Proof Ref Cheated

[katsrock]

How much money did this ref bet on the game?

Or

Maybe he doesn't know the rules of the game.

Uh Mr. ref ... a defender cannot take his arm and shove a receiver in the chest while the ball's in the air. It's called PASS INTERFERENCE.

Of course, the ref ruled it an interception.

The Tennessean newspaper put this pic on the front page of the sports section apparently as evidence of a good play made by the hometown team. Amazing they did not try to hide this evidence.

 

[Kats23]

Doesn't matter bc it was a STUPID play call by our QB. He and Stoops were lucky this exact play worked out against EKU or Stoops would be riding his way out of Lexington.

 

[katsrock]

Doesn't matter bc it was a STUPID play call by our QB. He and Stoops were lucky this exact play worked out against EKU or Stoops would be riding his way out of Lexington.

Of course cheating matters. This is one of a handful of plays that decided the outcome of the game.

 

[katsrock]

Result of the push-off and tip from the 1st pic:

Clearly shows a second ref who witnessed the whole thing and refused to throw a flag.

 

[ukats22]

Are you serious on that call, you wanted interference?

Dave

 

[RLSmith]

That ball wos HORRIBLY underthrown and you want a ref to bail out Towles? Make the da*n play and quit crying about refs!

 

[martycat1]

I wouldn't have mattered. Ball was underthrown.

 

[hoopsdave]

Your stretching. Not pass interference and not even close.
Just a crap call, crap throw, and crap effort to break up the INT.

 

[RACdad]

It doesn't matter how bad of a pass it was. It was interference

 

[Deeeefense]

You can't tell from this picture if it was interference or not. Hand checking is not interference, but if he pushed the receiver and the receiver went backwards prior to the balls arrival that would be interference regardless if the ball was under-thrown or not.

 

[WildCard]

You can't tell from this picture if it was interference or not. Hand checking is not interference, but if he pushed the receiver and the receiver went backwards prior to the balls arrival that would be interference regardless if the ball was under-thrown or not.

^^^ Correct.

FWIW, I have always believed PI is a call that should be made only when it is clearly and irrefutably PI.

Peace

 

[1Blouman]

What cost us the game was we gave them 21 points. Should never have been in this position.

 

[bigblueinsanity_rivals250340]

Wasnt interference. QB threw the ball way short, basically right to the DB. Baker battling was the only reason the initial DB didnt pick it off.

 

[katsrock]

Are you serious on that call, you wanted interference?

Dave

Uh yea...because it happened.

I also wanted a TD to be called when Timmons scored.

I wanted the field goal to be called when MacGinnis made it.

And I know you'll find this impossible to believe,.... I wanted 6 points to be awarded when Kemp crossed the goal line.

I'm just silly that way.

Somebody needs to teach you the rules of the game.

 

[katsrock]

That ball wos HORRIBLY underthrown and you want a ref to bail out Towles? Make the da*n play and quit crying about refs!

You need to get your eyesight checked.

Not only was the ball well thrown, without the shove forcing Baker out of the way, it was a for sure TD.

Quit crying about the throw and take a dose of reality.

 

[katsrock]

I wouldn't have mattered. Ball was underthrown.

Wrong.

Were you at the game? I was.

I saw exactly what happened - as it happened!

It only appeared to be under thrown because the DB shoved Baker outside of the ball path.

 

[Comebakatz3]

That ball definitely was not underthrown. I am not sure how he could have thrown it further considering that any further would have been out of bounds. In fact, Baker was already out of bounds. The defensive back made a good play, and Baker probably could have fought for it a bit more. Could have possibly been a PI, but Baker has to fight harder for it.

 

[katsrock]

Your stretching. Not pass interference and not even close.
Just a crap call, crap throw, and crap effort to break up the INT.

You are blinded by your disgust with the loss.

It was pass interference and not even close to being a legal play.

Crap call, maybe.

Crap throw? Wrong.

If you think there was an effort by Baker to break up an INT, you slept through the play.
All effort by Baker was to CATCH the ball as he was being shoved away.

 

[chuckster.sixpack]

Uh yea...because it happened.

I also wanted a TD to be called when Timmons scored.

I wanted the field goal to be called when MacGinnis made it.

And I know you'll find this impossible to believe,.... I wanted 6 points to be awarded when Kemp crossed the goal line.

I'm just silly that way.

Somebody needs to teach you the rules of the game.

Terrible post.

 

[katsrock]

Wasnt interference. QB threw the ball way short, basically right to the DB. Baker battling was the only reason the initial DB didnt pick it off.

Absolutely WAS interference. QB threw the ball right on target, basically right to the receiver. Initial DB using one hand to shove Baker out of the way was the only reason the initial DB didn't pick it off.

 

[BigBluePhantom]

You can't control the refs. I am sure Vandy would have like to have gotten a couple of those holding calls that were missed against us. Trying to control the refs is wasted time. A coach has to focus on what he can control. We have several opportunities where effective coaching could make a lot more difference.

 

[Mikey Likes It]

It does not matter. If we need to rely on the refs to always get it right to beat that Vandy team then we've got bigger problems, and guess what we've got bigger problems. Game should never haven been close. Our horrible special teams play all night long ensured we never had a chance. The rest of our glaring deficiencies on offense just sealed the deal for Vandy.

