Fuck Big 12 refs

[Nivek 17,035]

1 hour ago, troph said:

Fuck the refs, Texas coulda still won. That’s all I’m saying. And this shit will happen all year and the next and we will get the newcomer treatment in the SEC so actually yeah, push their shit in so bad it doesn’t matter. Texas can blame the refs in this case with a straight face or they can also look at key plays Bijan falling on the card sack missing protection (btw look at his pass blocking score it was bad), watts missing the sack, card delaying the throw to worthy in the end zone, FG miss, and probably a half dozen other plays that had nothing to do with the refs. Texas lost because of the refs is fine but we better get used to shitty calls going and coming. 

I don't think Texas could have won the game.  Just like the OU game last year (and several others, and OSU games).  The refs decided the winner before kick-off.  If Texas made any of those plays, there would be some more bullshit calls they would dig up.  Defensive holding.   Take-downs.

Overcoming the refs is part of the game when the officiating is even.  Mistakes are part of the game and are expected.   The issue is one-sided officiating which seems to be directed from the conference as this pattern of fuckery is systemic and backed up by the numbers and video evidence.   

[Davis Lane 5,754]

22 minutes ago, freyguy said:

the heavy drinking continues today....

 

Avatar checks out and what not.

[Nivek 17,035]

2 hours ago, 40acredropout said:

Might just be a funny/dumb question but is there anything for Texas to do about this?  
 

Do we publicly ask explanation from conference?  
 

Not expecting to change anything but can we at least make these cocksuckers sweat by putting their incompetence/corruption on blast for everyone to see?

Tom Herman asked them privately to give us a clear policy on the Horn's up and Horn's down.  The conference decided to make a PR stink about us asking for clarity on the rules.   This same conference thinks that the 2015 (and subsequent) OSU games were legit officiated and think it was fine to run into Charlie Strong then flag him for the contact.    This corruption is celebrated by the conference.  

Making a claim, and holding a press conference about it doesn't help.   This is the NCAA's failure.  

[taybo20 2,963]

Just now, Nivek said:

I don't think Texas could have won the game.  Just like the OU game last year (and several others, and OSU games).  The refs decided the winner before kick-off.  If Texas made any of those plays, there would be some more bullshit calls they would dig up.  Defensive holding.   Take-downs.

Overcoming the refs is part of the game when the officiating is even.  Mistakes are part of the game and are expected.   The issue is one-sided officiating which seems to be directed from the conference as this pattern of fuckery is systemic and backed up by the numbers and video evidence.   

Ever since 2015 OSU, I’ve felt basically this same way. I hate to be the complainer of refs, but I started this thread years ago because of all the bullshit I’ve seen that usually goes against us. Just sick of it

[CowtownHorn 5,126]

I do not look forward to updating this once conference play starts.

[dcar00 14,600]

5 hours ago, Pato del Muerto said:

If he thought that, then 1) he should have blown the whistle and 2) he was down so review should have confirmed that instead of incomplete pass. 
 

Was there actually a flag or was it a booth initiated targeting review, and that’s where the penalty confusion began?

well yes but here is what I think transpired, the ref thought he was down in real time but didn't blow the whistle. told the head ref it was late hit/roughing the passer and the head ref said can't be if play wasn't dead and we are calling the pass incomplete.  so they added the targeting, knowing it would be reviewed, because otherwise they either pick up the flag(admit they are dumbasses) or giving Bama a first down.

they never even thought to review if he was down.  Pereira on the broadcast actually says "shin" when they are showing the dead on replay which would have shown his shin down but they stopped that replay on the broadcast right before and start showing the side angle where you can't see the shin.

My guess is Pereira saw the entire dead on replay and saw the shin/calf down.

It was an absolute complete failure from both the field crew and the replay crew.  there was a dead on angle that would have shown him with the ball and his shin down. and it likely cost us the game.

[Pato del Muerto 52,853]

14 minutes ago, dcar00 said:

it likely cost us the game.

