**** the refs

[Jer]

While I don't disagree with you It's not like the staff is purposely keeping games close. Special Teams are clearly an issue though.

They do and say they do. They like to run 10-15 play drives and shorten the game. That means you're limiting your own scoring opportunities. That helps when we have a great D that can limit the opponents. BUT, that means a low scoring game every time with an incredibly small margin for error. That's the whole reason for the motto "win in the margins". Unfortunately, we're one of the worst teams at playing in the margins.

 

[Statefan10]

I agree. BUT when you live on a concept to keep games low scoring and very tight AND then don't win in the margins, any single call can impact the game a huge amount. That's a losing concept if you can't win in the margins. We're 1-8 in the last 9 close games because we lost in the margins (aka fundamentals, ST, etc) in all of them.

While true, we had the ball in their territory and an illegal play was made against us which caused our player to lose control of the football that resulted in losing the football game. Officiating is a huge factor in games and you can’t expect them to get every call correct but there comes a time where you just can’t let something go. If it’s a penalty, you throw the flag. Period.

 

[HFCS]

If this was targeting.... The hit on Dekkers needed to be targeting. Always complaining about the refs does get annoying, but when they screw up at critical moments of a game they deserve to be called out. The Baylor game and this sequence of the game Saturday are just flat out incompetence that changed the outcome of the game. The bad call in Kansas, while being bad, didn't really change much. That also doesn't mean that the team didn't make the necessary plays to win when needed either. The pick in the end zone, the drop, the blocked punt etc... A team isn't ever gonna be perfect at all times and either are the refs. The fact that they can review the targeting and fumble and still not get it right / and or screw up the explanation is mindboggling.

We don’t “always complain about the refs”.

We do when they actually cost us games and then some babies on here say we complain about it every game or every loss.

The refs were great in our KSU loss. The refs were mostly fine in KU loss. The refs weren’t bad in this game other than this one call and while they got this call wrong, there is room to see how they could get it wrong. Other than first half of Baylor the worst officiating was actually a win (Iowa) and they got some critical calls wrong both ways IMHO.

The first half of the Baylor game was horrifically bad to the point that it’s not even possible to get calls that wrong and that one sided by pure total accident. The people who didn’t “complain” about that have a problem with reality more than they do with officiating. Whatever they were doing, they did it to just one team in just one half and I’ve never seen it before in any other game where a team basically isn’t allowed to perform a normal tackle for a half. Campbell’s direct quote at the time was “Well that was some $***” and he was correct.

Ditto in basketball. I don’t think the officials cost us any games last season. They definitely intentionally affected the outcome in that KU game at Hilton with the 4 horrific one sided incorrect calls in the final two minutes. That was what, 9 years ago? That’s hardly “every game”.

 

[JP4CY]

This thread is bringing back memories of this no call (He was reprimanded by the B12 later, LOL):

Said this after the game:
"If we have another run-pass situation, I'd do the same thing," Davis told reporters Monday. "If the DB's loafing, he deserves to get cut."

 

[Statefan10]

This thread is bringing back memories of this no call (He was reprimanded by the B12 later, LOL):

Said this after the game:
"If we have another run-pass situation, I'd do the same thing," Davis told reporters Monday. "If the DB's loafing, he deserves to get cut."

That’s a suspension and fine in the NFL lol

 

[Jer]

I’ll take the loss and move on, no hard feelings.

I just feel like when the whole concept is to run the clock to limit possessions and keep games low scoring and close, executing in the margins is critical. In the last 9 close games we’re 1-8 in those. If we win in the margins in any of them it doesn’t matter what the refs do with the possible exception of the Texas game.

Because of how we want to play, reffing has an oversized impact on any given game. The fix is to actually win in the margins and/or do more on offense which we saw for the first time this weekend.

 

[Dirtguy4CY]

We don’t “always complain about the refs”.

We do when they actually cost us games and then some babies on here say we complain about it every game or every loss.

The refs were great in our KSU loss. The refs were mostly fine in KU loss. The refs weren’t bad in this game other than this one call and while they got this call wrong, there is room to see how they could get it wrong. Other than first half of Baylor the worst officiating was actually a win (Iowa) and they got some critical calls wrong both ways IMHO.