 

[bigblueinsanity_rivals250340]

Absolutely WAS interference. QB threw the ball right on target, basically right to the receiver. Initial DB using one hand to shove Baker out of the way was the only reason the initial DB didn't pick it off.

You do realize you dont throw a fade TO the receiver right? Its thrown to a spot. At worst, the ball should be high enough where its a 50/50 ball. This pass was just thrown right to the DB; just like it was vs EKU. This time, Baker couldnt take the ball from the DB.

 

[Comebakatz3]

You do realize you dont throw a fade TO the receiver right? Its thrown to a spot. At worst, the ball should be high enough where its a 50/50 ball. This pass was just thrown right to the DB; just like it was vs EKU. This time, Baker couldnt take the ball from the DB.

This is all pretty subjective, but to me that looks to be pretty darn 50/50. It could be a bit higher, but remember... Baker has already been pushed out of bounds. If he establishes his position in bounds then the ball is very high and it is possible only he can get to it. Since he is pushed further out, the defensive back gets better position on the fade.

Still, my problem isn't with how it was thrown. It was with the design of the play and who the play was ran to. We have a 6'6 receiver that has not ran a single fade route in the endzone. I don't know that we've even faked it to him. Yea, Baker is a pretty tall and tough guy, but why not try it with our tallest guy? Also, I don't like how the play was set up. We ran the fade to Baker to the short side of the field. Baker was the single receiver on that side. That doesn't give your WR a lot of room to work. Baker was further pushed out of the play by being forced closer and closer to the sideline. On that route you have to keep your distance from the sideline to give your QB the ability to throw it high. Also, I'd prefer us run a corner route with the inside receiver on the long side rather than the fade. Just makes for a better play IMO.

One thing, where did the information that Towles changed the play come from? Was that a post game comment or what?

 

[BlueRaider22]

Did the ref miss the call? Perhaps.

Is this proof that he "cheated?" No.

There is a massive difference.

 

[catagious]

You can't tell if it's PI from still shots. Post a video and let's judge

 

[Soupbean]

That ball definitely was not underthrown. I am not sure how he could have thrown it further considering that any further would have been out of bounds. In fact, Baker was already out of bounds. The defensive back made a good play, and Baker probably could have fought for it a bit more. Could have possibly been a PI, but Baker has to fight harder for it.

Your missing the issue Comebakatz3. The pass was clearly underthrown because it was late. If there were no defenders on the play sure it was in a catchable spot but since it was late and Baker had already stopped his route and the defenders had already caught up in good position the throw had to be much higher and deeper for him to have any chance to catch it over the defenders.

I've said it over and over, Patricks downfall is he hold the ball and waits to see guys open instead of throwing to a spot. On that play he stared down the route then held it a second too long simple as that. It didn't help that he checked to the short side of the field which gave us even less room to make that play happen - just a bad decision to boot.

 

[AGEE11]

I agree with CombackCatz.

Why give stone hands Baker a 50/50 ball instead of giving Bone, with more height and a worse DB (Baker had their best) is beyond me.

This team's issue all stem from the sidelines. Stoops is a good recruiter and gets kids here, but he and his staff are out coached every game.

This throw is more on the play call than the execution.

 

[ndk_rivals308474]

Complaining about that call is like rearranging the furniture on the deck of the Titanic. If you want to focus on one arguable call by the refs as what went wrong on Saturday, you go right ahead. Meanwhile, the team is in an absolute free fall. If you think that call was the problem, have at it. Just don't expect the rest of us to get too fired up over it.

 

[Comebakatz3]

Your missing the issue Comebakatz3. The pass was clearly underthrown because it was late. If there were no defenders on the play sure it was in a catchable spot but since it was late and Baker had already stopped his route and the defenders had already caught up in good position the throw had to be much higher and deeper for him to have any chance to catch it over the defenders.

I've said it over and over, Patricks downfall is he hold the ball and waits to see guys open instead of throwing to a spot. On that play he stared down the route then held it a second too long simple as that. It didn't help that he checked to the short side of the field which gave us even less room to make that play happen - just a bad decision to boot.

I don't know how it could have been any sooner. Patrick received the ball took a step back and threw it. There isn't much room for sooner. Granted, it probably could have been further towards the corner, but again... the problem here is that Baker was in extremely poor position to begin with. Baker is physically pushed towards the sideline the entire play. He allows this to happen rather than establishing position. Because he is pushed towards the sideline the ball looks to be underthrown. If Baker maintains 3-5 yards from the sideline then he is the only one that can catch that ball. Instead, he lets himself get pushed right against the sideline, and what would have been a well thrown ball becomes one that a defender can make a play on. Even then, the defender had to make an outstanding play to knock the ball away, and even better for the safety to get the INT.

I'm not saying Towles is without fault. I think if you look at the previous play then you definitely see an example where he threw it too late. However, on this play, I think Towles' throw was fine. I don't like Baker there, I don't like the idea to throw it to the short side, and I don't like Baker's effort on the route, but I don't have a huge problem with the throw of Towles.