Can’t agree with this extrapolation. There was a ton of time left. Even in the immediate future, we got the ball from a punt at around our 45 I think. That field position likely changes if they get a free kick from the 20. Do we still get the fg there?  And so on from there. 
 

if we could get one play back, I’m not sure I don’t choose the uncalled facemask against keilan to get the first and goal from in close. Finish that drive with a td and the end of the game probably plays out differently, and tougher for bama. 

[stork642 4,503]

My favorite part is these idiots “missed” multiple PIs and face mask calls but called Conner for an illegal blindside block.  I don’t like blaming the refs but they clearly decided Bama was the better team before the game and that influenced their calls.   

[Pato del Muerto 52,853]

Just now, stork642 said:

My favorite part is these idiots “missed” multiple PIs and face mask calls but called Conner for an illegal blindside block.  I don’t like blaming the refs but they clearly decided Bama was the better team before the game and that influenced their calls.   

That’s apparently the new interpretation of the rule. Blocking back toward your goal line with any force is a penalty. Saw it called in several games yesterday.  Have to just stand in the way or be able to block toward a sideline, along with still not blocking in the back. 

[stork642 4,503]

6 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

That’s apparently the new interpretation of the rule. Blocking back toward your goal line with any force is a penalty. Saw it called in several games yesterday.  Have to just stand in the way or be able to block toward a sideline, along with still not blocking in the back. 

I agree that they called it right on Conner so why the fuck can’t they call Bama for the obvious Pi’s and Face masks?  They were clearly biased.  

Edited September 11, 2022 by stork642

[dec3169 519]

3 hours ago, Eskimohorn said:

going to sec will make things worse imo.

Actually I don't think so.  Hear me out because this sounds kinda stupid even to me...  Most of the SEC is tired of AL, GA, and 1 or 2 other teams always getting the recruits, getting the big games, and winning everything.  We showed up for 1 game vs Bama, punched them harder than they've been punched in a while, on national tv in a #1 vs NR Gameday matchup.  We knocked them out of #1 with a LOSS, and moved up from NR to #21.  Most of CFB has seen the crap calls, the tweets from people like Barstool, Fox, Reggie Bush, and they know Bama showed weakness. 

I think there are SEC teams that are wanting TX/OU to come early now because we both bring parity.  AL/GA no longer have a clear path each year if they have to deal with TX/OU, which means there will be likely several 1-loss teams vying for the SEC championship.  I also think ESPN wants more, and they will do what they can to accelerate the move.

None of them will really like us but if it means AL, GA, and 1 or 2 others get beat up on a little bit then the other teams will have a better chance.  We could beat AL one year, OU could as well, and maybe LSU beats one of us allowing maybe an Arky or a FL to edge us out.  It could easily happen.

We might (will probably) have an initiation year of horrible calls but we have that now.  I don't think it will be permanent in the SEC against us - seems like they spread that around.  If Bama and GA have competition they may lose the favoritism, and with 5 or 6 good teams it is way harder to favor one or two.

Or maybe I'm drunk.

[dcar00 14,600]

10 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

Can’t agree with this extrapolation. There was a ton of time left. Even in the immediate future, we got the ball from a punt at around our 45 I think. That field position likely changes if they get a free kick from the 20. Do we still get the fg there?  And so on from there. 
 

if we could get one play back, I’m not sure I don’t choose the uncalled facemask against keilan to get the first and goal from in close. Finish that drive with a td and the end of the game probably plays out differently, and tougher for bama. 

 we still get the FG.  4 of our last 5 drives(not counting end of game 1 play) went for FG's. the non safety call cost us the game.

agree that the facemask was huge.  I'm not so sure with the head of steam KR had that he doesn't score or get damn close.  It was impossible to miss that call real time unless you just actively didn't want to call it. fuckery of the highest order.

[Deej 77,161]

1 hour ago, Nivek said:

This corruption is celebrated by the conference.

A conference whose members then bitch about big, bad Texas leaving them high and dry while looking the other way on OU. Fuck the Big 12 and fuck the remaining members and their dumb, bitchy fans. 