The first half of the Baylor game was horrifically bad to the point that it’s not even possible to get calls that wrong and that one sided by pure total accident. The people who didn’t “complain” about that have a problem with reality more than they do with officiating. Whatever they were doing, they did it to just one team in just one half and I’ve never seen it before in any other game where a team basically isn’t allowed to perform a normal tackle for a half. Campbell’s direct quote at the time was “Well that was some $***” and he was correct.

Ditto in basketball. I don’t think the officials cost us any games last season. They definitely intentionally affected the outcome in that KU game at Hilton with the 4 horrific one sided incorrect calls in the final two minutes. That was what, 9 years ago? That’s hardly “every game”.

I agree, most people only complain when it is deserved. This was another totally deserved reason to complain It changed the game at a critical point. The game overall wasn't officiated bad as you said, but here again when it is critical to get a call correct they whiffed. I should have worded the "always complain about the refs" a little different. It is annoying that this happens multiple times a year. It is annoying that we have to always talk about how the refs suck at critical times. It would be nice if they were decent enough like in the K - State game that people didn't have to mention them. Be consistent, even consistently bad is better then inconsistent at this point.

 

[NoCreativity]

Ditto in basketball. I don’t think the officials cost us any games last season. They definitely intentionally affected the outcome in that KU game at Hilton with the 4 horrific one sided incorrect calls in the final two minutes. That was what, 9 years ago? That’s hardly “every game”.

Umm, last year in Lawrence they cost us the game because they refused to call a blatant goal-tend.

 

[AuH2O]

While true, we had the ball in their territory and an illegal play was made against us which caused our player to lose control of the football that resulted in losing the football game. Officiating is a huge factor in games and you can’t expect them to get every call correct but there comes a time where you just can’t let something go. If it’s a penalty, you throw the flag. Period.

I just disagree with people that think the hit was anything that SHOULD be illegal. I think it's questionable whether it is as the rule is currently written, but that's only because it's a stupidly written rule.

I really don't want to compare it to the Freyler targeting, because that was ridiculous. If that's our comparison there are plays by most players every game, both sides of the ball that are more dangerous.

Think about this in real time. Defender goes in to tackle a ball carrier. When he goes into the tackle, the runner is still not down. Even if he's starting to go down, we're talking about 1/100ths of seconds. He goes in on a tackle that would've been low on a runner not going down.

He doesn't launch. His right foot is still on the ground.

You have to tackle through guys. When you unload into them you are going to be in a forward leaning angle. That means a "heads up" tackle isn't with your face perpendicular to the ground, unless you want your neck injured. In a perfect world it's slightly more upright than inline with the body like it is here, but if you are driving into a guy and your head remains inline with your body (vs. looking downward) that needs to be good enough.

Forcible contact to the head and neck area - it's mostly a facemask and area just above the facemask hitting Dekkers part on the side of the helmet and part of the shoulder pad. Mind you after the runner is being dragged down from behind. If you think a defender is good enough in real time to realize from the time he starts to go into a tackle that Dekkers is now being tackled and taken and can adjust to avoid or hit Dekkers helmet, you're crazy.

The problem is there are a lot of targeting calls that are simply dumb luck based on what happens to the ball carrier.

Football is dangerous. If a defender makes a largely sound move to make a tackle at the point he starts the process it shouldn't be a penalty, especially while we have dozens of instances every game where receivers catch passes and go down with their heads REALLY down, and with ball carriers literally leading with the crown as a weapon. This is the problem. You can't teach avoiding targeting as a defender because you can do everything right and still get called.

This was not a perfect hit, but from the point he goes into the tackle, the decision and form are not egregious by any means. If Dekkers isn't getting taken down at the same time it's just a hit around the thigh area and we play on, no questions asked.

It's a stupid rule. Get rid of it. Implement the old leading with the crown of the helmet/spearing rule and actually enforce it both sides of the ball.

 

[AuH2O]

It's different in that there was way less helmet to helmet contact in Baylor game incident and it looked like our player was trying to avoid any helmet to helmet contact instead of launching his helmet straight into the ball carrier's helmet.

Helmet to helmet contact in both of those plays is absolute dumb luck. Neither guy is a super hero that can adjust given all the circumstances.

