"The Play"

[gofurman]

The reason Hendrix didn't "pitch a fit like Hatcher" is because he has Class, Dignity, and Self Respect.

The problem is Hatcher was rewarded for it. That’s on refs

[The Jackal]

Bear may remember this, but I think the same ref was involved in a shenanigans review in a Mercer home game on a fumble/not fumble a number of years ago. Tennessee Tech maybe?

My recollection is I've seen him royally screw up calls a few times.

[apaladin]

The reason Hendrix didn't "pitch a fit like Hatcher" is because he has Class, Dignity, and Self Respect.

Maybe pitch a fit is the long term. Hatcher didn’t either really. He just styod there and talked to the ref for 5 mind. CCH just seemed to accept it and said very little.

[gofurman]

Doesn’t matter. Didn’t give them 34 points on one call.

Play on. Winning teams win. Isn’t that what coaches and old players say? Winners find ways to win. We didn’t. Next play. Beat Citadel

It made a huge difference in momentum. Had we gotten the ball and then gone up another score, game would’ve been much different.

Bootie, Agree on momentum. No doubt man. You are right on uncle mo.

But not THAT MUCH momentum. Don’t fumble three times. Don’t let that ONE call swing the next two ENTIRE FREAKIN QUARTERS. Good teams and players don’t let that happen. They. Just. Don’t.

Tom Brady throws a pick. Bad call. What have you. He was Down 28-3 to Atlanta late in Super Bowl @!!!! The Atlanta GM or someone was already celebrating!!! Tom and his team move on to next play. We didn’t. We caved. Bad. Brady gets pissed and comes back at you. All the greats like Jordan etc do. They don’t cave, they get ANGRY

Heck, Stumpy (!) even came in game thread and posted I paraphrase - get ANGRY guys !!! The great Stumpy felt it was worth jumping in

[apaladin]

Jackal I think you just hit the nail on the head. There is no answer.

The Refs let Hatcher intimidate them into doing another review and then let him dictate to them what the call should be. There is no way this should be tolerated by the SoCon leadership.

I bet the SoCon Office has a big "no comment".

We won’t even get that. Nothing but silence.

[The Jackal]

Jackal I think you just hit the nail on the head. There is no answer.

The Refs let Hatcher intimidate them into doing another review and then let him dictate to them what the call should be. There is no way this should be tolerated by the SoCon leadership.

I bet the SoCon Office has a big "no comment".

I cannot imagine what Hatcher said to make them re-review the call.

If for no other reason, you cannot review a forward progress call in that situation.

[gofurman]

Bear may remember this, but I think the same ref was involved in a shenanigans review in a Mercer home game on a fumble/not fumble a number of years ago. Tennessee Tech maybe?

My recollection is I've seen him royally screw up calls a few times.

Jackal. I tried to ask a question on point. The TV guys said they were awarded a second review bc Hatcher said something about no forward progress on the Fumble? Now I know it was an INT. That’s not the debate here. Would what the TV guys say make sense? I’m asking

[The Jackal]

Bear may remember this, but I think the same ref was involved in a shenanigans review in a Mercer home game on a fumble/not fumble a number of years ago. Tennessee Tech maybe?

My recollection is I've seen him royally screw up calls a few times.

Jackal. I tried to ask a question on point. The TV guys said they were awarded a second review bc Hatcher said something about no forward progress on the Fumble? Now I know it was an INT. That’s not the debate here. Would what the TV guys say make sense? I’m asking

As I understand it, you don't lose the challenge if you win your challenge.

What I don't know is whether Hatcher's review of review was a challenge itself, or whether he just kept arguing his point.

Either way, he arguably would have been able to utilize the challenge later in the game because he either didn't use it, or won the challenge.

[gofurman]

Bear may remember this, but I think the same ref was involved in a shenanigans review in a Mercer home game on a fumble/not fumble a number of years ago. Tennessee Tech maybe?

