Skip to main content
Join Now
Get a profile. Be recruited.
Default AvatarOklahoma - The Crimson Corner
Avatar
VinitaSoonerSep 21, 11:52 AM

The so called illegal substitution

So I was doing some digging and probably listened to perhaps 7 different people talk about the play that gave us a touchdown. Almost each person said something a little different. The craziest thing that I heard was that it should of been a unsportslike conduct against the SOONERS. SERIOUSLY They said because of it being deceived and so it should be a penalty. Then what about trick plays??? Isn't a trick play about deceiving someone and that is why we call them trick plays??? Just my 2 cents anyway
117 Replies
Avatar

jduvy88

Sep 21, 12:01 PM

as a fanbase, we need to let this play go. But since I’m a glutton for discussion, OU has been more than screwed in its fair share of calls or non calls over the year. And with the unfair and Armageddon like amount of injuries to the offense last year, I’ll take any help we can get. Not to mention the SEC giving us an incredibly difficult conf schedule compared to the the majority of the league. So, I don’t feel bad for Auburn at all. I understand it’s a penalty by the rule book, but it’s a dumb rule. Dude never came off the field. To me, this is 100% on the defense for having their head up their àss by not noticing him. I don’t understand the logic here anyways. Defenses disguise blitzes all the time which is literally an act of deception, so why that is allowed but this isn’t doesn’t make sense to me. I can understand if he came off the field and then came back on, but he never left the field. I do understand by rule it’s a penalty though. Doesn’t mean it makes much sense. Also, Auburn can bítch, but both of their TDs were aided by PIs called on OU. Some were legit, some weren’t. OU got screwed on one of the offensive PIs. The first one called on Sategna likely wiped out at least a FG before halftime. And for the Sategna fumble. If it wasn’t incomplete, his àss hit the turf before the ball came out so I still don’t understand the gripe here. For a call to be overturned, there has to be indisputable evidence which clearly there was. And I still think it probably was incomplete anyways. He never had control of the ball.
Avatar

Red _Dirt

Sep 21, 12:05 PM

Fake punt, field goal, handoff, pass… please.
Avatar

Sooner Redzone

Sep 21, 12:06 PM

VinitaSooner said:
So I was doing some digging and probably listened to perhaps 7 different people talk about the play that gave us a touchdown. Almost each person said something a little different. The craziest thing that I heard was that it should of been a unsportslike conduct against the SOONERS. SERIOUSLY They said because of it being deceived and so it should be a penalty. Then what about trick plays??? Isn't a trick play about deceiving someone and that is why we call them trick plays??? Just my 2 cents anyway
The SEC said it was an incorrect call.
Avatar

Sooner Redzone

Sep 21, 12:07 PM

jduvy88 said:
as a fanbase, we need to let this play go. But since I’m a glutton for discussion, OU has been more than screwed in its fair share of calls or non calls over the year. And with the unfair and Armageddon like amount of injuries to the offense last year, I’ll take any help we can get. Not to mention the SEC giving us an incredibly difficult conf schedule compared to the the majority of the league. So, I don’t feel bad for Auburn at all. If it is a penalty by the rule book, it’s a dumb rule. Dude never came off the field. To me, this is 100% on the defense for having their head up their àss by not noticing him. I don’t understand the logic here anyways. Defenses disguise blitzes all the time which is literally an act of deception, so why that is allowed but this isn’t doesn’t make sense to me. I can understand if he came off the field and then came back on, but he never left the field. I do understand by rule it’s a penalty though. Doesn’t mean it makes much sense. Also, Auburn can bítch, but both of their TDs were aided by PIs called on OU. Some were legit, some weren’t. OU got screwed on one of the offensive PIs. The first one called on Sategna likely wiped out at least a FG before halftime. And for the Sategna fumble. If it wasn’t incomplete, his àss hit the turf before the ball came out so I still don’t understand the gripe here. For a call to be overturned, there has to be indisputable evidence which clearly there was. And I still think it probably was incomplete anyways. He never had control of the ball.
His butt did hit the turf
Avatar

TonyGuy

Sep 21, 12:10 PM

It has to do with using substitution to deceive.
Avatar

62SackMonster

Sep 21, 1:22 PM

TonyGuy said:
It has to do with using substitution to deceive.
He walked, so you need to put he must jog or run to his position. Also he was right by the sideline and he asked the ref if it was ok and they said yes. If he can’t lineup that far wide then he that also needs to be in the rule. I guess walking to his spot his deception. So in that case a qb walking off with direct snap as the qb is walking should be construed as the same thing. No one ever came on the field as a sub and there was 11 already w Sategna. The whole deceiving part is up for interpretation the way it’s written. Sort of like targeting as well. As a ref I would be pissed at the SEC and I would point the rule is leaves a lot for interpretation. Damn Baylor lived on this back with Briles when they had KD Cannon
Avatar

Traaav13

Sep 21, 1:22 PM

So are receivers not allowed to get into those super super wide splits anymore?
Avatar

capou

Sep 21, 1:25 PM

Sooner Redzone said:
His butt did hit the turf
Yeah. I didn’t think it was an incompletion, but I did think he was down before the ball came out.
Avatar

