RIP officiating conspiracy theories

[heelmanwilm]

Okay this isnt a jab at anyone but rather at the mind set thats existed here for a while. I know several of u are convinced the ncaa/acc/telecom/espn et al are colluding with the officials to prevent unc from winning as punishment for the ncaa stuff or to ensure a more popular team advances in the rankings and the playoff game and so on. but even u guys can now rest easy. The league's most recognizable team, the flag bearer for a decade, with the best traveled fan base, that draws the highest tv ratings, that has a heisman candidate even, has been eliminated from the playoffs by a pi call that enabled unc to win. Great job officials.

 

[Raising Heel]

YouMustBeNewHere.jpg

 

[heelmanwilm]

Free member since sept of '16

 

[tmatheny]

Everyone is entitled to their own thoughts but that wasn't a bad call. Could it not have been called maybe buy I'd throw in a handful of those throughout the game with a slight lean to FSU getting the benefit. That was no where near the BS call against Clemson last year

 

[heelmanwilm]

i'm not saying it was a bad call. The call was correct

As for clemson yea the offsides was horrible, BUT we were required to have at least four players on each side of the ball. We only had three on the far side away from the kick.

There were certainly bad calls in the game. They pissed me off as much as anyone. But thats part of the game.

 

[Raising Heel]

As for clemson yea the offsides was horrible, BUT we were required to have at least four players on each side of the ball. We only had three on the far side away from the kick.

Incorrect. A player on the far side was obscured by another player in the screen cap picture. It was a legal formation.

If you count based on this screen cap alone, it looks like UNC only has 10 men on the field.

But if you watch the full video, you see the 11th player emerge on the far side of the field:

 

[TarHeelNation11]

Too bad you cancelled premium heelman, you go to Blue Heaven and view a couple threads about how ESPN hates us. Sorry, dSPN.

 

[ethanga62890]

well considering they stole a safety then bailed FSU out on a 3rd down which caused a 9 point swing in the score. Instead of 30-14 our ball it was now 28-21. I still do not understand how that was not a safety. He was going backward of his own accord when he got hit. When you are going backwards you are spotted where you go down. He went down in the end zone. I'm seriously confused at that ish.

 

[heelmanwilm]

Incorrect. A player on the far side was obscured by another player in the screen cap picture. It was a legal formation.

If you count based on this screen cap alone, it looks like UNC only has 10 men on the field.

But if you watch the full video, you see the 11th player emerge on the far side of the field:

Wow! Tks i never noticed that! I stand corrected sir.

 

[TarHeelNation11]

well considering they stole a safety then bailed FSU out on a 3rd down which caused a 9 point swing in the score. Instead of 30-14 our ball it was now 28-21. I still do not understand how that was not a safety. He was going backward of his own accord when he got hit. When you are going backwards you are spotted where you go down. He went down in the end zone. I'm seriously confused at that ish.

Benefit of the doubt is ALWAYS given to the ball carrier on safety situations. You have to seriously be hit IN the endzone and then brought down for it to be a safety in today's game. I hate forward progress with a passion, but that reversal of the safety didn't surprise me. That didn't cause us to blow our lead. What happened 3 plays later did. That Corey Bell roughing the punter was inexcusable. If he doesn't do that, we win by 7 at least.

 

[ethanga62890]

Benefit of the doubt is ALWAYS given to the ball carrier on safety situations. You have to seriously be hit IN the endzone and then brought down for it to be a safety in today's game. I hate forward progress with a passion, but that reversal of the safety didn't surprise me. That didn't cause us to blow our lead. What happened 3 plays later did. That Corey Bell roughing the punter was inexcusable. If he doesn't do that, we win by 7 at least.

That's retarded to me i'm sorry. By any rules i've ever heard of or played by that is a safety. Oh you forgot about the stupid roughing the punter on the same drive as well. Dumb penalties by us.

 

[notashelbyfan]

2nd and 25 on fsu last td drive when they threw and made it 3 and 1 or 2 there was a hold on fsu that wasn't called it was the best tackle of the day kind of like the 15 holds in the UGA game that wasn't called!

One bad on another team don't make up for the 100 over the last 8 or 9 years that have cost us games!

 

[Tom79]

I tend to grade the refs on their spotting the ball. As usual, at a home game in Tallahassee, they got the benefit of the doubt on a number of marks. For UNC's side, not so much, like the Hood stretch (he was not on the ground) and placed the ball down and they marked him a fill yard short.
yep, home team bias. We get it too y'all...just not as much.

 

[TarHeelNation11]

I tend to grade the refs on their spotting the ball. As usual, at a home game in Tallahassee, they got the benefit of the doubt on a number of marks. For UNC's side, not so much, like the Hood stretch (he was not on the ground) and placed the ball down and they marked him a fill yard short.
yep, home team bias. We get it too y'all...just not as much.

I give up.

 

[TarHeelNation11]

That's retarded to me i'm sorry. By any rules i've ever heard of or played by that is a safety. Oh you forgot about the stupid roughing the punter on the same drive as well. Dumb penalties by us.