My recollection is I've seen him royally screw up calls a few times.

Jackal. I tried to ask a question on point. The TV guys said they were awarded a second review bc Hatcher said something about no forward progress on the Fumble? Now I know it was an INT. That’s not the debate here. Would what the TV guys say make sense? I’m asking

As I understand it, you don't lose the challenge if you win your challenge.

What I don't know is whether Hatcher's review of review was a challenge itself, or whether he just kept arguing his point.

Either way, he arguably would have been able to utilize the challenge later in the game because he either didn't use it, or won the challenge.

Right. I don’t know if Hatcher used a challenge. I have absolutely no idea.

I’m just asking would arguing it’s was a fumble merit a second review ? That’s what the TV announcers (Mihalic etc) said occurred

[Bootie]

Doesn’t matter. Didn’t give them 34 points on one call.

Play on. Winning teams win. Isn’t that what coaches and old players say? Winners find ways to win. We didn’t. Next play. Beat Citadel

It made a huge difference in momentum. Had we gotten the ball and then gone up another score, game would’ve been much different.

Bootie, Agree on momentum. No doubt man. You are right on uncle mo.

But not THAT MUCH momentum. Don’t fumble three times. Don’t let that ONE call swing the next two ENTIRE FREAKIN QUARTERS. Good teams and players don’t let that happen. They. Just. Don’t.

Tom Brady throws a pick. Bad call. What have you. He was Down 28-3 to Atlanta late in Super Bowl @!!!! The Atlanta GM or someone was already celebrating!!! Tom and his team move on to next play. We didn’t. We caved. Bad. Brady gets pissed and comes back at you. All the greats like Jordan etc do. They don’t cave, they get ANGRY

Heck, Stumpy (!) even came in game thread and posted I paraphrase - get ANGRY guys !!! The great Stumpy felt it was worth jumping in

I don’t agree. Yes, that much momentum.

FU up with 2-score lead, 10-0, Samford gets the whacko call to retain possession and they then go score to make it 10-7 when FU had been moving the ball very well and was threatening to go up 3 scores, potentially making it 17-0 at that point. That is a huge difference in terms of player/team confidence, prolly causing Samford to play on their heels and FU to play sensing that weakness. Suppose after that there’s one more samford punt and fu score, suddenly it’s 24-0, samford wonders if they have what it takes, and FU smells blood and both teams play that way. Most teams wouldn't recover. Obviously there’s no guarantee that’s how it would’ve played out, but I believe that kind of momentum is more powerful than you think.

[The Jackal]

Bear may remember this, but I think the same ref was involved in a shenanigans review in a Mercer home game on a fumble/not fumble a number of years ago. Tennessee Tech maybe?

My recollection is I've seen him royally screw up calls a few times.

Jackal. I tried to ask a question on point. The TV guys said they were awarded a second review bc Hatcher said something about no forward progress on the Fumble? Now I know it was an INT. That’s not the debate here. Would what the TV guys say make sense? I’m asking

As I understand it, you don't lose the challenge if you win your challenge.

What I don't know is whether Hatcher's review of review was a challenge itself, or whether he just kept arguing his point.

Either way, he arguably would have been able to utilize the challenge later in the game because he either didn't use it, or won the challenge.

Right. I don’t know if Hatcher used a challenge. I have absolutely no idea.

I’m just asking would arguing it’s was a fumble merit a second review ? That’s what the TV announcers (Mihalic etc) said occurred

They called it an "interception," which I believe technically means the defender can catch either the pass or the fumble from an offensive player.

They never really seemed to state that the Samford player had possessed the ball. The film pretty clearly indicates that he did not.

The notion that a play is dead as soon as a defender begins the tackle due to forward progress is just nonsense.

[The Jackal]

Doesn’t matter. Didn’t give them 34 points on one call.