 

[Comebakatz3]

Here is the video BTW: (Credit to UKBasketballLive.com) Play is at right around the 56:45 mark

 

[bigblueinsanity_rivals250340]

This is all pretty subjective, but to me that looks to be pretty darn 50/50. It could be a bit higher, but remember... Baker has already been pushed out of bounds. If he establishes his position in bounds then the ball is very high and it is possible only he can get to it. Since he is pushed further out, the defensive back gets better position on the fade.

Still, my problem isn't with how it was thrown. It was with the design of the play and who the play was ran to. We have a 6'6 receiver that has not ran a single fade route in the endzone. I don't know that we've even faked it to him. Yea, Baker is a pretty tall and tough guy, but why not try it with our tallest guy? Also, I don't like how the play was set up. We ran the fade to Baker to the short side of the field. Baker was the single receiver on that side. That doesn't give your WR a lot of room to work. Baker was further pushed out of the play by being forced closer and closer to the sideline. On that route you have to keep your distance from the sideline to give your QB the ability to throw it high. Also, I'd prefer us run a corner route with the inside receiver on the long side rather than the fade. Just makes for a better play IMO.

One thing, where did the information that Towles changed the play come from? Was that a post game comment or what?

It was a late throw, that was compounded by being a bad throw.

The coaches said after the game Pat has that fade option for an audible.

So we have a bad audible, late decision, and bad throw all in one snap.

 

[Mr Schwump]

What was more egregious was no review on Johnson's non-TD TD and UK's fumble recovery on a non-fumble after the WR fumbled after running 5 yds. Might as well do away with video reply if it's not going to be used.

 

[TBCat]

Big difference between a bad call and calling the ref a cheater. At worst he missed the call. With that said I wouldn't have called that PI either. The DB had better position than the receiver did. The receiver also made no real effort to get the ball. It would have been a shame to bail the QB out of a really bad throw with a ticky tak call.

 

[Mr Schwump]

Big difference between a bad call and calling the ref a cheater. At worst he missed the call. With that said I wouldn't have called that PI either. The DB had better position than the receiver did. The receiver also made no real effort to get the ball. It would have been a shame to bail the QB out of a really bad throw with a ticky tak call.

Understand what you're saying but I've seen UK called for some out and out phantom calls over the years that bailed out some "name" SEC programs. Has happened a lot. While I don't think this was PI I thought the play on Bone on 4th down from midfield was. Doesn't matter however, until UK shows they know how to line up and play football it's unlikely they'll get many calls.

 

[BIGBLUEQ]

This is all pretty subjective, but to me that looks to be pretty darn 50/50. It could be a bit higher, but remember... Baker has already been pushed out of bounds. If he establishes his position in bounds then the ball is very high and it is possible only he can get to it. Since he is pushed further out, the defensive back gets better position on the fade.

Still, my problem isn't with how it was thrown. It was with the design of the play and who the play was ran to. We have a 6'6 receiver that has not ran a single fade route in the endzone. I don't know that we've even faked it to him. Yea, Baker is a pretty tall and tough guy, but why not try it with our tallest guy? Also, I don't like how the play was set up. We ran the fade to Baker to the short side of the field. Baker was the single receiver on that side. That doesn't give your WR a lot of room to work. Baker was further pushed out of the play by being forced closer and closer to the sideline. On that route you have to keep your distance from the sideline to give your QB the ability to throw it high. Also, I'd prefer us run a corner route with the inside receiver on the long side rather than the fade. Just makes for a better play IMO.

One thing, where did the information that Towles changed the play come from? Was that a post game comment or what?

Bingo, this right here. You don't run the fade to the short side of the field. That was ridiculous in and of itself.

 

[catagious]

What was more egregious was no review on Johnson's non-TD TD and UK's fumble recovery on a non-fumble after the WR fumbled after running 5 yds. Might as well do away with video reply if it's not going to be used.

Johnson was out of bounds as his heel came down on the line. Refs got that one right but, I agree on the fumble. The receiver clearly put the ball away and had turned and taken at least two steps before getting creamed.

 

[Mr Schwump]

Johnson was out of bounds as his heel came down on the line. Refs got that one right but, I agree on the fumble. The receiver clearly put the ball away and had turned and taken at least two steps before getting creamed.

I wasn't questioning whether Johnson was in or out. My question why was there no review? If you watch the replay stripes 10 feet from the play shows TD, stripes 20 yards away waves it off. Should've reviewed it IMO.

 

[chuckster.sixpack]

The refs had ALL of the effect on the outcome of that play.

But.... you are so knowledgeable.

I know nothing about football.

Please please tell me more Mr. Pedro.

Your football wisdom is just intoxicating.

First of all, you're welcome and stay tuned.

 

[jauk11]

Big difference between a bad call and calling the ref a cheater. At worst he missed the call. With that said I wouldn't have called that PI either. The DB had better position than the receiver did. The receiver also made no real effort to get the ball. It would have been a shame to bail the QB out of a really bad throw with a ticky tak call.

I can agree with this------but then the officials usually do bail the O out, especially on a lot of balls that aren't even catchable.