The plays are very similar. Freyler's head angle relative to body is maybe a little bit worse, bit it's pretty much inline with his body going into unload a tackle. That has to be considered good enough.

The point is do you want to penalize in a way that actually corrects actions (leading with the crown) or that is based mostly on dumb luck - which is contacting the head of a runner when you go into the tackle would've otherwise been in the midsection.

The plays are very similar - neither launches, contact is across shoulder pad and helmet, tackler goes into a tackle at a level that if the carrier wasn't going down would've been in a sound location. Head angle is maybe not perfect but good enough.

What a tackler or ball carrier does with their head angle is the one thing that can be fixed, and creates dangerous situations. Where that hit often lands on ball carrier is often out of the control of the tackler based on what the runner does or is being done to him by another tackler.

I think the ruling needs to be the same on both tackles, and that needs to be no flag. The Baylor call was far worse simply because there was a later hit that was far worse on Brock that was no call.

 

[Statefan10]

I just disagree with people that think the hit was anything that SHOULD be illegal. I think it's questionable whether it is as the rule is currently written, but that's only because it's a stupidly written rule.

I really don't want to compare it to the Freyler targeting, because that was ridiculous. If that's our comparison there are plays by most players every game, both sides of the ball that are more dangerous.

Think about this in real time. Defender goes in to tackle a ball carrier. When he goes into the tackle, the runner is still not down. Even if he's starting to go down, we're talking about 1/100ths of seconds. He goes in on a tackle that would've been low on a runner not going down.

He doesn't launch. His right foot is still on the ground.

You have to tackle through guys. When you unload into them you are going to be in a forward leaning angle. That means a "heads up" tackle isn't with your face perpendicular to the ground, unless you want your neck injured. In a perfect world it's slightly more upright than inline with the body like it is here, but if you are driving into a guy and your head remains inline with your body (vs. looking downward) that needs to be good enough.

Forcible contact to the head and neck area - it's mostly a facemask and area just above the facemask hitting Dekkers part on the side of the helmet and part of the shoulder pad. Mind you after the runner is being dragged down from behind. If you think a defender is good enough in real time to realize from the time he starts to go into a tackle that Dekkers is now being tackled and taken and can adjust to avoid or hit Dekkers helmet, you're crazy.

The problem is there are a lot of targeting calls that are simply dumb luck based on what happens to the ball carrier.

Football is dangerous. If a defender makes a largely sound move to make a tackle at the point he starts the process it shouldn't be a penalty, especially while we have dozens of instances every game where receivers catch passes and go down with their heads REALLY down, and with ball carriers literally leading with the crown as a weapon. This is the problem. You can't teach avoiding targeting as a defender because you can do everything right and still get called.

This was not a perfect hit, but from the point he goes into the tackle, the decision and form are not egregious by any means. If Dekkers isn't getting taken down at the same time it's just a hit around the thigh area and we play on, no questions asked.

It's a stupid rule. Get rid of it. Implement the old leading with the crown of the helmet/spearing rule and actually enforce it both sides of the ball.

I do agree with you that it’s a dumb rule and I think lots of others agree. Where we’re frustrated is that we’ve had NUMEROUS players ejected over the last 5 years, some in critical moments and games, yet this happens and it’s nothing.

 

[HFCS]

Umm, last year in Lawrence they cost us the game because they refused to call a blatant goal-tend.

I usually only really freak out if it’s 3-5 one sided ridiculous nonsensical calls to the point where it’s two different sets of rules and two different sports in the same game.

Some here think that’s “every game”. I’m pointing out that it’s about one game every 3-4 years.

The Baylor game this year was so bad the result is not legitimate at all in my mind, the other example that springs to my mind was that KU game where the refs obviously handed the game to the losing team on purpose. The KU game lives on because it was the final two minutes, but the Baylor game was an entire half. ISU really dominated them for a half, should have been up two scores and went into halftime down a field goal. That’s not a real game at that point regardless of what happens in the second half.