[utee94 15,878]

20 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

Can’t agree with this extrapolation. There was a ton of time left. Even in the immediate future, we got the ball from a punt at around our 45 I think. That field position likely changes if they get a free kick from the 20. Do we still get the fg there?  And so on from there. 
 

if we could get one play back, I’m not sure I don’t choose the uncalled facemask against keilan to get the first and goal from in close. Finish that drive with a td and the end of the game probably plays out differently, and tougher for bama. 

I might go with the uncalled blatant DPI in the endzone that forced us to settle for a FG instead of getting first and goal from the 1 which I am confident would have resulted in an eventual Bijan TD. 

But honestly, there were so many blatantly terrible calls that went against us and likely cost us the victory in a 1-point loss, how can I possibly choose?

[Nivek 17,035]

32 minutes ago, Deej said:

A conference whose members then bitch about big, bad Texas leaving them high and dry while looking the other way on OU. Fuck the Big 12 and fuck the remaining members and their dumb, bitchy fans. 

We predicted that would be the case.  And it was true.  OU made the first move and it was all blamed on Texas by everyone else.  

[Deej 77,161]

Just now, Nivek said:

We predicted that would be the case.  And it was true.  OU made the first move and it was all blamed on Texas by everyone else.  

They don't want their meth connection shutting them off. 

[Nivek 17,035]

1 hour ago, taybo20 said:

Ever since 2015 OSU, I’ve felt basically this same way. I hate to be the complainer of refs, but I started this thread years ago because of all the bullshit I’ve seen that usually goes against us. Just sick of it

I used to think they were incompetent.  The 2008 Tech game was the point for me.   Since then it seems to have ramped up and just become more blatant.  

[LTtxfan 49,404]

B12 Refs, but Danny's right about the rest...

 

[cochamps 1,879]

5 hours ago, Deej said:

A conference whose members then bitch about big, bad Texas leaving them high and dry while looking the other way on OU. Fuck the Big 12 and fuck the remaining members and their dumb, bitchy fans. 

If by chance Big 12 refs should die in a fire, we should hold a "celebration of life" ceremony.  Because I would sure as hell celebrate!

[TrashMaster G 17,719]

9 hours ago, Nivek said:

Tom Herman asked them privately to give us a clear policy on the Horn's up and Horn's down.  The conference decided to make a PR stink about us asking for clarity on the rules.   This same conference thinks that the 2015 (and subsequent) OSU games were legit officiated and think it was fine to run into Charlie Strong then flag him for the contact.    This corruption is celebrated by the conference.  

Making a claim, and holding a press conference about it doesn't help.   This is the NCAA's failure.  

Horn's????

[Horn Dog 10,025]

15 hours ago, CowtownHorn said:

I do not look forward to updating this once conference play starts.

Jesus that’s depressing.  I am sure it would look even worse if it was possible for to account for fouls that either reversed or allowed a big gain, score, or overruled a stopped 3/4th down conversion.  Then there is the issue of missed calls under those scenarios that is impossible to quantify.   Yea these refs know exactly what they are doing and how to get away with it.

[General Specific 3,342]

That crew today can suck my dick, your dick, his dick, and her dick. Sorry limp wristed mother fuckers. Blatant no calls. I hope CDC does some behind the doors screaming at the Rig 12

CDC getting a response from B12 officials:

[Tex Long 4,509]

Saban games refs. Always has, always will.

You know what? It's perfectly legal, it's not against any rule in football.

He starts when play starts. His DBs interfere against all your receivers, his DL and LB leave early, line up offside routinely - just a little bit, but enough to get a half-step advantage. The result is that the refs become reluctant to throw flags at all, because if and when they do, Nick is right in their faces, screaming about bias. Leads to a whole lotta non-calls as the game goes on. Usually the non-calls are mostly for Bama, but your guys still get called... funny how that works, huh?

[Bruh Man 3,160]

Two days later I'm still furious.

Screwed over by our own goddamn conference's refs, at home, in one of the marquee CFB matchups at the season. This only happens to Texas. They all deserve to be taken out back and shot. 

