Actually incorrect - it is white cars (Because of the shear number of white cars - by % red would seem accurate)
Officiating Bias Against Frost?
- Thread starter AZHuskers
- Start date
Actually incorrect - it is white cars (Because of the shear number of white cars - by % red would seem accurate)
JJ Husker
Assistant Coach
Yes, I meant as a percentage, I just didn't state it correctly.
But now that you point out white cars......,.our colors red and white. The double whammy.
*awaits the smart asses to reply that our colors are actually scarlet and cream
JJ Husker
Assistant Coach
It never occurred to me how stupid some of these rules are. You can intentionally spike the ball to stop the clock, technically still in the pocket and no chance of a receiver catching it......unless there are less than 3 seconds on the clock. WTH? But if you sail a pass and the WR cuts off his route. :facepalm: I mean I understand the intent when the QB is under pressure and just trying to avoid a sack but these other cases. I really don't get the prohibition on intentionally spiking the ball with less than 3 seconds. What travesty of the game does this rule address? And if that's a problem, why isn't spiking the ball illegal at all times. I don't get it.
I think the only thing the 3 second rule addresses is the argument over whether the clock operator stopped or didn't stop the clock correctly.
And I'm not so sure the intentional grounding was because a receiver cut his route off. I'd have to see the replay but he over threw him by at least 30 yards. He was just chucking it away because nothing was open, IMO.
JJ Husker
Assistant Coach
Oh I think he threw it away on purpose. I don't think the WR cut off his route but it sure could be called in a situation like that. I just think there is sort of an inconsistency when they allow a spike but don't allow other situations. I don't have any problem when it's done blatantly to prevent a sack but it sometimes seems very subjective and the under three seconds rule just blows my mind. They have replay and other situations where they add or subtract time from the clock.
Mierin
Assistant Coach
The 3 second rule especially doesn't make sense when the QB is allowed to throw the ball out of bounds on purpose in the last 3 seconds like Colt McCoy did.
Hayseed
All-American
There' was a receiver on the left who was headed that direction and slowed down when he got to the defender, but it shouldn't matter because he wasn't in the grasp and he could've just thrown a bad pass. Never in 50 years have seen that called on a downfield ball. "Out of the pocket" and "in the grasp" left-handed spiking is okay though. Right. The NCAA is a joke.
Mierin
Assistant Coach
Lonestar_Husker
Special Teams Player
Does intent matter? If a sack is not imminent, how is the intent of the throw determined? Aren't there option routes where the QB and WR have to read the coverage the same way? Is every miscommunication grounds for grounding? Did you see what I did there?
I tend to think it's a combination of a lot of different factors including precedent, bias and a lack of talent on Nebraska's defense. Precedent and bias go somewhat hand-in-hand meaning Nebraska has proven a lot through the years to be relatively undisciplined and get hit with a lot of penalties. The refs know this and could be inclined to pay closer attention to Nebraska. Not officially, of course.
And I really do think talent plays a role. Nebraska's last objectively good pass rusher was who... Randy Gregory? It's tough to be on the winning side of a holding call when you're not good enough to consistently beat the guy in front of you.
hesselguister
Walk-on
In regards to the intentional grounding penalty on Nebraska. Some posters have concluded that this was the correct call- which is technically accurate. Other posters have never seen this call before, and have been presenting reasons why the call was just so odd. Based on my experiences in this line of work, I would conclude that the reason why you rarely, if ever, see this call is a combination of logistics and common sense. There are many rules in every sport that are not enforced because of the context in which the action is occurring. For instance- in basketball- if the ball is being passed around the perimeter up by half-court and a post has their foot just within the lane at the elbow- technically 3 seconds could be called, but will never be by experienced officials.
I could be wrong- but on the intentional grounding play in question, I don't recall an official in the secondary conferring with the referee- who i believe eventually threw the flag. Either way- the referee won't have eyes on the downfield receiver, and a secondary official won't have eyes on the quarterback. To me, given that the QB was not going down to the ground- I would have been fine with the explanation that the receiver cut off his route. That's usually how it would be explained. My guess is that the conference will say it was the correct call, but the evaluator will question the process of how the officials came to this conclusion- and suggest that with all the other items to keep track of during the game, this would have been a play to not throw a flag. This unique call situation probably led to further confusion with the down. It gets tense when conferring with your partners when there are 2,000 people on your case. When 80,000 are booing you during the situation in which you are unsure and may have kicked both the call & down marker - I wonder if the referee wished he never would have went down this path.
I could be wrong- but on the intentional grounding play in question, I don't recall an official in the secondary conferring with the referee- who i believe eventually threw the flag. Either way- the referee won't have eyes on the downfield receiver, and a secondary official won't have eyes on the quarterback. To me, given that the QB was not going down to the ground- I would have been fine with the explanation that the receiver cut off his route. That's usually how it would be explained. My guess is that the conference will say it was the correct call, but the evaluator will question the process of how the officials came to this conclusion- and suggest that with all the other items to keep track of during the game, this would have been a play to not throw a flag. This unique call situation probably led to further confusion with the down. It gets tense when conferring with your partners when there are 2,000 people on your case. When 80,000 are booing you during the situation in which you are unsure and may have kicked both the call & down marker - I wonder if the referee wished he never would have went down this path.
olddominionhusker
Starter
I think that’s right. As they say in the article regardless what the rule says it has to look like the defensive guy is being illegally impeded for the refs to call it. Basically, when your pass rushers are so weak that the mere act of standing in front of them seems to be enough it hard for it to look like they are being restrained.
Also, as the article intimates, we really don’t want to live in a world where holding is strictly enforced on every play. Would kill the sport
southernoregonhusker
Starter
The believe the announcer stated that call was made in last year's Super Bowl. Also, the rules guy on TV agreed with the call.
Guy Chamberlin
Heisman Trophy Winner
Actually white has the highest ticket rate, but red is the #1 "color" and #2 among all tickets.
Cops operate the radar and have their choice of who to ticket since virtually everyone is speeding. For whatever reason, they tend to punish red.