Don't let the score fool you.... This game wasn't even close!

[Comish]

All things considered, this was exactly the type of game you wanted to see from the defense. They gave up a lot of yards in the first half and three points, but gave up I believe fewer than 90 yards in the second half and only another three points. It wasn't perfect, and this Arkansas State offense is not loaded with big time talent, but they were still averaging 575 yards of offense a game, and we held them to less than 285 yards and six points.

Offensively, the line is something you have to be concerned about, but not entirely. They did well opening up running lanes today, but they also had their share of bone-headed mistakes, especially in the pass game. From where I was sitting in the stadium, I didn't have great angles on Martinez' two fumbles, but they both seemed to have occurred relatively fast, meaning our pass pro suffered.

For those of you who watched the game on television, what did you think about Abdullah's muffed punt? I didn't think it hit him at all, and I didn't see a single player react as if he did. Even Abdullah continued to saunter over the sidelines afterwards, so, he's either the worlds greatest actor and played it off without the slightest flinch, or it didn't hit him. Did they keep the call because there was no indisputable video evidence to overturn it, or are they just boneheaded?

2 of 3 replays indicated it did not hit him. The 3rd looked like it may have, but you needed conclusive evidence to overturn it................so the original call is what sunk us.

 

[roundegotrip]

For those of you who watched the game on television, what did you think about Abdullah's muffed punt? I didn't think it hit him at all, and I didn't see a single player react as if he did. Even Abdullah continued to saunter over the sidelines afterwards, so, he's either the worlds greatest actor and played it off without the slightest flinch, or it didn't hit him. Did they keep the call because there was no indisputable video evidence to overturn it, or are they just boneheaded?

Boneheaded. There was a pretty good angle on replay that showed the ball didn't touch him, at least in my opinion.

 

[QMany]

In my mind, I like to think of the D only giving up 3. They made a huge stop on that blown call on the punt. Very happy with their play and Papuchis' intensity.

 

[Enhance]

2 of 3 replays indicated it did not hit him. The 3rd looked like it may have, but you needed conclusive evidence to overturn it................so the original call is what sunk us.

Here's my largest issue with it - if I'm a ref, I'm one man. There were 22 other players on the field, and not a single one reacted as if it had hit Abdullah. The ref must think he has Godly vision.

 

[EbylHusker]

You can't go by the reactions of players on the field, you have to go by what you think you saw happen in the play. Fans get the luxury of interpreting player reactions, refs do not.

 

[QMany]

You have to use all three views to see that it did not hit him. Not even close. The one view didn't show it did or didn't. The other views showed it wasn't even close.

 

[EbylHusker]

Also, one of the things that has bothered me in these first few games is how close returners sometimes stand when they're not going to catch the ball. Just get the f#*k out of the way, a long ways away, so there is no chance that thing will come close to you.

 

[Enhance]

You can't go by the reactions of players on the field, you have to go by what you think you saw happen in the play. Fans get the luxury of interpreting player reactions, refs do not.

The players don't have to be your one piece of evidence, but they're circumstantial at the least. The point is not a single person on the field reacted to Abdullah as if he touched it - only one referee, from what I could see. Seems to me that this is enough to at least call the play Nebraska's ball and then review it if necessary.

Besides, he shouldn't go off of what he "thinks" he saw happen, he should go by what he knows he saw happen. I feel that if there's doubt, let it be, or do the safe call (give it to the team whose ball it should be) and go from there. I'd say the same thing if it had happened to Arkansas State.

 

[JJ Husker]

They kept the call because it wasn't indisputable. You could make an argument either way looking at the replay, and when that happens, the call stands. I don't think it hit him, but you can't overturn the call on the field based on that replay.

I disagree. The one angle clearly and unequivocally showed it did not touch him. The other angle made it look like it hit him but it was a bad angle to make such a determination. Possibly they did not have the better angle for their replay review. There is no other possible excuse. The really annoying thing is the announcers could clearly see it didn't hit him and they didn't say squat about the call not being overturned.

 

[EbylHusker]

Refs have to make judgement calls. Whether you want to argue semantics or not, the refs are going by what they THINK they see. Those judgement calls are based on their sight regarding the play, not player reactions. No sport, at least that I know of, has refs that make calls based, even partly, on player reactions. They are calling the play as they see it. That's what happened here, as it should have.

 

[Enhance]

They kept the call because it wasn't indisputable. You could make an argument either way looking at the replay, and when that happens, the call stands. I don't think it hit him, but you can't overturn the call on the field based on that replay.

I disagree. The one angle clearly and unequivocally showed it did not touch him. The other angle made it look like it hit him but it was a bad angle to make such a determination. Possibly they did not have the better angle for their replay review. There is no other possible excuse. The really annoying thing is the announcers could clearly see it didn't hit him and they didn't say squat about the call not being overturned.

Any replay on television came from a network camera, which is what the referees use to review plays. If you saw it, they saw. With the amount of procedural checks they go through for each game, there's no way that camera wasn't working for them.

 

[EbylHusker]

They kept the call because it wasn't indisputable. You could make an argument either way looking at the replay, and when that happens, the call stands. I don't think it hit him, but you can't overturn the call on the field based on that replay.

I disagree. The one angle clearly and unequivocally showed it did not touch him. The other angle made it look like it hit him but it was a bad angle to make such a determination. Possibly they did not have the better angle for their replay review. There is no other possible excuse. The really annoying thing is the announcers could clearly see it didn't hit him and they didn't say squat about the call not being overturned.

Fair enough, let's see the replay. It's possible I missed that one.

Edit - And that means, please post the replay when it is available.

 

[Enhance]

Refs have to make judgement calls. Whether you want to argue semantics or not, the refs are going by what they THINK they see. Those judgement calls are based on their sight regarding the play, not player reactions. No sport, at least that I know of, has refs that make calls based, even partly, on player reactions. They are calling the play as they see it. That's what happened here, as it should have.

I disagree. We'll leave it there.

 

[EbylHusker]

rofl, as you like.

 

[JJ Husker]

Hopefully somebody with video skills will post it soon. I have no idea how to get it from my dvr onto HB. I promise you though, it didn't touch him and an angle they showed on TV proves it. It's not one of those that can be interpreted differently.