That is why I posted the video earlier in the thread and asked for someone to explain how it was not a safety. It was ruled a safety on the field and I certainly did not see anything that was indisputable to overturn that.
RIP officiating conspiracy theories
- Thread starter heelmanwilm
- Start date
The officials determined Francois' forward progress was stopped at the 2-yard line. It's a subjective call. Considering the call on the field was overturned, the referee should have offered a better explanation.
Referee Jeff Heaser: "After further review, the runner was stopped at the 2-yard line."
FSU scored TDs on 5 of their last 6 drives. The only exception was after Hood's fumble around 2-yard line, where FSU was content to run out the clock with only about a minute left in the first half.
Which was pretty weird and super conservative IMO. It shows Jimbo feared our offense though.
It has been explained in multiple threads. It's forward progress. You can say that it's a stupid rule til you're blue in the face, but it was the correct call. A player cannot be tackled into the end zone for a safety. He has to have possession with the ball at least partially across the end line when contact is made, and at least part of the ball must still remain in the end zone once he is down.
I'm beating a dead horse, but "subjective" is key. I agree, a better explanation was necessary. In fact, from what I saw, it was a classic definition of a safety. If the play had started from, say, the 50 yard-line, and the same yardage was lost, they would have marked the ball down where he was down. To me, from the footage provided, it's clearly a safety. Whether or not it was ultimately ruled a safety or not is irrelevant to me in arguing against it!
OHHHHH... okay. Now, I get it. THANK YOU! Seriously... thank you.
I was actually correlating this to a game I remember well as a kid- NFL Redskins vs. Cowboys 1978. Theismann ran all the way back to the end zone trying to run-out the clock. He was tackled IN the end zone (just like Francois) and the final score was 9-5. Dallas got a safety on the last play.
I don't know what the actual rulebook says, but in today's game, safeties are judged as thus:I'm beating a dead horse, but "subjective" is key. I agree, a better explanation was necessary. In fact, from what I saw, it was a classic definition of a safety. If the play had started from, say, the 50 yard-line, and the same yardage was lost, they would have marked the ball down where he was down. To me, from the footage provided, it's clearly a safety. Whether or not it was ultimately ruled a safety or not is irrelevant to me in arguing against it!
Was the player IN the endzone at initial contact? If yes --> safety. If no --> not a safety. That's how refs call it in today's game. You cannot be hit in the field of play and then dragged into the endzone. They won't award a safety on that. Thus why the only time you see safeties now are on run plays where the RB is hit in the backfield or if the QB is hit in the shotgun, clearly already in the endzone.
Okay... See, I was thinking that you simply had to be brought down IN the EZ. Then I thought "maybe this is some college-this way/NFL-that way" difference (like one foot in-bounds).
I get it now. I humbly remove my video. But, I appreciate the clarification because I have been pissed about that even though we won. Foolish, I know.
He was moving mostly sideways and a little backwards. Again, sounds really stupid, but you don't have to be moving forward for forward progress. It's all about where contact is made. Think about it this way: It's a handoff to the RB and he is trying to bounce it outside. He is racing the LB to the corner and is actually moving slightly backwards compared to the LOS. The LB beats him to the spot and drives him backwards 5 yards from where he first made contact and wrapped up. You wouldn't expect them to spot the ball all the way back where he was finally taken to the ground would you? Well this is pretty much the same situation. Francois was moving laterally and away from the LOS, but he was hit at the two and driven back into the end zone. Forward progress is given at the point where contact was made.
Furthermore, as I explained above, they will not call a safety if you are hit outside the endzone and driven into the endzone. Won't happen. You've gotta already be in the endzone.
i thought this game was officiated well.
i'm referring more to blatant incompetence such as the onsides kick against clemson where the ref told switzer that he could have called it on 4 or 5 players.
Don't remind me of that. I'm not saying Clemson didn't deserve to win but we deserved that last chance to come back.
As was pointed out over on IC, the refs called a safety and did NOT call forward progress on the field. As the rules stand, the review booth is NOT ABLE to review forward progress that is not called on the field. The rule was quoted over there.
So, it was a safety, and the review booth ILLEGALLY overturned it, no matter "if" it it was a safety by your definition or not.
LOL. That's what you get for listening to the knuckleheads on IC. A potential safety is literally the very first type of reviewable play listed in the NCAA Football Rules and Interpretations manual. (See page 111 of the PDF download)
-------------------------------------------
RULE 12
Instant Replay
SECTION 3. Reviewable Plays
Scoring Plays
ARTICLE 1. Reviewable plays involving a potential score include:
a. A potential touchdown or safety. [Exception: Safety by penalty for fouls
that are not specifically reviewable.]
Just curious. Is there anyone on this thread that thinks the moon landing was staged? After reading some of these comments I think there might be a few that do.
It was staged by pro-Duke media who want to crush UNC Basketball.