Edited September 13, 2022 by Bruh Man

[BB65 483]

Ask yourself this question. Why did Bryce Young throw the ball in the endzone with his head pointing down and his feet sideways?

My answer is to avoid a safety. If so then it was intentional grounding. But you say there was a receiver in the area ok maybe there was but the ref should still throw the flag and clean it up on replay. You see now you can use replay to get the play call correct. With no flag thrown you can't use replay to call grounding. 105,000 people saw intentional grounding on the play and two refs didn't. But then 1 official saw targeting and threw the flag when the player called for targeting didn't get within 3 feet of the head and neck area of the ball carrier. But for safety sake the ref throws the flag and cleans it up on review. Then during review the neither the replay official nor the ref looked for Young being down. Which is something that can be cleaned up during review. It happens all the time.

It reminds me of a play that happened to me during a state playoff baseball game fortunately I made the right decision on the fly. Bases were loaded the batter hits a hard line drive down the left field line. Just before the ball hit the ground the 3rd baseman steps between me and the ball. I was clueless as to fair or foul. I immediately point to the inside indicating fair, three runs score on a stand up double. The defensive team went apeshit in the 3rd base dugout and the coach was livid. I met with my partners and explained I was blocked on the play. One of my partners was sure the ball was foul. So I changed the call to foul and put runners back on base and the batter in the box with a strike. If I had originally called the ball foul I couldn't have changed my call because I had no way of knowing where runners would have reached. Once a foul ball is called it is always foul and can't be changed but by allowing the play to continue and not killing it I had a way to get it right. This was before there was any video replay so I had to depend on partners to help correct the issue. I called both coaches to the plate and explained the situation to them and why I made the original call of fair. The batting teams coach was still not happy but seemed to understand. After the game the upset coach caught me leaving the field and admitted that I had handled the situation about as well as I could have under the circumstances and was appreciated the fact that I was willing to change my call to get the play corrected. I knew all along some team was going to be upset which ever way I went.

 

[Horn Dog 10,025]

Cross posting from game thread. Matt Leinart.   Let that sink in.

[LTtxfan 49,404]

 

[Tex Pete 20,936]

Someone should publicize more of this crew's "officiating work" on social media, like the huge OU conversion last season when the ball carrier stepped OOB. As soon as the officials were known Saturday, I told my text group friends how much I did not like that crew. Fuckery.

[JBJ 3,684]

13 minutes ago, Tex Pete said:

Someone should publicize more of this crew's "officiating work" on social media, like the huge OU conversion last season when the ball carrier stepped OOB. As soon as the officials were known Saturday, I told my text group friends how much I did not like that crew. Fuckery.

The film room comedian guy should do a referee edition.

[Codaxx 5,943]

4 hours ago, BB65 said:

Ask yourself this question. Why did Bryce Young throw the ball in the endzone with his head pointing down and his feet sideways?

My answer is to avoid a safety. If so then it was intentional grounding. But you say there was a receiver in the area ok maybe there was but the ref should still throw the flag and clean it up on replay. You see now you can use replay to get the play call correct. With no flag thrown you can't use replay to call grounding. 105,000 people saw intentional grounding on the play and two refs didn't. But then 1 official saw targeting and threw the flag when the player called for targeting didn't get within 3 feet of the head and neck area of the ball carrier. But for safety sake the ref throws the flag and cleans it up on review. Then during review the neither the replay official nor the ref looked for Young being down. Which is something that can be cleaned up during review. It happens all the time.

