Ay-Ziggy-Zoomba.com

This has been on my mind since they happened and was wondering others thoughts.

1. The punt that was reviewed in which the webcasters basically gave up their first born in the fact that FIU would get the ball but was ruled BG ball- yes it did go off the adidas shoe (adidas is a sponsor you know) of a BG guy, but it appeared to me to have first hit and FIU player on the way down, before it hit the turf.

2. The "illegal touching" punt near the FIU goal line that appeared to be in and out of the return man's hands and ended up in the breadbasket of a BG player. It ended up being ruled a touch back. In my mind there are two things that could have been called on this play and a touch back was not one of them. I think that either the BG guy caught the ball therefore should be downed at the 1 yard line or the FIU guy had the ball graze off of him to be torn away by the oncoming BG player resulting in a BG touchdown.

What are everyone's thoughts on these plays? (just to play to my curiousities)

Dayons_Den wrote:What are everyone's thoughts on these plays? (just to play to my curiousities)

The same as yours.

But the web feed (at least for me) wasn't quite clear enough to be sure about whether or not a ball was touched by an FIU player in either instance.

The punt hit a BG player first IMO. Big break for us there.

Secondly, placing the ball at the one is impossible. The ball ended up in the end zone. In order to not be a touchback, the ball must be kept completely out of the end zone. If the FIU player touched it first, it should have been a touchdown, but replays were the definition of inconclusive on that one. Touchback was the correct call methinks.

Dayons_Den wrote:This has been on my mind since they happened and was wondering others thoughts.

1. The punt that was reviewed in which the webcasters basically gave up their first born in the fact that FIU would get the ball but was ruled BG ball- yes it did go off the adidas shoe (adidas is a sponsor you know) of a BG guy, but it appeared to me to have first hit and FIU player on the way down, before it hit the turf.

2. The "illegal touching" punt near the FIU goal line that appeared to be in and out of the return man's hands and ended up in the breadbasket of a BG player. It ended up being ruled a touch back. In my mind there are two things that could have been called on this play and a touch back was not one of them. I think that either the BG guy caught the ball therefore should be downed at the 1 yard line or the FIU guy had the ball graze off of him to be torn away by the oncoming BG player resulting in a BG touchdown.

What are everyone's thoughts on these plays? (just to play to my curiousities)

I did not see or hear any of the game, except for the final FIU drive on the radio. I can explain my understanding of the rules, however.

1. If the punt hit the FIU player before touching the BG return man then it is a live ball for BG, but dead for FIU. For instance, since FIU already touched it, they cannot recover it as a muffed punt. However, if the BG player were to pick up the ball they would be able to run with with still. If the ball hit FIU player, hit BG player, then was caught by FIU player then that is BG ball on a downed punt wherever the first FIU player touched the ball, I think.

2. If the FIU guy touched it first it is BG ball wherever he recovered it. If that was in the endzone, then it's a TD. A muffed punt cannot be advanced by the opposing team, so he could not have caught it at the 2 and ran in the endzone. If the FIU guy did not touch it the ball is still alive until BG downs it. If a BG player caught the ball at the one and his momentum took him into the endzone, it is still a Touchback. The ball must be kept out of the endzone completely to be downed at the 1.

On the 1st call, it was the wrong call and we got a big break.

On the 2nd call, it defintely was touched by the FIU player 1st!!!! Therefore we got screwed and it should have been a TD. There is no reason to mark it at the one, the ball was covered in the endzone which means TD or TB. Also the 1st official call on the field was safety. In no way was this right call which then the other offical ruled touchback. But the guy who ruled safety saw that it hit the FIU player, so he meant to signal TD not safety, which made him look like a fool and is why I think they eventually chose touchback. But still, it should have been a TD for BG (not being biased)!

From my view in the stands, the FIU player let the ball bounce and then decided that the bounce was good enough to field and run with. He reach for it and had it go right thru his hands. BG recovered in the endzone for the TD. The officials blew the call. The review of the call took forever, I just knew he was taking so long because he saw it should have been a TD. Honesty I think he knew the game was over if BG scores there, so they let it stand and made for a more dramatic ending. I had a pretty good view and so did all the other BG fans. They all saw the FIU player touch the ball too.

I think many officials are gun shy and don't want to make the game deciding calls, so they let the review do it, but sometimes they just leave things like this alone.

I didn't see the other one close enough to comment on it. Maybe it was just evening things out.

