Please explain the onside kick

Me State

Well-Known Member
Oct 19, 2007
2,440
122
48
It seems that the only thing he got wrong was he said Play is confirmed as opposed to play is overturned. Does anyone really thing we would have won the game if that call had gone differently?
With the way the game was going? Very possible.

It would have given our offense a drive they probably would have scored on and it would have taken away a drive A&M scored on. Tie game.
What happens after is anyones guess.
 

Cybyassociation

Well-Known Member
Mar 5, 2008
9,055
3,826
113
I recorded it on my camera....but I didnt get it cause I was too excited and jumping around. Then to find out we "didnt get it". Sorry :unsure: However, there is a good picture of Mahoney's reaction when he thought they recovered it on the Rag website:
bilde


I think its kind of sad when our kicker shows more enthusiasm and emotion after making (or missing plays) than most of the team including the coaching staff. I dunno if you saw him after his 51 blew just right, but he looked pretty chapped out there. Some might say thats just a kid who cant control his emotions and lets things get to him...looks like he bounced back decently in the second half from his misses.
 

timdcy

Member
Nov 27, 2006
255
10
18
The Gore Range
I recorded it on my camera....but I didnt get it cause I was too excited and jumping around. Then to find out we "didnt get it". Sorry :unsure: However, there is a good picture of Mahoney's reaction when he thought they recovered it on the Rag website:
bilde


I think its kind of sad when our kicker shows more enthusiasm and emotion after making (or missing plays) than most of the team including the coaching staff. I dunno if you saw him after his 51 blew just right, but he looked pretty chapped out there. Some might say thats just a kid who cant control his emotions and lets things get to him...looks like he bounced back decently in the second half from his misses.


I recall one of our players saying once that Chizik always preaches the phrase, "Don't let them see you sweat".
 

cmoneyr

Well-Known Member
Nov 8, 2006
8,422
343
83
41
Ames, Born and Raised
With the way the game was going? Very possible.

It would have given our offense a drive they probably would have scored on and it would have taken away a drive A&M scored on. Tie game.
What happens after is anyones guess.
Unless they had a different defense waiting in the wings it wouldn't have mattered. A&M scored on that possession and they would have scored on their next even if we got the onside kick.
 

besserheimerphat

Well-Known Member
Apr 11, 2006
11,495
15,341
113
Mount Vernon, WA
Even the original call wasn't that clear. The ref in front of the Cyclone bench pointed aTm's direction once, then immediately pointed ISU's direction three times. It looked like he got confused as to who was going which direction, but he finally emphatically pointed ISU's direction. That would indicate that the on-the-field ruling was ISU's ball. They went to the review which I assumed was just standard prodecure for on-side kicks after the OU-Oregon game. Then they announced that the ruling was confirmed, A&M ball. All the players had to run off the field, both ISU's offense and A&M's defense, and as they were switching up the referee's had a second review. We figured that the booth was going to tell them "Hey, it's ISU's ball, not A&M's." All they said that that the ball is spotted on the 37.5.
 

Cybyassociation

Well-Known Member
Mar 5, 2008
9,055
3,826
113
I recall one of our players saying once that Chizik always preaches the phrase, "Don't let them see you sweat".

I agree, but I'm not just talking about negative reactions. If youve ever watched him after a good kickoff or either one of the onsides, the kid gets jacked up. I guess I just wish there would be a little more energy from some of our players. I understand the "business as usual" mindset, but sometimes I think an emotional spark is exactly what this team needs.
 

CyCy

Well-Known Member
Nov 7, 2006
1,667
28
48
GC didn't seem to get on the officials much after the call, particularly for a call that occurred right in front of him. I call remember a couple times last year where he just went ballistic over a call.

I don't know if that means he agreed with the call, or that he just decided not to push it.
 

Me State

Well-Known Member
Oct 19, 2007
2,440
122
48
Unless they had a different defense waiting in the wings it wouldn't have mattered. A&M scored on that possession and they would have scored on their next even if we got the onside kick.
Yes, but I am saying if we got the ball we could have scored on the drive instead of A&M.
That would add 7 to our score and take 7 from their score.
35+7=42
49-7=42

Just saying it was possible.
 

IcSyU

Well-Known Member
Nov 27, 2007
28,307
6,981
113
Yes, but I am saying if we got the ball we could have scored on the drive instead of A&M.
That would add 7 to our score and take 7 from their score.
35+7=42
49-7=42

Just saying it was possible.

We got the onside kick at 28 points. We still needed to get another one.
 

theshadow

Well-Known Member
Apr 19, 2006
20,018
19,724
113
At the very best, you could have had 42-35 (instead of 49-28), kicking off with 3:00 to play and 3 timeouts remaining.

Would have made it interesting.
 

d4nim4l

Well-Known Member
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Apr 23, 2008
4,810
181
63
West Des Moines, IA
The chains were set up to indicate that it was Aggie ball. The referees did a terrible job of explaining it. The referee did say that the call was confirmed by replay, and then he said first down A&M. I think a lot of fans missed the last part of that because they were cheering because it wasn't communicated well what the call on the field was.


