Chattanooga 10/29 - Homecoming

[Affirm]

Several people mention “make up calls”. The funny thing is Refs are graded on the number of calls they get right and those that are wrong. One they missed was a clear PI on our defender - CLEAR - and then they appeared to make up for it on the next play. The thing is this means they get TWO calls wrong instead of ONE.
This is their job evaluation!! So they should never do a make up call. I’m not saying they don’t .. I’m not Naive …. but I knew a referee and he said he got promoted to bigger jobs /$ because he purposely avoided that and most of his friends did likewise. It got them more money. The ones who played to the makeup call never went far and generally stayed in HS or never made P5 where there is a lot of money. Just saying I’m always a little stunned when an obvious make up call is made soon after a missed call. You might as well be throwing money away. But they certainly appear to happen

Do they value avoiding criticism by schools' fans or head coaches more than they value the money? They know which coaches are complainers and which are more civil and professional?

[Affirm]

Rusty Wright should have been hit with an unsportsmanlike penalty for his sideline tirade.

True.

[apaladin]

Several people mention “make up calls”. The funny thing is Refs are graded on the number of calls they get right and those that are wrong. One they missed was a clear PI on our defender - CLEAR - and then they appeared to make up for it on the next play. The thing is this means they get TWO calls wrong instead of ONE.
This is their job evaluation!! So they should never do a make up call. I’m not saying they don’t .. I’m not Naive …. but I knew a referee and he said he got promoted to bigger jobs /$ because he purposely avoided that and most of his friends did likewise. It got them more money. The ones who played to the makeup call never went far and generally stayed in HS or never made P5 where there is a lot of money. Just saying I’m always a little stunned when an obvious make up call is made soon after a missed call. You might as well be throwing money away. But they certainly appear to happen

Yep after our fumble when we got the interception, Brinson clearly grabbed their receiver causing the int.

[The Jackal]

Clay mentioned in his pre-game interview with Dan that when the one of ones practiced this week, things got testier.

Based on Tyler Huff's interview post-game—the DINS felt like they had things to prove on the field.

I thought early on the blindside block was a bad sign—it turns out I feel it showed us an early indication of Furman's fiesty-aggressive play.

Furman played far from perfect but the DINS were the better team. Our depth and diversity shined Saturday.

Officiating thoughts. I know UTC fans didn't like them, but I thought the calls were mostly correct. I think they missed a pass interference on Robinson late in the game, but then made up for it on maybe the very next play down by the goal line.

1. I went back and reviewed the rules on blindside blocks. They are forcible contact made in the open field outside the players' field of vision, so Dean's hit probably qualifies. What was odd, though, is that Dean was running almost right at him (surprising he didn't see someone right in front of him). However, the better thing to do would have just been to get in his way.

2. The targeting call, in my opinion, was absolutely the correct call. The only thing I thought was odd was that targeting was not called on the field. I have to assume there was a flag thrown because they were reviewing the play, the referee just did not indicate that targeting was under review.

There are two species of targeting. One involves the "crown of the helmet" and the other involves hitting a defenseless player. This was the latter.

Harris had just attempted to receive a pass over the middle of the field. He was still in the act of catching. That is a definitionally defenseless player.

The UTC linebacker then moved up to make forcible contact with the head or neck area. Definitional targeting. What's odd is he didn't even have to hit him, the ball was already by Harris when he initiated contact.

I watched the replay of the blindside hit. It was only blind side if the player was actually blind. It looked like an eye to eye hit.

I think what we were penalized for is a crack-back block. They are trying to eliminate being able to peel back and block someone - even if you hit them square in the chest. If that is the case, we were guilty.

The rule is styled "forcible contact" outside of the players "field of vision."

Any time you see a "de-cleating" hit, it will probably draw a flag in modern football. It wasn't that long ago that you could knock a player into the cheerleaders with no penalty.

The UTC player clearly didn't see Dean. It's just odd that you can penalize a block outside of the players field of vision when the player was actually in his field of vision, he just wasn't looking at him.

[MNORM]

From what I've heard it's pretty standard practice for coaches to appeal any targeting penalty in the second half that isn't egregious/incredibly obvious. Nobody wants one of their players suspended for half a game. I'd hope CCH and crew would do the same if the situation were reversed.

[The Jackal]

From what I've heard it's pretty standard practice for coaches to appeal any targeting penalty in the second half that isn't egregious/incredibly obvious. Nobody wants one of their players suspended for half a game. I'd hope CCH and crew would do the same if the situation were reversed.

I think that's pretty much the idea. Seems like a no lose situation for the program.

[The Jackal]

Several people mention “make up calls”. The funny thing is Refs are graded on the number of calls they get right and those that are wrong. One they missed was a clear PI on our defender - CLEAR - and then they appeared to make up for it on the next play. The thing is this means they get TWO calls wrong instead of ONE.
This is their job evaluation!! So they should never do a make up call. I’m not saying they don’t .. I’m not Naive …. but I knew a referee and he said he got promoted to bigger jobs /$ because he purposely avoided that and most of his friends did likewise. It got them more money. The ones who played to the makeup call never went far and generally stayed in HS or never made P5 where there is a lot of money. Just saying I’m always a little stunned when an obvious make up call is made soon after a missed call. You might as well be throwing money away. But they certainly appear to happen

Do they value avoiding criticism by schools' fans or head coaches more than they value the money? They know which coaches are complainers and which are more civil and professional?

Football happens fast. The refs are human. They are going to "miss" calls every game. Some calls can justifiably be called either way.

Obviously, the closer the game and the higher the stakes, the more magnified the referees mistakes. You just hope that your team is not in a position where a referees call makes or breaks the game.

The issue I had with the Samford call is not that they missed the play in real time, it's that they botched the interpretation or the rule and the procedures. Even if you make an error, you still need to correctly apply the rule and process to arrive at a result.

[Davemeister]

Let me change the subject for a moment.

I watched a replay of the game last night. What happened on Furman's first FG attempt? ESPN's announcers said we were trying to fake the kick. It looked to me like the holder just mishandled the ball.

Fake or flub? Flubbed fake? Inquiring minds want to know.

[gman84]

I heard CCH say mishandled snap. I originally thought a fake as well.

[The Jackal]

I heard CCH say mishandled snap. I originally thought a fake as well.

That's what it looked like.

Mistakes happen on kicks, but this is Julian Ashby's third season serving as the sole snapper on the team. Luke Bynum has been the holder since last season. So, there was plenty of experience there.

Just looked like the ball didn't get high enough off the ground on the snap.