No I didn't forget the roughing the punter penalty. It's in the post of mine you quoted. And yeah, I mean, maybe the rule sounds dumb to you, but that safety play was called correctly (but I feel your pain, I've hated forward progress for years).

 

[TarHeelNation11]

We got more calls yesterday than the Noles did. Point blank. Be happy with the win..

 

[lerario]

They had 13 penalties for 120 yards. I think we had 6 for 31. It was big key to the game.

And no, that was not a safety. Francois was moving backward but our player made contact around the 1 1/2 yard line and continued driving him backwards into the endzone. Whether it's a stupid rule or not, it was the correct call.

For those that hate forward progress, why? I've never really thought about it so I'm curious as to why you feel that way. Do you think if a RB is stopped in the hole for a two yard gain, then is pushed 5 yards back by a group of multiple defenders that it should result in the ball being spotted for a 3 yard loss?

 

[TarHeelNation11]

@lerario

Let me phrase it this way: I hate forward progress, except for in times where it's very obviously needed, like in your RB example. Your example is exactly why forward progress exists -- when the ball carrier gets stood up and driven back 10 yards but never gets brought down. I'm totally in favor of FP in that case.

What I hate about what I call "modern day forward progress" is thus:

1) It punishes the defense / rewards the offense way too much
2) refs are way too lenient in awarding it.

Picture this scenario which happens all the time: WR catches a short route near the sideline at the opponent's 30. The first down marker is the opponent's 29. Said receiver, after catching the ball facing his QB, turns up field and tries to surge forward. He makes the 30 in a millisecond after catching and turning, but is immediately hit by a defender and the defender wraps up and is able to tackle him at the 30 or even 31.

It irritates me that the defender gets zero credit here and the ball carrier gets awarded the 29 yardline and the first down, despite not having the strength to overpower the defender. He himself got overpowered on the play and driven back one or two yards, but gets away with it and doesn't get punished. Instead, he gets rewarded.

Forward progress just flies in the face of what football is supposed to be about -- strength, force, grit. That's just my opinion. Of course, call forward progress when three defenders stand up a guy and drive him 10 yards back. But why call it in a one-on-one matchup where a defender drives back a ball carrier? That's why I hate forward progress.

 

[tarheel0910]

 

[lerario]

@lerario

Let me phrase it this way: I hate forward progress, except for in times where it's very obviously needed, like in your RB example. Your example is exactly why forward progress exists -- when the ball carrier gets stood up and driven back 10 yards but never gets brought down. I'm totally in favor of FP in that case.

What I hate about what I call "modern day forward progress" is thus:

1) It punishes the defense / rewards the offense way too much
2) refs are way too lenient in awarding it.

Picture this scenario which happens all the time: WR catches a short route near the sideline at the opponent's 30. The first down marker is the opponent's 29. Said receiver, after catching the ball facing his QB, turns up field and tries to surge forward. He makes the 30 in a millisecond after catching and turning, but is immediately hit by a defender and the defender wraps up and is able to tackle him at the 30 or even 31.

It irritates me that the defender gets zero credit here and the ball carrier gets awarded the 29 yardline and the first down, despite not having the strength to overpower the defender. He himself got overpowered on the play and driven back one or two yards, but gets away with it and doesn't get punished. Instead, he gets rewarded.

Forward progress just flies in the face of what football is supposed to be about -- strength, force, grit. That's just my opinion. Of course, call forward progress when three defenders stand up a guy and drive him 10 yards back. But why call it in a one-on-one matchup where a defender drives back a ball carrier? That's why I hate forward progress.

Gotcha and I feel the same way about your example and the fact that it does kind of fly in the face of what football is all about lol. But I'm not sure it would be possible in a practical sense to have it both ways. It would just be one more thing for refs to screw up.

 

[TarHeelNation11]

Gotcha and I feel the same way about your example and the fact that it does kind of fly in the face of what football is all about lol. But I'm not sure it would be possible in a practical sense to have it both ways. It would just be one more thing for refs to screw up.

Unfortunately I guess you're right. Just seems crazy that the offensive player can get the very tip of his body to a yard line for one millisecond before being driven back and he's awarded that spot, but a defender can overpower a player and tackle him backwards two whole yards but isn't rewarded for that.

 

[ethanga62890]

No I didn't forget the roughing the punter penalty. It's in the post of mine you quoted. And yeah, I mean, maybe the rule sounds dumb to you, but that safety play was called correctly (but I feel your pain, I've hated forward progress for years).

They had 13 penalties for 120 yards. I think we had 6 for 31. It was big key to the game.

And no, that was not a safety. Francois was moving backward but our player made contact around the 1 1/2 yard line and continued driving him backwards into the endzone. Whether it's a stupid rule or not, it was the correct call.

For those that hate forward progress, why? I've never really thought about it so I'm curious as to why you feel that way. Do you think if a RB is stopped in the hole for a two yard gain, then is pushed 5 yards back by a group of multiple defenders that it should result in the ball being spotted for a 3 yard loss?

i stand corrected. Good to know

 

[franklin street]

i never said it's a conspiracy, i just said a lot of people hate us.
everyone who officiates a game started as a fan and fans have biases.