Crimson Iowa

Sep 21, 1:25 PM

Burks is such a good shit talker he forced the SEC to make a statement about the play because Auburn lost their head.
Avatar

OUSooners75

Sep 21, 1:26 PM

Wonder when play action passes, blitzed deceptions, flea flickers, reverse passes, etc. will be deemed illegal?
Avatar

matchell²

Sep 21, 1:29 PM

Those officials were trash yesterday. Flat out missed or got several calls incorrect, but Auburn crying about some of these calls is laughable The Fumble recovery TD for Auburn they screwed up, Satenga was down (butt) and had possession. Satenga catch down the sideline was absolutelg a catch. Completed the process. The PI was a missed call but they scored anyways, who cares.
Avatar

NickZepp84

Sep 21, 1:31 PM

capou said:
Yeah. I didn’t think it was an incompletion, but I did think he was down before the ball came out.
He bobbled that ball all the way through. Incomplete was the right call imo.
Avatar

4x Champ

Sep 21, 1:37 PM

TonyGuy said:
It has to do with using substitution to deceive.
The Approved Rulings for deceptive substitutions use examples as “3 guys sub in/out, a 4th guy jogs in the same pack as the subbing players, but stays in the game” or “a player goes out of bounds during a play, leaving 10 guys in the huddle. A player goes in and someone leaves the huddle at the same time, giving the appearance of a substitution, but then lines up wide.” It doesn’t reference a single player, by themselves, moving closer to the sideline after being on the field the entire play.
Avatar

Ricky_Spanish

Sep 21, 1:38 PM

TonyGuy said:
It has to do with using substitution to deceive.
There was no substitution
Avatar

fatman76

Sep 21, 1:39 PM

TonyGuy said:
It has to do with using substitution to deceive.
Problem is we didn’t sub on that play. It gets down to how a player runs to his spot? Seems pretty subjective to me.
Avatar

fatman76

Sep 21, 1:40 PM

Sooner Redzone said:
The SEC said it was an incorrect call.
The SEC can EBOD’s.
Avatar

Bob_Cat

Sep 21, 1:41 PM

jduvy88 said:
as a fanbase, we need to let this play go. But since I’m a glutton for discussion, OU has been more than screwed in its fair share of calls or non calls over the year. And with the unfair and Armageddon like amount of injuries to the offense last year, I’ll take any help we can get. Not to mention the SEC giving us an incredibly difficult conf schedule compared to the the majority of the league. So, I don’t feel bad for Auburn at all. I understand it’s a penalty by the rule book, but it’s a dumb rule. Dude never came off the field. To me, this is 100% on the defense for having their head up their àss by not noticing him. I don’t understand the logic here anyways. Defenses disguise blitzes all the time which is literally an act of deception, so why that is allowed but this isn’t doesn’t make sense to me. I can understand if he came off the field and then came back on, but he never left the field. I do understand by rule it’s a penalty though. Doesn’t mean it makes much sense. Also, Auburn can bítch, but both of their TDs were aided by PIs called on OU. Some were legit, some weren’t. OU got screwed on one of the offensive PIs. The first one called on Sategna likely wiped out at least a FG before halftime. And for the Sategna fumble. If it wasn’t incomplete, his àss hit the turf before the ball came out so I still don’t understand the gripe here. For a call to be overturned, there has to be indisputable evidence which clearly there was. And I still think it probably was incomplete anyways. He never had control of the ball.
His butt hit the ground!
Avatar

4x Champ

Sep 21, 1:58 PM

I need a ruling on this play if the SEC is gonna be this soft
Avatar

matchell²

Sep 21, 2:06 PM

NickZepp84 said:
He bobbled that ball all the way through. Incomplete was the right call imo.
Lol
Avatar

Captain Rex

Sep 21, 2:09 PM

I like to see OU operating like an F1 team where they are going to do things to try and win right up until the point the SEC says it’s illegal. DJ Durkin should be in prison for manslaughter and Hugh Freeze paid for hookers at Ole Miss. Sorry you got cucked boys, try harder next time!
Avatar

Sooner Redzone

Sep 21, 2:14 PM

You guys arguing that the conference got it wrong 🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️ They aren’t throwing their guys under the bus if they aren’t 1000% correct
Avatar

4x Champ

Sep 21, 2:18 PM

Sooner Redzone said:
You guys arguing that the conference got it wrong 🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️ They aren’t throwing their guys under the bus if they aren’t 1000% correct
I want consistency. This same play occurred 2 years ago against the same DC and they didn’t rule on it then. What’s changed?
Avatar

Sooner Redzone

Sep 21, 2:24 PM

4x Champ said:
I want consistency. This same play occurred 2 years ago against the same DC and they didn’t rule on it then. What’s changed?
Sounds like the referees are confused still.
Avatar

4x Champ

Sep 21, 2:26 PM

Sooner Redzone said:
Sounds like the referees are confused still.
There was no ruling made back then, that’s more or less my point. The only difference is one was by Ole Miss against TAMU, the other was by us against Auburn. Are they protecting legacy SEC members?Though both were against Durkin as DC

Thanks for checking out this free message board preview.

Join the full discussion at The Crimson Corner