The ball was thrown close enough to Hulbert that it would not have been a grounding call if he had been an eligible receiver. The flag was thrown when the officials confirmed that there was no other receiver in the area. Chizik seemed upset about the call, but I have to believe that it was for another reason. The fact that Hulbert was out in the flat a couple yards down field tells me that a screen was trying to be set up. Obviously the intended receiver was nowhere in the area. He either blew the assignment or much more likely was either tackled or held up before he could get to the intended location. I'm thinking that this is why Chizik was unhappy with the call.
Please explain the onside kick
- Thread starter agcy68
- Start date
The ball was thrown close enough to Hulbert that it would not have been a grounding call if he had been an eligible receiver. The flag was thrown when the officials confirmed that there was no other receiver in the area. Chizik seemed upset about the call, but I have to believe that it was for another reason. The fact that Hulbert was out in the flat a couple yards down field tells me that a screen was trying to be set up. Obviously the intended receiver was nowhere in the area. He either blew the assignment or much more likely was either tackled or held up before he could get to the intended location. I'm thinking that this is why Chizik was unhappy with the call.
The onside-kick was horrible. The FCS feed clearly showed it hit the A&M player.
It may not have impacted the outcome, but I'm sick of refs constantly getting these things wrong.
It may not have impacted the outcome, but I'm sick of refs constantly getting these things wrong.
I will have to disagree, or maybe just put more emphasise on the on-side kick, but I do think it had a huge impact on that game. At this point ISU was and in my book still is 2-2 on onside kicks. They now have the ball on the other side of the field and had made great efforts on the drive before to get into the redzone. It was 4 down territory and unlike earlier games in this season, I would have bet that they got another TD. That only puts them down 1 TD. Do another on-side kick with a great chance at recovery and they put themselves in a position to tie the game. Instead, A&M gets the ball, the momentum has clearly changed, the team has essentially given up, and A&M easily score. Now instead of only 1 TD down, We're 3 TD's down. Thats HUGE!
The two refs who could make the call immediately went to each other to see if the other one had a legal receiver in the area. When neither one did, they dropped the flag. The bench had nothing to do with it.
The other way they could have handled it was to drop the flag immediately, then went to talk to the other one. In that case, you are going to have times where the other ref does have a legal man in the area and they have to pick up the flag. Either way, you're going to have a delay.
I was very disappointed that we only get that loud when we think the officials screw us. Why not get that loud when a&m is inside the 20? Why not when it is third and 8? If the fans were that involved all game, the team would probably play better, with more emotion.
After watching the Chiz show last night. I dont care what ANYONE says, the ball CLEARLY hit an Aggie in the head and then one swatted it with his hand.
Wonder if we've been patted on the head by the Big 12 office yet?
Doubt we even formally complained to them about that horrible call.
Doubt we even formally complained to them about that horrible call.
I didn't say it was a horrible call.
I said that if it's a call you're going to make, at least be decisive about it instead of waiting around for what seemed like a long time.
Re: Please expalain the onside kick
Here's what I think happened, and I've watched the replay dozens of times. It's the only scenario that makes sense.
The officials originally ruled ATM ball because it did not travel 10 yards. I've seen the replay, like I said, dozens of times, and I still cannot see where an ATM player touched it. An ATM player (Jorvorskie Lane) was being blocked by one of our guys and the ball was flying right toward them. If anything, the ball hit the guy blocking Lane without traveling 10 yards.
Therefore, after they called it ATM ball, they reviewed it and said the ruling on the field stands. All that other talk that there was some miscommunication between the replay officials and the officials on the field, was just pure speculation by the broadcast team and nothing else IMO. It's not like they've got a mic wired up to the replay booth to know that's what happened.
Then after they said the ruling stands, they went to the replay booth again, either to figure out where the ball should be spotted or to see how much time should be on the clock. (I suspect the latter because wasn't time added on the clock after that?)
I've seen people saying, "well if we touched the ball before it went 10 yards, why wasn't a flag thrown?" I don't believe the rule book assesses a penalty for touching the ball before it travels 10 yards on a free kick like that. I could be wrong about this, but I believe the rule book states the receiving team takes over the ball where it was illegally touched, but there is no other penalty. (Isn't that penalty enough, especially since they changed the rule and moved the kickoffs back to the kicking team's 30?) :biglaugh:
Here's what I think happened, and I've watched the replay dozens of times. It's the only scenario that makes sense.
The officials originally ruled ATM ball because it did not travel 10 yards. I've seen the replay, like I said, dozens of times, and I still cannot see where an ATM player touched it. An ATM player (Jorvorskie Lane) was being blocked by one of our guys and the ball was flying right toward them. If anything, the ball hit the guy blocking Lane without traveling 10 yards.
Therefore, after they called it ATM ball, they reviewed it and said the ruling on the field stands. All that other talk that there was some miscommunication between the replay officials and the officials on the field, was just pure speculation by the broadcast team and nothing else IMO. It's not like they've got a mic wired up to the replay booth to know that's what happened.
Then after they said the ruling stands, they went to the replay booth again, either to figure out where the ball should be spotted or to see how much time should be on the clock. (I suspect the latter because wasn't time added on the clock after that?)
I've seen people saying, "well if we touched the ball before it went 10 yards, why wasn't a flag thrown?" I don't believe the rule book assesses a penalty for touching the ball before it travels 10 yards on a free kick like that. I could be wrong about this, but I believe the rule book states the receiving team takes over the ball where it was illegally touched, but there is no other penalty. (Isn't that penalty enough, especially since they changed the rule and moved the kickoffs back to the kicking team's 30?) :biglaugh:
actually the reason why it was called that way is because the iowa state fans at buffalo wild wings wanted to go home, and so the ref called it against iowa state to end the game quicker hahaha
Re: Please expalain the onside kick
Yeah, that 3 pointer against KU in BB.... I probably screamed for a solid 2 minutes on that one. F-
Yeah, that 3 pointer against KU in BB.... I probably screamed for a solid 2 minutes on that one. F-
He is not allowed to say anything about it. Walters introduced the highlight by saying that something like "and now here comes a play and a call that still has us scratching our head". Ball goes and hits at least one aTm player, maybe 2, then I believe LJ recovers it, clearly in bounds. Nearest ref signals aTm, then ISU, firmly, 3 times. Then, he talks to other officials.
People saying it didn't hit an Aggie are flat-out lying. Don't forget, the Aggies had their defense on the field, they knew they touched it and it was our ball. It made a difference in the game and those officials should be ashamed of themselves. Getting it wrong in real time, and after 2 reviews, is beyond pathetic. At that time one has to consider that it was intentional. I don't want to go anywhere, but I hate the Big 12.
Re: Please expalain the onside kick
I'll have to give you some points for originality, you are the first person I've heard say it hit a Cyclone player. Now go away.
I'll have to give you some points for originality, you are the first person I've heard say it hit a Cyclone player. Now go away.
Re: Please expalain the onside kick
Can we please get the WOI video or whoever took it that CLEARLY shows it hitting the A&M player?
Can we please get the WOI video or whoever took it that CLEARLY shows it hitting the A&M player?
Three days later, this was still a horrible call on the field and a horrible review by the booth (surprising).
If I'm not mistaken, there has NEVER been an overturned call in Jack Trice Stadium history. The angles are horrible.
If I'm not mistaken, there has NEVER been an overturned call in Jack Trice Stadium history. The angles are horrible.
Re: Please expalain the onside kick
I'd like to see that video as well, see what all the hubbub is about.