Play on. Winning teams win. Isn’t that what coaches and old players say? Winners find ways to win. We didn’t. Next play. Beat Citadel

It made a huge difference in momentum. Had we gotten the ball and then gone up another score, game would’ve been much different.

Bootie, Agree on momentum. No doubt man. You are right on uncle mo.

But not THAT MUCH momentum. Don’t fumble three times. Don’t let that ONE call swing the next two ENTIRE FREAKIN QUARTERS. Good teams and players don’t let that happen. They. Just. Don’t.

Tom Brady throws a pick. Bad call. What have you. He was Down 28-3 to Atlanta late in Super Bowl @!!!! The Atlanta GM or someone was already celebrating!!! Tom and his team move on to next play. We didn’t. We caved. Bad. Brady gets pissed and comes back at you. All the greats like Jordan etc do. They don’t cave, they get ANGRY

Heck, Stumpy (!) even came in game thread and posted I paraphrase - get ANGRY guys !!! The great Stumpy felt it was worth jumping in

I don’t agree. Yes, that much momentum.

FU up with 2-score lead, 10-0, Samford gets the whacko call to retain possession and they then go score to make it 10-7 when FU had been moving the ball very well and was threatening to go up 3 scores, potentially making it 17-0 at that point. That is a huge difference in terms of player/team confidence, prolly causing Samford to play on their heels and FU to play sensing that weakness. Suppose after that there’s one more samford punt and fu score, suddenly it’s 24-0, samford wonders if they have what it takes, and FU smells blood and both teams play that way. Most teams wouldn't recover. Obviously there’s no guarantee that’s how it would’ve played out, but I believe that kind of momentum is more powerful than you think.

I agree with this.

No, a single call didn't cost Furman that game. It's not as easy as some think to just forget about a 15 minute review and all the wind coming out of your sails. To that point in the game, Furman was dominating Samford on both sides of the ball.

The refs took over the game and basically threw the advantage to the other team that so desperately needed a break.

[gman84]

I'm not trying to beat a dead horse here. I'm not questioning how this effected the outcome of the game. My point is these refs don't know how to use the replay system. For the credibility of the SoCon, the entire conference deserves an official explanation. If they used the system by the letter and can prove it, then I'll shut up. If not, at least admit you screwed up and are taking measures to correct the problem.

[AstroDin]

Back to Hatcher…

Hatcher pitched a fit - he stomped his feet and kept moving his hands up and down like a three-year-old pitch a fit. That seems to be his standard reaction to any play call that seems to go against Samford. That is what got the ref's attention. He then held up the play as Hatcher kept pitching a fit and screaming. I had my binoculars on him the entire time.

I also watched Clay trying to have a conversation with the ref on the Furman sideline - that ref didn't engage with Clay. Which IMO is what should have happened on the Samford sideline.

The reverse call was one thing-the time delay was another. It gave Samford time to regroup, and I believe Furman had subbed in its 2nd team in the backfield as Samford went into a uber-up-tempo mode. I played basketball in HS. You call a time-out to stop the bleeding when things like this happen. I think the Furman coaches and team were caught flat-footed by the moment.

[FUBeAR]

Bear may remember this, but I think the same ref was involved in a shenanigans review in a Mercer home game on a fumble/not fumble a number of years ago. Tennessee Tech maybe?

My recollection is I've seen him royally screw up calls a few times.

Appropriately…after further review…

Jackal has misremembered and FUBeAR has incorrectly confirmed (and greatly elaborated upon) Jackal’s misremembering - all in error.

2 different SoCon Officials were involved. That said, they both totally botched these separate calls and deserve exponential amounts of our scorn for their incompetence.

Unlike the SoCon though, FUBeAR can delete the results of his error & has done so below.

Apologies for the mistake.

*Jackal & any others who may have quoted this mistake, FUBeAR would be most appreciative if you would take a few minutes and delete FUBeAR’s quoted mistake in your posts. - THANKS!