 

[TarHeelNation11]

i never said it's a conspiracy, i just said a lot of people hate us.
everyone who officiates a game started as a fan and fans have biases.

So why didn't they flag us when we didn't quite get all our subs off the field on that one play in the second quarter? Should've been an illegal substitution penalty but they didn't call it and instead called a block in the back on the Seminoles.

 

[Archer2]

He certainly wasn't running parallel to the line. He was running backward at a 45 degree angle. I don't see how they can call forward progress at the two. The announcers sure seem to think it was a safety.

 

[tarheel0910]

you go to Blue Heaven and view a couple threads about how ESPN hates us. Sorry, dSPN.

Really? I thought the premium boards were a refuge from stupid things like that. I was actually thinking about signing up for premium based on some comments on another board that shall not be named. If that crap exists on premium then it's not worth it for me.

 

[JimmyinVA]

compared to other big games where refs made blatantly bad calls against carolina, this one was reasonably well officiated. there's no doubt the ncaa is annoyed with unc, but i don't believe they're giving refs a directive to hurt us in big games. i believe that some refs are abc'ers who personally don't want carolina to be a contender in football (as we are in basketball). based on a number of inexplicably awful calls hurting us in key games, it appears that some refs have a personal bias against the tar heels -- but that's not a "conspiracy".

 

[Raising Heel]

Really? I thought the premium boards were a refuge from stupid things like that.

It's only one or two numskulls. Everybody else just points and laughs.

 

[Tom79]

I give up.

Good.
Perhaps you were not aware, Fed dialed up the blocked punt attempt, just so ya know.

 

[HeelFan58]

I'm sorry but the ACC officials are much too incompetent to be able to pull off a conspiracy. It would take way more skill than they possess.

 

[TarHeelNation11]

Really? I thought the premium boards were a refuge from stupid things like that. I was actually thinking about signing up for premium based on some comments on another board that shall not be named. If that crap exists on premium then it's not worth it for me.

That's why it's an anomaly. The premium boards usually are devoid of such dribble. It's a surprise for sure -- it's not a common thing at all.

 

[TarHeelNation11]

Good.
Perhaps you were not aware, Fed dialed up the blocked punt attempt, just so ya know.

I heard him say that. Sounds like him covering for his player. Even if it was called, they practice all spring and fall on how to jump at an angle so as to miss the punter but hit the ball. You don't jump flying squirrel style directly at the kicker like Bell did.

 

[Raising Heel]

I heard him say that. Sounds like him covering for his player. Even if it was called, they practice all spring and fall on how to jump at an angle so as to miss the punter but hit the ball. You don't jump flying squirrel style directly at the kicker like Bell did.

Fedora chewed his ass when he got back to the sideline.

 

[TarHeelNation11]

Fedora chewed his ass when he got back to the sideline.

As he should have. I've said it a bunch of times, but I'll say it again, based on all the factors (time remaining, score, defensive success up to that point vs. fatigue setting in, etc.), that penalty could've and should've cost us the game.

We'd only given up 14 up to that point. And it was the dying minutes of the third quarter IIRC. They went on to score 21 points in the next ~20 minutes of remaining game time after that penalty.

 

[Tom79]

Sure Fed got on him and should have, the kid has that call on the field at live action and at that speed he should have pulled back and "flying squirreled" by the kicker...but then it would not have been as critical if our big TE caught the at the knees pass and scored? Or we don't get the PAT blocked?

 

[strummingram]

Sure Fed got on him and should have, the kid has that call on the field at live action and at that speed he should have pulled back and "flying squirreled" by the kicker...but then it would not have been as critical if our big TE caught the at the knees pass and scored? Or we don't get the PAT blocked?

Or, they count the safety that WAS a safety.

 

[Raising Heel]

...but then it would not have been as critical if our big TE caught the at the knees pass and scored?

Hollins scored a TD on the very next play.

Or, they count the safety that WAS a safety.

It wasn't a safety, regardless of how many times you insist it was.

 

[strummingram]

Hollins scored a TD on the very next play.

It wasn't a safety, regardless of how many times you insist it was.

Explain how it wasn't. TIA

 

[HeelFan58]

As he should have. I've said it a bunch of times, but I'll say it again, based on all the factors (time remaining, score, defensive success up to that point vs. fatigue setting in, etc.), that penalty could've and should've cost us the game.

We'd only given up 14 up to that point. And it was the dying minutes of the third quarter IIRC. They went on to score 21 points in the next ~20 minutes of remaining game time after that penalty.

We didn't make a defensive stop the rest of the game.

 

[HeelFan58]

Or, they count the safety that WAS a safety.

I didn't really think it was a safety after seeing the slow mo , but as far as it being indisputable evidence well let's just say I am less sure of that being the case. It is kind of hard to determine if he is retreating or the tackler driving him back.