Spart43 wrote:From my view in the stands, the FIU player let the ball bounce and then decided that the bounce was good enough to field and run with. He reach for it and had it go right thru his hands. BG recovered in the endzone for the TD. The officials blew the call. The review of the call took forever, I just knew he was taking so long because he saw it should have been a TD. Honesty I think he knew the game was over if BG scores there, so they let it stand and made for a more dramatic ending. I had a pretty good view and so did all the other BG fans. They all saw the FIU player touch the ball too.

I think many officials are gun shy and don't want to make the game deciding calls, so they let the review do it, but sometimes they just leave things like this alone.

I didn't see the other one close enough to comment on it. Maybe it was just evening things out.

I agree that officials try to "even" things out or often have "make-up" calls. This is a perfect example, and as you said the game is over if they make the right call. So instead they make the wrong call to try and make the game more exciting. In general, I hate when they do that, but especially when its against BG!

Maybe I'm wrong, but I think it's absolutely ridiculous to think that a referee would purposefully make the wrong call in order to try and shape the game to their liking.

I mean, this isn't the NBA.

Jacobs4Heisman wrote:Maybe I'm wrong, but I think it's absolutely ridiculous to think that a referee would purposefully make the wrong call in order to try and shape the game to their liking.

I mean, this isn't the NBA.

Seriously. If it were 50-0, I can see them giving the losing team a break. Not in an 8 or whatever point game.

Basically you're saying that the refs cheated? I have a problem with that. And if the review goes along with the cheating on the field then you're saying the whole system is crooked? Why would anyone attend an NCAA football game if they believed this was true? May as well watch WWE if you want "sports" entertainment that is fixed.

The refs are human beings. They have interests like all of us. Just because they wear neat stripey shirts doesnt mean they are oblivious to their own wants and needs...

BGSUFootballFan wrote:The refs are human beings. They have interests like all of us. Just because they wear neat stripey shirts doesnt mean they are oblivious to their own wants and needs...

What possible interest would the refs have in "making the game close"? The TV people might if it was on TV and certainly FIU might, but BG, as visiting team, was responsible for supplying refs (or for choosing not to), a system designed to prevent any hint of what you are accusing them of. Again, why would you attend football games if you believe that refs frequently cheat? Seems like a waste of money but then I guess its your money.

h2oville rocket wrote:

BGSUFootballFan wrote:The refs are human beings. They have interests like all of us. Just because they wear neat stripey shirts doesnt mean they are oblivious to their own wants and needs...

What possible interest would the refs have in "making the game close"? The TV people might if it was on TV and certainly FIU might, but BG, as visiting team, was responsible for supplying refs (or for choosing not to), a system designed to prevent any hint of what you are accusing them of. Again, why would you attend football games if you believe that refs frequently cheat? Seems like a waste of money but then I guess its your money.

Good lord you are blowing this way out of proportion. I'm not accusing anyone of cheating nor is anybody wasting any money or whatever was said about that. All I'm saying is that refs are human beings and sub-consciously make a lot of calls based on the way the game is going. The frickin FIU radio announcer who was ungodly biased the whole game (as he should be) never stopped proclaiming that it should be a BG touchdown, but about 30seconds into the review I looked at my dad and said you know they are going to say touchback... and he said the longer it goes the less obvious it becomes to make a bad call and the more likely it is that they'll say touchback.

This happens time and time again. Another example just from this week is the UF-Tenn game. UF gets a huge 80 yard TD and its called back on thee most bogus call flag ever. Urban is in the refs face absolutely going ballistic. The very next play UF throws and INT and Tenn returns it for a TD... ohh wait flag (thrown by the exact same ref that threw the previous flag and got chewed out by Urban). Another BS call, this time on Tenn nullfying their TD. As the CBS commentator admits, "both bad calls, the 2nd one worst than the 1st because its a make-up call, but then in that same light not as bad because it evens out... MY POINT EXACTLY!

Okay, I read every post in this thread, and I still can't figure out how it was "illegal touching."

On ref bias: They were MAC refs, from what I understand.

TG1996 wrote:

Dayons_Den wrote:What are everyone's thoughts on these plays? (just to play to my curiousities)

The same as yours.

But the web feed (at least for me) wasn't quite clear enough to be sure about whether or not a ball was touched by an FIU player in either instance.

I'm with TG on this one. The web cast wasn't clear enough for me to make a judgement on either one. But it sure looked like the one punt hit off the BG player's foot first. Again, hard to be sure with the webcast.