It reminds me of a play that happened to me during a state playoff baseball game fortunately I made the right decision on the fly. Bases were loaded the batter hits a hard line drive down the left field line. Just before the ball hit the ground the 3rd baseman steps between me and the ball. I was clueless as to fair or foul. I immediately point to the inside indicating fair, three runs score on a stand up double. The defensive team went apeshit in the 3rd base dugout and the coach was livid. I met with my partners and explained I was blocked on the play. One of my partners was sure the ball was foul. So I changed the call to foul and put runners back on base and the batter in the box with a strike. If I had originally called the ball foul I couldn't have changed my call because I had no way of knowing where runners would have reached. Once a foul ball is called it is always foul and can't be changed but by allowing the play to continue and not killing it I had a way to get it right. This was before there was any video replay so I had to depend on partners to help correct the issue. I called both coaches to the plate and explained the situation to them and why I made the original call of fair. The batting teams coach was still not happy but seemed to understand. After the game the upset coach caught me leaving the field and admitted that I had handled the situation about as well as I could have under the circumstances and was appreciated the fact that I was willing to change my call to get the play corrected. I knew all along some team was going to be upset which ever way I went.

 

Unfortunately replay does not help in this situation. I have no idea why, but grounding is not eligible to be reviewed

Edited September 13, 2022 by Codaxx

[BurntOrange&White 40,435]

2 minutes ago, Codaxx said:

Unfortunately replay does not help in this situation. I have no idea why, but grounding is not eligible to be reviewed

Yeah but the safety should be able to be reviewed. Especially if he was down as illustrated in the replays with the calf/shin touching the ground. Either way it was completely blown and fucked up so stfu.

[Codaxx 5,943]

4 minutes ago, BurntOrange&White said:

Yeah but the safety should be able to be reviewed. Especially if he was down as illustrated in the replays with the calf/shin touching the ground. Either way it was completely blown and fucked up so stfu.

Dont be a cunt, it is unbecoming. 

[Reese Bennett 3,625]

20 minutes ago, Codaxx said:

Unfortunately replay does not help in this situation. I have no idea why, but grounding is not eligible to be reviewed

This makes no sense at all to me. On regular plays you can review to see if the spot is correct, to see if the runner was down, if the foot was out of bounds, etc. Wouldn't this be the same thing? Shouldn't you be consistent and review to see if the QB was down or where he released the ball or where it went? Wouldn't it be the same thing as a review for ball placement? Just stupid. Should have been 2 points.

Edited September 13, 2022 by Reese Bennett

[BurntOrange&White 40,435]

17 minutes ago, Codaxx said:

Dont be a cunt, it is unbecoming. 

This site and shaggy was built on cunts

[Rholl 220]

the fucking ref wanted to toss a player out of the game for some bullshit targeting call..... unbelievable

[BB65 483]

36 minutes ago, Codaxx said:

Unfortunately replay does not help in this situation. I have no idea why, but grounding is not eligible to be reviewed

Grounding can't be called as a result of replay but replay can be used to confirm the grounding. If the flag had been thrown for grounding the refs could have used replay to verify they were correct.

[UncleSonny 6,618]

13 minutes ago, BurntOrange&White said:

This site and shaggy was built on cunts

While we have our share of cunts for sure, it’s the assholes that make this and TOS great. The cunts just muck up the works. 

Much like a big 12 ref. Who are cunts. 

[Codaxx 5,943]

4 minutes ago, BB65 said:

Grounding can't be called as a result of replay but replay can be used to confirm the grounding. If the flag had been thrown for grounding the refs could have used replay to verify they were correct.

https://www.dfoa.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/2021-NCAA-FB-Rulebook.pdf

 

Passes ARTICLE 2. Reviewable plays involving passes include: RULE 12 / INSTANT REPLAY FR-113 a. Pass ruled complete, incomplete or intercepted anywhere in the field of play or an end zone. b. Forward pass touched by a player (eligible or ineligible) or an official, including whether the touching is beyond or behind the line of scrimmage. c. Forward pass or forward handing when a ball carrier is or has been beyond the neutral zone. d. A forward pass or forward handing after a change of team possession. e. Pass ruled forward or backward. 1. If the pass is ruled forward and is incomplete, the play is reviewable only if: The ball goes out of bounds; there is clear recovery of a loose ball in the immediate continuing action; or there is confirmation of the recovery by the officials on the field. If the replay official does not have indisputable video evidence as to which team recovers or the ball going out of bounds, the ruling of incomplete pass stands. (Exception: Rule 12-3-1-a) 2. If the replay official reverses an incomplete forward pass ruling and the ball is recovered, it belongs to the recovering team at the spot of the recovery and any advance is nullified. f. Location of the ball when it is obviously in the field of play and a ruling of intentional grounding would result in a safety by penalty

[General Specific 3,342]

While we have our share of cunts for sure, it’s the assholes that make this and TOS great. The cunts just muck up the works. 
Much like a big 12 ref. Who are cunts. 