A great example is our NCAA game against Ohio State about ten years or so back. Clyburn earned a 3 point play and it was 100% the wrong call to call him for a charge, they stole it from him. That very possibly did change the outcome of the game as Barkley said immediately when they went to studio, but it’s just one play. Not like some of these KU games where the refs carry KU for long stretches and don’t even hide what they are doing. First half of Baylor was like that.

 

[CycloneWanderer]

Helmet to helmet contact in both of those plays is absolute dumb luck. Neither guy is a super hero that can adjust given all the circumstances.

The plays are very similar. Freyler's head angle relative to body is maybe a little bit worse, bit it's pretty much inline with his body going into unload a tackle. That has to be considered good enough.

The point is do you want to penalize in a way that actually corrects actions (leading with the crown) or that is based mostly on dumb luck - which is contacting the head of a runner when you go into the tackle would've otherwise been in the midsection.

The plays are very similar - neither launches, contact is across shoulder pad and helmet, tackler goes into a tackle at a level that if the carrier wasn't going down would've been in a sound location. Head angle is maybe not perfect but good enough.

What a tackler or ball carrier does with their head angle is the one thing that can be fixed, and creates dangerous situations. Where that hit often lands on ball carrier is often out of the control of the tackler based on what the runner does or is being done to him by another tackler.

I think the ruling needs to be the same on both tackles, and that needs to be no flag. The Baylor call was far worse simply because there was a later hit that was far worse on Brock that was no call.

We spend a lot of time debating what should be illegal. Targeting is under the umbrella of unnecessary roughness. I think a lot of time is spent trying to establish all the different forms of "unnecessary" roughness is in what is, by necessity, a rough sport.

I think a more productive conversation is this: what level of roughness is actually necessary? I think the rulebook needs to be rewritten with this question in mind as it is the only way this sport will be able to survive the apparent health issues it creates long term.

 

[AuH2O]

I do agree with you that it’s a dumb rule and I think lots of others agree. Where we’re frustrated is that we’ve had NUMEROUS players ejected over the last 5 years, some in critical moments and games, yet this happens and it’s nothing.

I agree - the worst ever was Uwazurike in the Alamo bowl. The problem was and is that as stupid as that call was, based on the letter of the rule you could actually make somewhat of an argument for it. That's how stupid this rule is. And I agree with the complaints about inconsistency.

But I just can't handle people looking at the hit on Dekkers in a vacuum (ignoring Freyler's targeting) and thinking this hit is something egregious. The problem with this view, and the rule as a whole is that there are only so many factors you can control as a tackler. The only thing I see wrong with the hit is that he doesn't wrap up, but just tries to hit Dekkers. I don't mean wrong as in illegal or cheap, just from an execution standpoint.

I want rules that you can use to actually influence actions. The current rules do nothing of the sort, because head down, crown leading hits happen all the time, but because the ball carrier isn't going down at the same time, that hit doesn't draw a flag, even though the defender does something well within his control that is dangerous.

On this hit, there's not much more a defender can do in the time it takes to make that decision. For the most part the same with Freyler, though I'd say the head is a little bit low, but certainly not egregious given where he is in the phase of the tackle.

I've seen enough times where a perfect tackle becomes targeting because a ball carrier or usually some receiver going across the middle catches a pass then goes down and even lowers his head bracing for contact. One player, the defender does everything right. The receiver does everything wrong. Yet the contact is forcible and to the head, so it's a penalty on the defense. It's just so F'ing stupid.

 

[Statefan10]

We spend a lot of time debating what should be illegal. Targeting is under the umbrella of unnecessary roughness. I think a lot of time is spent trying to establish all the different forms of "unnecessary" roughness is in what is, by necessity, a rough sport.

I think a more productive conversation is this: what level of roughness is actually necessary? I think the rulebook needs to be rewritten with this question in mind as it is the only way this sport will be able to survive the apparent health issues it creates long term.

This is where they need two different fouls. Targeting 1 and Targeting 2. 1 is just a penalty and the 2nd warrants an ejection.

 

[cytor]

This thread is bringing back memories of this no call (He was reprimanded by the B12 later, LOL):

Said this after the game:
"If we have another run-pass situation, I'd do the same thing," Davis told reporters Monday. "If the DB's loafing, he deserves to get cut."

If you didn't already hate Texas, you will now.

