The SEC says the TN Pick never should have been reviewed. Awful*
- Thread starter 8dog
- Start date
I figured that they would play dumb on it. If they are really serious about it, that replay crew should be fired/assigned to the egg bowl.
1
1dawgfan09
Guest
It technically should have been Tennessee, but it ended up being Vandy. As badly as you hate it, the right call was probably made in the end. Not the correct call, but the right call, and there is a difference in this case. In all honesty, it was probably a moot point anyway. UT kicks the field goal and gets out of there with a w.
The refs screwed the pooch on this big time. Yes UT most likely would have, at a minimum, kicked the game winning FG on their possession, but at least Vandy gets a chance.
to make up for the idiot refs. I understand that's the rule about the whistle blowing, but it doesn't matter. It should be reviewable.<div>
</div><div>I did not want Tennessee to win, but the right thing happened last night.</div>
</div><div>I did not want Tennessee to win, but the right thing happened last night.</div>
And I actually applaud the refs for having the balls to ignore the rules in order to get the call correct. Anyone that says you can't assume that the TN player would have scored if there was no whistle obviously didn't watch the game. No way anyone catches him because they tried to catch him despite the whistle blowing.
He would have scored easily even if it hadn't blown. Vandy should have won this game by 13 in regulation if they had a halfway decent FG kicker and hadn't taken a needless cheap shot 30 yard behind the play on the 78-yard pass down to the 1. Not to mention that Tennessee would have almost certainly kicked a FG to win the game in OT if the refs had disallowed the pick-6 because the whistle blew.
Rules are rules and they should be followed. Wonder what you would say if that were us? How do you know Vandy wouldn't block a FG attempt? How about Tenn turning it over, too? There were several turnovers throughout the game. You can't judge this by "it was the right play because TENN would have won the game anyway". Thats ******** and pathetic.
People would have been raising hell and throwing out all kind of conspiracy theories about the league being against us. Hell, the same thing happened 2 years ago against Bama when Bumphis supposedly ran out of bounds on a kick return, and had a TD called back because of it. Since the ref blew the whistle and it wasn't reviewable all I heard was how they were just protecting Bama?
Rules are rules. Sometimes we don't like them, but there is nothing we can do about it. I believe that my Uncle who has Parkinsons should be able to smoke marijuana because it is scientifically proven to help aid his spasms, but he can't do that in MS.
Bottom line, rules are to be followed and the refs blatanly did not follow them.
Bottom line, rules are to be followed and the refs blatanly did not follow them.
1
1dawgfan09
Guest
you would be raising all manner of hell, and you know it. The wrong call was made, but the game ended the way it should have. Why are we still even arguing over this. It would have screwed Tennessee worse not to let that play continue. Bottom line: Vandy never should have expected a gift from the refs to win. They had their chances.
Because the ref blew the play dead. Play blown dead = play over.<div>
</div><div>The ref blowing the play dead made the wrong call. But when the whistle blows, the play is over.</div><div>
</div><div>The "right" call in light of all that is Tennessee ball at the point the play was called dead. Which means Tennessee starts their possession in OT.</div>
</div><div>The ref blowing the play dead made the wrong call. But when the whistle blows, the play is over.</div><div>
</div><div>The "right" call in light of all that is Tennessee ball at the point the play was called dead. Which means Tennessee starts their possession in OT.</div>
First, it's clearly not fair to whistle a play dead only to let somebody or an entire team continue on towards the endzone regardless of how wide open the field may be in front of a player. Second, it's not safe. If you can review plays after a whistle, then why should a player acknowledge one when it is heard? Hear a whistle? 17 it, knock somebody out pick up the ball and trot on down the field. Have the booth review it if you weren't right. Just assume the ref is wrong and disregard the whistle and keep playing.
Bottom line is that dumb *** ref that blew the whistle should have let the play run its course. Once he screwed up and decided to blow the play dead, you have to honor that. Yes, it results in TN getting screwed, but that's what the rule book says. Somebody always gets screwed when there is human error, but that does not give the officiating crew a free pass to act as they please and as if nothing happened. There are very good reasons have those scenarios be deemed as not reviewable. Next time, there might be a Vandy (or whoever) defender in a position to make a play and lets up after he hears the whistle. The entire result of who gets screwed is flipped. That's why you own up to your mistake and honor the rules - it at least provides some consistency and no opportunity to let a crew that already exhibits questionable judgment insert any more of it to the scenario.