Believe it or Not

[HUSKERCR]

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/517064-nebraska-football-zebra-exasperation

 

Nice article.

 

I predict the following responses:

 

10% Problem? There's a problem with the officiating? They're just inept. Besides, how can we really KNOW anything?

20% NU fans should be too classy to mention this. It's rude. Pretend you don't notice it. Be nice.

40% It sure as h*** does smell funny!!!!! We should file a protest with the NCAA!

20% F*** 'em! We'll take what we want anyway!

10% Expose'! Beebe was disguised as an official at the game!

[BIGREDIOWAN]

Straight forward article that says what most of us are feeling. Granted it's from bleacher report so it is what it is, but still.

[macroboy]

Good read. I don't know where I am on the conspiracy side of things but I am certainly concerned.

[shpadoinklehusker]

I honestly don't care because this article just makes us look like whinebags, of which we are not.

[BIGREDIOWAN]

The bottom line is this...........the team doesn't need to give the refs a reason to screw us. They are gonna have to suck it up and watch what they are doing because they are being watched....CLOSELY. Just win the darn game and don't give the refs a way to take it away from us.

[Enhance]

Just out of curiosity, for those of who you watched the game, do you remember a play in which the Kansas quarterback was about to be sacked, but instead of taking the sack he just threw the ball to the turf inside the tackle box? The play looked like it was being set up for a screen, but I don't remember him throwing it anywhere near an eligible receiver. In fact, I remember the offensive linemen being rather far down field when he made the throw.

 

There was no flag called, but instead we got a defensive holding call and the Kansas' drive continued. This raises two questions. Does anybody remember this play and can they more accurately describe it, or should there have been an intentional grounding/ineligible receiver down field penalty called?

[BIGREDIOWAN]

I thought for sure there would be an intentional grounding call there, but I was surprised, once again. I'm pretty sure he was inside the tackles there, but I can't be positive.

[HuskerfaninOkieland]

Just out of curiosity, for those of who you watched the game, do you remember a play in which the Kansas quarterback was about to be sacked, but instead of taking the sack he just threw the ball to the turf inside the tackle box? The play looked like it was being set up for a screen, but I don't remember him throwing it anywhere near an eligible receiver. In fact, I remember the offensive linemen being rather far down field when he made the throw.

 

There was no flag called, but instead we got a defensive holding call and the Kansas' drive continued. This raises two questions. Does anybody remember this play and can they more accurately describe it, or should there have been an intentional grounding/ineligible receiver down field penalty called?

That's what I remember. The announcers on the radio broadcast talked briefly about it. I think they said Baker received the holding call for holding the running back.

[no_name_needed_2001]

Just out of curiosity, for those of who you watched the game, do you remember a play in which the Kansas quarterback was about to be sacked, but instead of taking the sack he just threw the ball to the turf inside the tackle box? The play looked like it was being set up for a screen, but I don't remember him throwing it anywhere near an eligible receiver. In fact, I remember the offensive linemen being rather far down field when he made the throw.

 

There was no flag called, but instead we got a defensive holding call and the Kansas' drive continued. This raises two questions. Does anybody remember this play and can they more accurately describe it, or should there have been an intentional grounding/ineligible receiver down field penalty called?

 

Honestly I didnt really buy into this whole conspiracy theory until this call. It was the easiest call one could make for intentional grounding. I don't mind that they called defensive holding, but at the very least they should have offset.

[zoogs]

If Baker held the RB, that could have been why he was nowhere near where he was supposed to be. No offset in that case. I didn't see the play, though.

[HUSKERCR]

Just out of curiosity, for those of who you watched the game, do you remember a play in which the Kansas quarterback was about to be sacked, but instead of taking the sack he just threw the ball to the turf inside the tackle box? The play looked like it was being set up for a screen, but I don't remember him throwing it anywhere near an eligible receiver. In fact, I remember the offensive linemen being rather far down field when he made the throw.

 

There was no flag called, but instead we got a defensive holding call and the Kansas' drive continued. This raises two questions. Does anybody remember this play and can they more accurately describe it, or should there have been an intentional grounding/ineligible receiver down field penalty called?

 

Honestly I didnt really buy into this whole conspiracy theory until this call. It was the easiest call one could make for intentional grounding. I don't mind that they called defensive holding, but at the very least they should have offset.

 

To be fair, I also saw the refs keep the clock running late in the game (to the Husker's advantage)

after Burkhead was run out of bounds.

Total incompetence on a no-brainer call.

[HuskerfaninOkieland]

If Baker held the RB, that could have been why he was nowhere near where he was supposed to be. No offset in that case. I didn't see the play, though.

IIRC that's what happened. They said something about the running back not being able to get out to the flat for the screen.

[HUSKERCR]

If Baker held the RB, that could have been why he was nowhere near where he was supposed to be. No offset in that case. I didn't see the play, though.

 

The Kansas back went the other way.

[holvy83]

If Baker held the RB, that could have been why he was nowhere near where he was supposed to be. No offset in that case. I didn't see the play, though.

 

Baker pretty much had the RB in a bear hug as soon as the lineman broke free to spell out the screen pass, at first look it does look like grounding, but D-Holding was the correct call, it was pretty obvious.

[Hujan]

If Baker held the RB, that could have been why he was nowhere near where he was supposed to be. No offset in that case. I didn't see the play, though.

 

Baker pretty much had the RB in a bear hug as soon as the lineman broke free to spell out the screen pass, at first look it does look like grounding, but D-Holding was the correct call, it was pretty obvious.

 

This. I missed it live, but on the replay it was ridiculously obvious. It was clear Baker knew the play was going to be a big one and grabbed the RB with both hands. It was the equivalent were a DB knows he's beat on a deep ball and basically tackles the receiver before the ball gets there in order to save a touchdown. I am a conspiracy theorist re: the malicious Big 12 refs and I am here to tell you that this holding call was valid.

 

The absolute biggest indictment in my mind is how the Martin hit was handled. There have been a LOT of similar helmet-to-helmet hits (one was on Cody Green against ISU) in other Big 12 games and there has been nothing from the Conference about it. And the fact that they did nothing about the guy from ISU trying to wrench Rex's head off is pretty telling.

 

I wish that someone would run a little story on this in the national media so that everyone pays closer attention for the rest of the season. I don't see it causing too many issues against Colorado, but I am worried about A&M and the CCG. Can't wait until the bowl game and some non-Big 12 refs.