I think you're missing the crux of the argument here.

A lot of the problem is the original call of ISU ball by the side judge was overruled on the field by the referee. Who changed it to A&M's ball, which became the official "call on the field". Thus, when they went to replay they had to prove A&M didn't touch it, however, if that was the case we should of had a penalty called on us.

You are right, they did a very poor job explaining it but they did an equally poor job calling it as it happened. Part of me wonders if they got confused themselves with the ruling...
 

ISUAlum2002

Well-Known Member
Apr 11, 2006
22,888
5,140
113
Toon Town, IA
Wow. Just saw the replays that WHO had from field level. It is plainly obvious that the ball hit A$M's #11 on the facemask and then Darks recovered it.
 

mwitt

Well-Known Member
Mar 23, 2006
5,838
182
63
I think you're missing the crux of the argument here.

A lot of the problem is the original call of ISU ball by the side judge was overruled on the field by the referee. Who changed it to A&M's ball, which became the official "call on the field". Thus, when they went to replay they had to prove A&M didn't touch it, however, if that was the case we should of had a penalty called on us.

You are right, they did a very poor job explaining it but they did an equally poor job calling it as it happened. Part of me wonders if they got confused themselves with the ruling...

I'm not sure what you think I missed, but everything you said was understood.
 

San Francisco Cy

Well-Known Member
Jun 12, 2008
2,978
154
63
San Francisco
I think you're missing the crux of the argument here.

A lot of the problem is the original call of ISU ball by the side judge was overruled on the field by the referee. Who changed it to A&M's ball, which became the official "call on the field". Thus, when they went to replay they had to prove A&M didn't touch it, however, if that was the case we should of had a penalty called on us.

You are right, they did a very poor job explaining it but they did an equally poor job calling it as it happened. Part of me wonders if they got confused themselves with the ruling...

Eerily similar to the "TD" at ku a few years ago, when we were playing for the Big XII north championship. Blythe caught what appeared to be a TD. They set up the ball for the extra point attempt, so it was obviously called a TD. Shortly before they snapped, the officials met and determined that it was actually an incomplete pass. then, the play was reviewed. and since there was not enough evidence to overturn it, it was "confirmed". That was one of the craziest things I've ever seen in a college football game.

That was, of course, before the play about a quarter later, where we seemingly stopped a QB sneak at the goal line on 4th down. They did a review where the football was not in plain sight, yet somehow they were able to overturn that call and gave ku the TD. Yeah, we still blew it in the end, but we sure got screwed out of that championship, IMO.
 

clone52

Well-Known Member
Jun 27, 2006
8,327
4,467
113
Even the original call wasn't that clear. The ref in front of the Cyclone bench pointed aTm's direction once, then immediately pointed ISU's direction three times. It looked like he got confused as to who was going which direction, but he finally emphatically pointed ISU's direction. That would indicate that the on-the-field ruling was ISU's ball. They went to the review which I assumed was just standard prodecure for on-side kicks after the OU-Oregon game. Then they announced that the ruling was confirmed, A&M ball. All the players had to run off the field, both ISU's offense and A&M's defense, and as they were switching up the referee's had a second review. We figured that the booth was going to tell them "Hey, it's ISU's ball, not A&M's." All they said that that the ball is spotted on the 37.5.

AFter the ref in front of the bench signalled ISU, 3 refs got together and the head guy (white hat) signalled A&M ball. Then they went to the review. Thus, the ruling on the field before the review was A&M ball.
 

SSSSState

Member
Oct 29, 2007
204
13
18
Wow. Just saw the replays that WHO had from field level. It is plainly obvious that the ball hit A$M's #11 on the facemask and then Darks recovered it.

Not only from that video from Channel 13 is it obvious it hit him but Lane even looked like he hit it with has hand after it hit him in the head. There can't be any team that has had as many calls gotten wrong even after being reviewed since it's inception as Iowa State.
 

badluckz

New Member
Oct 26, 2008
1
0
1
Re: Please expalain the onside kick

Additionally, two older aTm gentlemen that sat behind us were dumbfounded at some of the officiating that went against ISU:
-Intentional grounding - they saw the running back in the are
-AA fumble- the thought AA had the ball firmly in his hand when they hit the grougd - ISU ball
-They were sure that the onside kick was ISU's ball

As I explained some of the calls that ISU fans have weathered over the years (Kansas FB touchdown 3 years ago, Kansas BB three pointer, KU hanging on the rim this year, ...) they were shocked. Then they started talking about the time in 1963 they got screwed against Texas. I laughed.

You forgot Kansas scoring a basket in the middle of ISU shooting two free throws.
 

Benny34

Active Member
Nov 29, 2007
796
36
28
Anyone have a link to this? I looked at the WHO website and just found a player running into a goal post.
 
Last edited:

Help Support Us

Become a patron