 

[Statefan10]

I agree - the worst ever was Uwazurike in the Alamo bowl. The problem was and is that as stupid as that call was, based on the letter of the rule you could actually make somewhat of an argument for it. That's how stupid this rule is. And I agree with the complaints about inconsistency.

But I just can't handle people looking at the hit on Dekkers in a vacuum (ignoring Freyler's targeting) and thinking this hit is something egregious. The problem with this view, and the rule as a whole is that there are only so many factors you can control as a tackler. The only thing I see wrong with the hit is that he doesn't wrap up, but just tries to hit Dekkers. I don't mean wrong as in illegal or cheap, just from an execution standpoint.

I want rules that you can use to actually influence actions. The current rules do nothing of the sort, because head down, crown leading hits happen all the time, but because the ball carrier isn't going down at the same time, that hit doesn't draw a flag, even though the defender does something well within his control that is dangerous.

On this hit, there's not much more a defender can do in the time it takes to make that decision. For the most part the same with Freyler, though I'd say the head is a little bit low, but certainly not egregious given where he is in the phase of the tackle.

I've seen enough times where a perfect tackle becomes targeting because a ball carrier or usually some receiver going across the middle catches a pass then goes down and even lowers his head bracing for contact. One player, the defender does everything right. The receiver does everything wrong. Yet the contact is forcible and to the head, so it's a penalty on the defense. It's just so F'ing stupid.

Well that’s the thing. By the letter of the law, the play against Dekker’s did warrant a targeting penalty. Even though it was likely not on purpose and there was nothing that could be done. All anyone wants is consistency and the only way that happens is if you create a rule that is easier to interpret for these refs so they’re not handcuffed.

 

[CycloneWanderer]

This is where they need two different fouls. Targeting 1 and Targeting 2. 1 is just a penalty and the 2nd warrants an ejection.

I think starting from a "what's necessary" standpoint could end up with rules drastically different from what we have now. E.g., a player may only intentionally initiate contact with their hands, arms, or chest. That would drastically change the game and account for a lot of "unnecessary" roughness and apply equally to offense and defense (protective both ways). It would also pull blocking and tackling into the same rule.

I think the issues with the current rules is that they are both difficult to enforce fairly as it creates a situation where ball-carriers may benefit from putting themselves in vulnerable positions.

 

[AuH2O]

Well that’s the thing. By the letter of the law, the play against Dekker’s did warrant a targeting penalty. Even though it was likely not on purpose and there was nothing that could be done. All anyone wants is consistency and the only way that happens is if you create a rule that is easier to interpret for these refs so they’re not handcuffed.

Disagree that it is clear.

Forcible contact with the crown - I disagree that's the case. Looks like the top of the facemask and area just above the facemask. Not the crown. Again, we have to allow the defender to tackle in as safe a manner as is reasonable, which is head inline or just slightly more upright than inline while body being at an angle that a sound tackle needs to be.

Forcible contact to the head and neck on a defenseless player - he's a ball carrier so not considered defenseless.

General forcible contact to the head and neck area - If Dekkers is not being tackled and going down, the point of the tackle is the midsection, and is fine.

Launch - he doesn't launch. His right foot is still on the ground when he goes into a tackle.

A crouch with an upward launch to hit the head - not the case here.

 

[AuH2O]

Well that’s the thing. By the letter of the law, the play against Dekker’s did warrant a targeting penalty. Even though it was likely not on purpose and there was nothing that could be done. All anyone wants is consistency and the only way that happens is if you create a rule that is easier to interpret for these refs so they’re not handcuffed.

And I wish I could find a video from the Baylor - WVU 4th quarter. Baylor runs a screen to #8. He catches it and uses his crown as a weapon into the WVU defender. It was probably the most egregious targeting I've ever seen. Obviously no flag, nor is there any discussion about what a horrible play it was. A guy has plenty of time to make a conscious decision to do the most dangerous thing in the game, and we have zero mention by the league, the coaches, the announcers. Yet, then we have some targeting calls or non-targeting calls with slow-mo video that is a tenth or a couple tenths of a second where part of a tacklers helmet hits part a ball carriers helmet as he's being taken down from behind as if these guys are characters in a Marvel movie or the Matrix.