Hey, what about the Taints? Some of us are like, you know, Switzerland. In other words, taints!

[lilMAC25 3,863]

1 hour ago, LTtxfan said:

 

 

[BB65 483]

6 minutes ago, Codaxx said:

f. Location of the ball when it is obviously in the field of play and a ruling of intentional grounding would result in a safety by penalty

In my scenario the intentional grounding should have been called so the ruling would have already been made. The replay would be confirming what was ruled is correct.

I interpret that ruling to be calling intentional grounding as a result of what is seen in replay.

 

[dcar00 14,600]

1 hour ago, Codaxx said:

Unfortunately replay does not help in this situation. I have no idea why, but grounding is not eligible to be reviewed

What isn't eligible to be reviewed is anything subjective. Intent of passer, how close receiver was, outside the tackle box, etc.

[Codaxx 5,943]

7 minutes ago, BB65 said:

In my scenario the intentional grounding should have been called so the ruling would have already been made. The replay would be confirming what was ruled is correct.

I interpret that ruling to be calling intentional grounding as a result of what is seen in replay.

 

I believe that means you can look at where the ball was to determine if it was a safety or not, but you can not review the grounding call. 

Edited September 13, 2022 by Codaxx

[lilMAC25 3,863]

Fuck this piece of shit conference.

[BB65 483]

1 minute ago, Codaxx said:

I believe that means you can look at where the ball was to determine if it was a safety or not, but you can not review the grounding call. 

You could be right. I know the NCAA has a rule interpretations book that goes along with the rule book that explains the rulings using play examples. I would have to dig into that to find the official interpretations. I can easily understand not ruling grounding after seeing replay but I can't wrap my head around not being able to confirm the call that will award points to a team.

[Codaxx 5,943]

1 minute ago, BB65 said:

You could be right. I know the NCAA has a rule interpretations book that goes along with the rule book that explains the rulings using play examples. I would have to dig into that to find the official interpretations. I can easily understand not ruling grounding after seeing replay but I can't wrap my head around not being able to confirm the call that will award points to a team.

WHY? You cant review an obvious hold in the end zone. 

[Dennis Taylor 19,027]

14 minutes ago, BB65 said:

In my scenario the intentional grounding should have been called so the ruling would have already been made. The replay would be confirming what was ruled is correct.

I interpret that ruling to be calling intentional grounding as a result of what is seen in replay.

 

I am 1000000% in agreement that Texas got fucked on that play. His shin was down, and I'm not convinced something other than his left hand never touched the turf before he "threw" the ball.  But I don't see how you can call grounding if the ball is deflected by a defender...even though that play literally defines a desperate attempt to avoid a sack/safety. 

And look how close Ovie came to catching the tip...they might still be figuring out how to fuck Texas if he had caught that...

[BB65 483]

3 minutes ago, Codaxx said:

WHY? You cant review an obvious hold in the end zone.

Because I have seen replay used to confirm grounding outside the end zone but that could have been NFL and not NCAA

Evidently you can't review whether a QB is down in the end zone either

[BB65 483]

3 minutes ago, Dennis Taylor said:

even though that play literally defines a desperate attempt to avoid a sack/safety. 

That to me is why you get intentional grounding.

[Codaxx 5,943]

6 minutes ago, BB65 said:

Because I have seen replay used to confirm grounding outside the end zone but that could have been NFL and not NCAA

Evidently you can't review whether a QB is down in the end zone either

You can not review if the play resulted in grounding in the NFL or NCAA. You can only review where the penalty happened.