Brian Posted October 20, 2014 Share Posted October 20, 2014 QUOTE (DrunkBomber @ Oct 19, 2014 -> 07:07 PM) FOX Sports rules analyst Mike Pereira watched the tape and said officials made the correct call — both Prosise and Will Fuller's "only intent was to block" on the play What else you got? They obviously didn't read the rule book. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cabiness42 Posted October 20, 2014 Share Posted October 20, 2014 FOX Sports rules analyst Mike Pereira watched the tape and said officials made the correct call — both Prosise and Will Fuller's "only intent was to block" on the play What else you got? As a rules analyst he should understand that the rules don't say anything about intent. I'm guessing he also didn't see the ground angle of the play. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiliIrishHammock24 Posted October 20, 2014 Share Posted October 20, 2014 QUOTE (kev211 @ Oct 19, 2014 -> 11:57 AM) The call was right. It just should've been overlooked in that situation. Let the players decide the game. Yep. Like I apparently posted when I was wasted last night, refs had too much influence. Nothing those receivers/CBs involved did on that play changed the outcome. Refs often overlook or don't call that play, so you hate to see it at the very end to change the outcome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrunkBomber Posted October 20, 2014 Share Posted October 20, 2014 QUOTE (Chilihead90 @ Oct 19, 2014 -> 07:22 PM) Yep. Like I apparently posted when I was wasted last night, refs had too much influence. Nothing those receivers/CBs involved did on that play changed the outcome. Refs often overlook or don't call that play, so you hate to see it at the very end to change the outcome. Im ok with this reasoning too. Consistency is important and dictates what teams will try to get away with, but for someone to sit here and claim it wasnt a penalty is laughable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrunkBomber Posted October 20, 2014 Share Posted October 20, 2014 QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Oct 19, 2014 -> 07:21 PM) As a rules analyst he should understand that the rules don't say anything about intent. I'm guessing he also didn't see the ground angle of the play. I assumed you had to be trolling the whole time at least after this comment I can confirm it and move along. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cabiness42 Posted October 20, 2014 Share Posted October 20, 2014 Im ok with this reasoning too. Consistency is important and dictates what teams will try to get away with, but for someone to sit here and claim it wasnt a penalty is laughable. No, what is laughable is for somebody to make judgments without reading and understanding the actual rule. It wasn't a penalty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrunkBomber Posted October 20, 2014 Share Posted October 20, 2014 QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Oct 19, 2014 -> 07:29 PM) No, what is laughable is for somebody to make judgments without reading and understanding the actual rule. It wasn't a penalty. Do you know who Mike Pereira is lol? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cabiness42 Posted October 20, 2014 Share Posted October 20, 2014 Do you know who Mike Pereira is lol? Yes, I know who he is, but if he is using the word "intent" then he really doesn't have a clue. Plus I'm betting he hasn't watched the field angle. Fuller clearly doesn't have the "intent" to block when he cuts inside and the defender goes with him instead of going towards Robinson. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RockRaines Posted October 20, 2014 Share Posted October 20, 2014 Nd ran the exact same play at the other end and it should have been called. Calling one out of two regardless of when in the game is totally acceptable right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cabiness42 Posted October 20, 2014 Share Posted October 20, 2014 Nd ran the exact same play at the other end and it should have been called. Calling one out of two regardless of when in the game is totally acceptable right? That's the admission that the last one wasn't really a penalty when you have to go looking for something else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrunkBomber Posted October 20, 2014 Share Posted October 20, 2014 QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Oct 19, 2014 -> 07:33 PM) Yes, I know who he is, but if he is using the word "intent" then he really doesn't have a clue. Plus I'm betting he hasn't watched the field angle. Fuller clearly doesn't have the "intent" to block when he cuts inside and the defender goes with him instead of going towards Robinson. So for the record, your stance is that because you read this rule last night that you understand it more and can interpret it better than the former senior director of officiating for the NFL? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrunkBomber Posted October 20, 2014 Share Posted October 20, 2014 QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Oct 19, 2014 -> 07:39 PM) That's the admission that the last one wasn't really a penalty when you have to go looking for something else. It just means that Notre Dame got one of their patented no calls earlier in the game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cabiness42 Posted October 20, 2014 Share Posted October 20, 2014 So for the record, your stance is that because you read this rule last night that you understand it more and can interpret it better than the former senior director of officiating for the NFL? I read the rule plenty of times before last night, but I reread it last night, and based on that and the field level angle I'm 100% certain that Mike is incorrect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cabiness42 Posted October 20, 2014 Share Posted October 20, 2014 It just means that Notre Dame got one of their patented no calls earlier in the game. Yes, they got lots of their patented no calls when FSU was not called for holding at least 5 or six times when Winston was scrambling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrunkBomber Posted October 20, 2014 Share Posted October 20, 2014 Out of curiosity, is Pereira in on this conspiracy or is he just a victim of not understanding the rules as well as you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fathom Posted October 20, 2014 Share Posted October 20, 2014 QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Oct 20, 2014 -> 01:42 AM) Yes, they got lots of their patented no calls when FSU was not called for holding at least 5 or six times when Winston was scrambling. Or the blatant hands to the face by nd lineman on the Winston pick. Heck, the first ND touchdown drive had some awful spots and calls. As for the last play , I don't think it was a pick (like the first TD), but it was illegal blocking downfield. Hey, at least it wasn't roughing the snapper. Good game by the Irish though, as they are in a good position to make the playoffs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fathom Posted October 20, 2014 Share Posted October 20, 2014 ACC officiating supervisor just confirmed it was the right call Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrunkBomber Posted October 20, 2014 Share Posted October 20, 2014 QUOTE (fathom @ Oct 19, 2014 -> 07:49 PM) ACC officiating supervisor just confirmed it was the right call Whens the last time he read the rule book though? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fathom Posted October 20, 2014 Share Posted October 20, 2014 Also, the worst refereed game yesterday was the Baylor game, and the call at the end of the UCLA game was awful Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RockRaines Posted October 20, 2014 Share Posted October 20, 2014 QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Oct 19, 2014 -> 07:39 PM) That's the admission that the last one wasn't really a penalty when you have to go looking for something else. Actually I'm saying both cases were penalties but they called it only once. Your obsession is affecting what you read now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiliIrishHammock24 Posted October 20, 2014 Share Posted October 20, 2014 QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Oct 19, 2014 -> 07:42 PM) Yes, they got lots of their patented no calls when FSU was not called for holding at least 5 or six times when Winston was scrambling. Just to stoke the fire even more, Mike Peirrera (sp?) also tweeted out that FSU got away with 12 men on the field during that big final drive at the end of the game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrunkBomber Posted October 20, 2014 Share Posted October 20, 2014 QUOTE (Chilihead90 @ Oct 19, 2014 -> 09:08 PM) Just to stoke the fire even more, Mike Peirrera (sp?) also tweeted out that FSU got away with 12 men on the field during that big final drive at the end of the game. I dont doubt that there were missed calls over the course of the game but the play in question was indeed a penalty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiliIrishHammock24 Posted October 20, 2014 Share Posted October 20, 2014 QUOTE (DrunkBomber @ Oct 19, 2014 -> 09:13 PM) I dont doubt that there were missed calls over the course of the game but the play in question was indeed a penalty. I'm not circling those wagons again, I'm just giving HH more to chew on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kev211 Posted October 20, 2014 Share Posted October 20, 2014 (edited) Either way with the way the rankings are set up right now ND has a real shot of getting in if they run the table from here. Edited October 20, 2014 by kev211 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IlliniKrush Posted October 20, 2014 Share Posted October 20, 2014 QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Oct 19, 2014 -> 07:40 PM) I read the rule plenty of times before last night, but I reread it last night, and based on that and the field level angle I'm 100% certain that Mike is incorrect. This thread just keeps getting better and better. Anyway, you do realize that there are interpretation/case manuals for all sports officials, right? Training and video review etc? This is amateur lawyering at its finest. What exactly is your officiating background besides reading a rule book once? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts