call as to whether the ground "assisted" in the catch. I think it was one of those calls that would have stood either way on review since it was very close. I don't really have a problem with the outcome on that one.

The holding calls however...
Click to expand...
After further review, this is probably true. I admit that the ball probably did touch the ground. That being said, if anything the ground would have made it more difficult to maintain possession rather than assisting.
I also agree that the holding calls were BS.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Share this page

Top